Editing a novel on the computer screen...smart idea?

Mela said:

Sorry, seun, there is a right and wrong. As a professional (magazine) editor I can tell you this: you will most definitely miss elements of your text that need to be altered if you edit solely on the computer. There are two different processes by which your brain sifts through and assesses text; reading and editing on the computer is far different from reading and editing the physical, printed-out copy. You should always read the physical manuscript. In fact, you should not only print out and read the physical copy but read it out loud.

Click to expand...

I found this to be true for me. I have a printed draft of my manuscript to carry around so that I can edit away from my computer. I later go back and make the the corrections on the computer.

This week-end I was at my computer to update my latest edits but I backed up to the beginning of a chapter to read instead. I began doing on-screen editing and didn't look at the changes that I made to the printed manuscript. I read slowly and out loud from the computer screen. I was finally satisfied with how things read. I then looked back at my printed manuscript and was shocked to find a lot of changes to it that I didn't catch when reading from the computer.

On the screen everything seemed to read fine but when I read it from the printed manuscript it sounded awkward. The changes that I made to the printed manuscript worked much better overall but I wouldn't have made those changes had I not printed out a manuscript.

My first edit (the one that needs the most work) is always on paper. I print it out in 12pt TNR, double spaced and mark with a pencil. Later edits are usually on screen, but I will print if I feel I need to.

Yes it's a "waste" of paper, but trees are replaceable, my eyes have to last me till I die.

It's only a waste of paper if you don't recycle!

Jamesaritchie said:

This may be true for you, but it certainly is not true for others. I've been a professional writer for a lot of years, and I've been an editor several times. I have no trouble at all finding erors on the screen, and if a different process is used by the brain, I have yet to see any evidence of it. I'm an excellent proofreader, and so are many other editors and writers I know who do not print out their work, and who do not read the work aloud.

I see just as many errors missed on paper, and often more. And I know very darned few professional editors who read what they're editing aloud. If it helps you, fine, read it aloud, but it is not necessary for many.

If it works for you, you should print out and read aloud. But many do not need to do so, and catch just as many errors as you or anyone else.

Click to expand...

I think this is pretty much true all around - there is a difference in processing info on the computer versus physical print. You catch mistakes in print that you would otherwise read right over on the screen - but it's not only that. The flow, the pace, the sentences take on a different life on a piece of paper. Whether you'd want to deal with that is another issue.

And reporters don't generally print out their work and read it, out loud or other wise. But believe me, the editors are reading their stories in print. I worked at a daily - everything got 2 reads by 2 different editors, on computer and in print.

Mela said:

I think this is pretty much true all around - there is a difference in processing info on the computer versus physical print. You catch mistakes in print that you would otherwise read right over on the screen - but it's not only that. The flow, the pace, the sentences take on a different life on a piece of paper. Whether you'd want to deal with that is another issue.

And reporters don't generally print out their work and read it, out loud or other wise. But believe me, the editors are reading their stories in print. I worked at a daily - everything got 2 reads by 2 different editors, on computer and in print.

Click to expand...

There is no difefrence in processing words on paper or on the screen. Words are words, and we all have a single section of the brain capable of reading thoe words, and a single center of the brain capable of analyzing those words and spotting errors. These centers work only one way.

Nor does everything get read by two editors at a great many newspapers these days. Newspapers have been in trouble for many years, and one of the first cost-cutting measures many took was eliminating the copy editor.

Not that it matters. Two editors or not, pretty much all of them do their editing on screen today, and they catch errors just fine. The first two newspapers I worked for were all print. That was in pre-computer days, and the paper had just as many errors make it in as today.

The last newspaper I wrote for was all electronic. Our two dailies are now. The reporters work on laptops or desktops, and the editors, the editor, actually. The copy editors were fired years ago, do not read everyting in print. They just don't. Those days are long gone.

You may catch more errors in print, and that's fine. But reading and editing in print is not a requirement, and does no better job than editing on the screen for the many, many writers and editors who work only on the screen.

There is no right or wrong way of going about the editing process. There's only the way that works best for you as an individual.

Jamesaritchie said:

There is no right or wrong way of going about the editing process. There's only the way that works best for you as an individual.

Click to expand...

ding!

I found a good way to edit solely on the screen (no access to a printer, skimping on supplies or whatever), is to change the font (or to post it to a locked/private journal). Whatever it does to my perception, it does it well and I'm better able to see things that I couldn't/didn't from my normal writing font which my eye started to get used to and gloss over the words as I read them.

It's something that works for me.

Yes, there are differences between working on a backlit screen and paper, and those differences can lead to increased eyestrain; but that only limits the amount of time one can spend editing, not necessarily how it's processed.

I've looked at a number of studies regarding the differences between reading on the page and the screen and I found most to be seriously flawed.

The problem is that many seem to compare something like a manuscript on the print side, with a web page on the screen side. Now there are differences between how the brain processes a relatively fixed document and one with multiple hyperlinks and/or embedded content; but these differences are a result of the kinds of information being presented, not the medium.

You don't see the same kind of differences when comparing a printed document with a Word document in manuscript format.

This isn't to say printouts don't work - they do work very well for a lot of people - just that it's important to understand that one of the main reasons is simply that it's easier to edit a manuscript when it looks different than when you keyed it in.

In the end though, it all comes down to Kipling's "nine and sixty ways."

Do what works for you.

I've recently started doing my editing on paper instead of on screen, and it's been an eye-opener. It somehow feels realer, more structured, like I'm actually making progress.

For longer works I still do most of my editing on the screen, though. Ink is expensive.