Proofreading aloud

Last night I printed off a couple of chapters of the book I'm writing, and I read some sections aloud to my husband to get feedback on the tone and flow. I was surprised just how many mistakes jumped out at me as I read, and it struck me that reading a hard copy of text aloud (slowly) really is the best way to proofread. The problem is, it's very time consuming, and a little dull for anyone who happens to be listening! I don't proofread this way for clients, but I think for your own writing - where you're prone to blind spots because you're too close to the material - proofreading aloud is a very good idea.

Latest news

I'll gloss over the fact I've been incredibly shoddy at keeping up with this blog (okay, I abandoned it completely in favour of spending my time watching True Blood, drinking cab sav and building Duplo towers for my son to knock down), and will move swiftly on to Perfectly Write's news.

Last year I set up a dedicated book critique website at www.bookcritique.co.uk, which once more challenged my skills in Dreamweaver to the point of rage/tears/despression.

And amid such web design efforts (quite literally) and a great range of projects - from ghosting the memoirs of a phone sex worker to developing books like Anger Management For Dummies (handy!) – I've finally started work on my book: the co-authored title How to Succeed as a Freelancer in Publishing (published by How To Books, autumn 2010). I'm enjoying the writing process, and the experience of co-authoring with the lovely Emma Murray. No doubt I'll share plenty more about the book in future blogs.

Proofreading toolkit

It's been a busy 2008 so far - I've finally started work on writing a proofreading course/toolkit. In recent months it's struck me that many clients would benefit from some general tips on proofreading, and indeed some clients who approach me mention that they would like to improve their proofreading skills.

Everyone can benefit from brushing up on proofreading, and that's why I want to provide a course that really makes a difference in day-to-day writing. I've no interest in writing a dry, epic proofreading tutorial that's crammed full of hideously complicated and coma-inducing grammar rules. Instead, I'm creating a lively, simple, user-friendly 'toolkit' that's written in English rather than grammar-speak. It won't make a professional proofreader out of you, but it will certainly make a difference and will iron out the common mistakes writers make that I correct day in, day out . . .

Proofreading anthologies

This weekend I've been proofreading a collection of short stories, written by various authors at the turn of the last century. The anthology brought up two editorial issues:

1. Where a book comprises works from different authors, the editor/proofreader must decide whether to impose a house style upon all the stories, so that the book as a whole is consistent, or whether to respect each author's individual style. Clearly, each story was edited by a different editor a century ago, so each had a differing style. For this book, we've respected the author's style in many cases, but made some overall changes where the inconsistency may have bothered a reader (e.g. style of ellipses).
2. Because these stories were written 100 years ago, the authors used grammatical and linguistic styles that we wouldn't employ today - e.g. 'inquire' where we'd use 'enquire' and spellings such as 'to-night'. In the main, we left these original styles intact, which gives a greater sense of the author's original work.

If you're a fan of crime fiction, the book's a must-read. Look out for The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes when it publishes soon.

The difference between proofreading and copy-editing

I write a column for InPrint, the magazine of the Society of Young Publishers. The following is a column from earlier this year that explains the difference between proofreading and copy-editing in the world of publishing.

Freelance glance

I’m commonly asked to explain the difference between a copy editor and a proofreader and my answer is this: A proofreader ensures accuracy and style consistency; a copy editor goes one step further and also improves the text. Clear as mud? Read on.

Proofreading

Proofreading is the last stage in a book’s editorial process - the final check-through before it’s handed over to the typesetter/printer. To ensure effective proofreading, the book should be in pretty good shape when it arrives on the proofreader’s desk, having been professionally copy-edited beforehand. Thus the proofreader focuses on spotting those odd mistakes that have slipped through the net, rather than being inundated with a sea of errors that overloads the eyes, making it much harder to spot each and every problem.

Proofreaders look at two areas as they read: accuracy and consistency. Firstly, proofreaders correct errors in spelling, punctuation and grammar: catching all the misspellings, spotting that misplaced apostrophe and sorting dodgy verb agreements. We also check things like page numbers, headings, formatting and references, and may be asked to verify facts and indexes as well.

Secondly, proofreaders are sticklers for consistency. We bring the text neatly into line, ensuring a consistent style is applied in areas such as capitalisation, italicisation, hyphenation, punctuation, spelling styles and formatting. Elements such as numbers, abbreviations, titles, bulleted and numbered lists, and tables and figures must adhere to one global style, usually laid down by the publisher.

Copy-editing

A copy editor improves text, as well looking at accuracy and consistency in the same way as a proofreader. There are varying levels and styles of copy-editing, and a copy editor must be flexible and edit according to the publisher’s preferences. Work on the text may be light or intensive, restrained or hands-on. When I copy-edit, a publisher may give me free rein to roll my sleeves up and undertake major restructuring and rewriting, or I may correct only the most awkward phrasing and diplomatically suggest larger improvements in separate comments.

So what exactly does a copy editor focus on? Well, it varies depending on the style and level of edit, but the job typically includes looking at the overall consistency and effectiveness of the plot, characterisation and structure; considering the author’s voice and its interpretation by the reader; watching out for anything that may be offensive, inaccurate or on a shaky legal footing; and, of course, addressing any weak areas of writing. A copy editor may also be expected to take on jobs like laying out material; liaising with designers and typesetters; choosing artwork and arranging permissions; and managing budgets - it all depends on how the publisher defines the scope of the role.

Different publishers expect different things from their freelance copy editors, and an editor must carefully follow the publisher’s instructions. This means that if the publisher commissions me to do a light edit only, that’s exactly what I do - even if I’m itching to rework sections that I can see could be improved. Editing with restraint is hard work at times, but just as the customer is always right in business, so the publisher is king in the world of editorial freelancing.

Keeping to editorial guidelines, however, doesn’t preclude intelligent copy-editing, by which I mean discussing with the publisher any major issues you can see that fall outside the remit of your edit. Most publishers appreciate perceptive copy editors who flag up important issues. Laying out exactly when and how a copy editor should do this is impossible: intelligent copy-editing is about intuitively adapting to each publisher’s style and knowing where the boundaries lie. It’s about effective communication and, above all, a careful and sensitive approach.

Proofreading and copy-editing sound like cushy numbers - reading books for a living. The reality is not all that easy - knowing the English language inside out; reading material several times over at an eye-wateringly slow pace; being permanently unable to turn off ‘editor mode’ when you want to read for yourself, for pleasure; and understanding when to change something, and when to steer well clear.

Both copy editors and proofreaders are writers at heart - they have to know how to write and what constitutes good writing in order to spot mistakes and improve others’ words. But this improvement must be made with sensitivity and respect for the author’s voice, and this is the true challenge of proofreading and copy-editing. Both proofreaders and copy editors must be chameleons – matching their style to the author’s as they work and always taking care not to tread on the author’s toes and impose their personal preferences and style on the text. We must know when to step back, when to respect the creativity of the writer, when to simply let go.

Proof of my SEO writing skill . . .

Several months ago, I rewrote the copy and meta tags on my website to improve SEO for my site. Today, I was thrilled to see my hard work had paid off and Perfectly Write had climbed high in search engine rankings.

On Yahoo, I was either second or first for UK searches on the following terms: proofreader, copy editor, proofreader editor, proofreader London, proofreader Kent, copy editor London, copy editor Kent and copywriter Kent. On Lycos, I was first for three of these terms, second for three, and fourth for two. On Google, my page rank for these terms ranged from first to 20th. For almost every result on the three search engines, I was placed above any other commercial website that offers copywriting, copy-editing and proofreading services.

So clearly the SEO writing that I employ on my website and its code does the trick. I'm glad, because this helps reassure my clients that my formula for SEO copywriting is tried, tested and proven.

Now I'm off for some fish and chips to celebrate . . .

Proofreading systematically

Proofreading is all about being methodical, systematic and organised. There's no way your eye can look for twenty different things at once, which is why a proofreader breaks down the proofreading into stages. Here's an example of a proofreading list for the proofs of a novel:

1. Check all page numbers.
2. Check all running heads.
3. Check chapter breaks and heads.
4. Check prelims.
5. Check endlims.
6. Scan whole book looking for inconsistency in alignment, spacing and font size.
7. Carry out first proofread (read whole text) looking closely at each word.
8. Make any global changes discovered through the first proofread - e.g. changing all instances of proof-reading to proofreading (removing hyphens).
9. Carry out final proofread to catch any mistakes left.

As you can see, proofreading is a lengthy, involved process and to maximise efficiency and accuracy, a proofreader must have a logical approach.

Common mistakes in writing

They rear their ugly heads daily as I proofread and edit, worming their way into document after document as if sticking a tongue out at me goading, Catch me if you can. And I do catch them, day after day - mistakes I find so often they jump out at me from the page as if 3D.

Here's my top five:

1. Comma splices: It's amazing how many writers join two sentences together with a comma, and rather alarming how prevalent this has become in published books (take a look at this weekend's HP finale).
2. Missing/incorrect apostrophes: Did you notice the apostrophe in weekend's above? Many seem to feel the apostrophe is either optional, or something to plonk anywhere in the vicinity of the word in question.
3. Random capitals: I spend an impressive amount of my day decapitalising words.
4. Inconsistent styling: It's thirteen miles to London, but three lines later it's 15 days until Christmas.
5. Spellchecked nonsense: Just because that word is spelled correctly, doesn't mean it's the right word. This morning I found the following while proofreading a serious article on a church: The chap is a plaice for queer time (The chapel is a place for quiet time).

Random capitals - the Most Common misTake

I can't even begin to tell you how many times each day I hit 'shift + F3' in Word to decapitalise a word/phrase. Many, many writers out there are trigger happy on that shift key as they type. In my years as a proofreader, capitalisation is the issue I come up against more frequently as I work with authors' texts - yes, far more so than spelling and just that bit more than punctuation. Today I've been marking up proofs, and I'd estimate 75 per cent of my changes are to decapitalise words - my hand is cramped from scribbling the BS 5261 proofreading symbol for 'make lower case'.

Perhaps it's that feeling of power as a writer that does it, to make Some Word Seem Very Important. The downside to a penchant for caps lock, however, is that overuse of upper case is off-putting to a reader, and very often grammatically incorrect.

My advice to the writers I work with is simple: Please do use a capital letter for the first word in a sentence and the name of your hometown, but if you're straying into the realms of 'capitals because I feel like it rather than because they are actually required', take a step back and resist. Your writing will be much stronger as a result, and my F3 key may just survive a few more years of proofreading.

If you need to brush up on the rules, dip into a grammar guide. I recommend Oxford guides, and also English Grammar For Dummies (I edited it, so can guarantee it's a great oracle for things like this).

Testing proofreading skills

Recently, I posted a proofreading test on a networking website and invited people to see how many errors they could find in the short article. Most people rubbed their hands in glee at the chance to play teacher with mistaken-laden text, but what was surprising was just how many mistakes people missed.

Granted, I had been a bit cruel stuffing so many errors into four paragraphs, but people did miss some rather obvious things - such as an extra full stop at the end of a sentence. The absolute killer seemed to be that three months' worth needs that apostrophe after months. Not a single respondent spotted that - the only one who did, in fact, notice something amiss was a fellow professional proofreader who took great pleasure in informing me and the rest of those involved that I had missed three month's worth. It's completely wrong, but I was kind enough not to humiliate him by pointing that out in public.

Another major issue was the amount of changes people made which were completely unneccesary. I had people fiddling with every aspect of the article and changing things that did not need to be changed at all. One of the essential elements of being a good freelance proofreader is to know when to make changes, and when to leave alone - and to respect an author's writing style. Some, I think, got rather carried away with their red pens and made the kind of changes which would get them fired by a publisher asking for a proofread.

A great exercise for me which brought home the fact that, realise it or not, many people need some support with their writing and proofreading.

Five things you may not know about the world of publishing . . .

1. You go into a bookshop and browse the titles in the chart, then choose one because after all, it's in the bestselling section so must be good, right? It may well be, but bear in mind that publishers pay some bookshops money to have a title displayed in the chart (and indeed in special offers and beautifully laid out on tables). What you are buying into is good marketing.
2. Not all published authors can write, at all! If you've wandered into your local bookshop and picked up a new book by such and such celebrity, chances are it has been 99.9% ghostwritten by an invisible and uncredited writer. In my time, I've done this on one book which shall remain nameless, and found it a very frustrating, badly paid and unrewarding process.
3. Not all published writers can write well. Rumours abound that some of the highest-earning authors in the world are actually poor writers who scribble out ideas which are formed by a good editor. In my job as a proofreader and editor, it's astonishing how much work I have to do on material written by 'proper' journalists, copywriters and authors.
4. By a certain point, some publishers will give up on perfecting text in the rush to get it printed. Once text has been typeset, changes take time and cost money, and proofreaders may be instructed to only pick out the 'worst mistakes' and ignore the rest.
5. Some publishers don't seem to give a Dickens about the state of their text - I recently bought a best-selling book and was appalled at the amount of mistakes that jumped out at me. The odd one or two is standard - after all, no editor/proofreader is perfect - but this was up to three a page in places. Sad as I am, I began marking them up, and finally sent the corrected book to the publisher in question suggesting they may need a better proofreader. I'm still waiting to hear...

Proofreading/copy-editing before approaching publishers . . . it's essential.

Occasionally, I'll come across an author who'll tell me the following: I don't need to have my book proofread or edited before I send it out to agents and publishers. I know it's great, and I've proofread it myself and caught all the mistakes. Besides, there's no point doing too much to the text as the publisher will have an in-house copy-editor and proofreader who will do all that for me. Why should I pay to have someone work on the story or style and weed out any mistakes when the publisher will do it for me? It's a waste of time and money.

Gently, I have to break it to them that this approach is very, very, very unlikely to result in a published book. Firstly, you're unlikely to get past the slush pile if the publisher's reader is faced with typos, inconsistencies and issues in the style and content. A rare few may get through this on the basis of being a fabulous idea, but not many - what publisher wants to spend the time (and money) weeding out all those basic problems? If your book is littered with mistakes and problems, these will stand out a mile to the publisher and put them off greatly.

Secondly, you want the publisher to be impressed by both you and your book. They want to deal with a professional writer, and presenting an error-free manuscript is the ideal way to convey this. It's true that some books you see on the bestseller lists have been heavily edited and proofread in-house, but if you want to sell your book to a publisher, why not save them much of that effort?

Finally, no matter how well you think you've edited and proofread your book, unless you are a professional writer and editor, I can assure you there will still be mistakes and problems. You're too close to your own book to see the issues, and a professional proofreader and copy-editor will be looking for things you may never have thought of.

By all means edit and proof the book as much as you can, but if you are serious about getting that book published, let an expert take a look as well.

Proofreading services in Kent, London, the UK, all over

How big a deal is location when hiring a freelance proofreader? Well, it rather depends on your needs. Some clients like to meet and discuss copy face to face, and this can be useful in determining whether the material would benefit best from proofreading or copy-editing. But many of my clients prefer to work with me remotely.

I provide proofreading services in Kent, where I'm based, and some of my more local clients like to meet and discuss projects with a Kent proofreader.

I also provide London proofreading services, and some clients like the fact that I can travel to meet them in London, but usually after the initial meeting the project continues over email and the phone.

But the beauty of a freelance proofreader is that geography isn't limiting, meaning I can offer UK proofreading services across the country, working remotely with clients. Many of my clients are scattered far and wide, and yes, some as far off as Sweden. As long as the internet connection is up and running, I'm a proofreader on any client's doorstep.

Of course, the flip side of this for me is that one day I will settle in a cottage away from it all, and proofread happily in the countryside.

Should copywriters, copy-editors and proofreaders be experts in the material?

This is a common question. Clients often feel reassured hiring a writer, editor or proofreader with a background in the genre of the material.

Obviously, this makes the process easier, but I'm always keen to show clients that any copywriter, copy editor and/or proofreader worth their salt will be flexible and practised in researching their subject matter. Thanks to the Internet, checking facts and reading up on particular areas is easier than ever, and most editorial and writing professionals refer to a bulging shelf of reference books, dictionaries and style guides.

You'll often be hard-pushed to find a freelance writer or editor with an exact background that matches your material, and for that very reason freelance writing and editing is all about adaptability and learning new things daily. Part of the make-up of a successful professional editor and writer is their research ability, and their willingness and commitment to making the effort to learn about new things.

For copywriting there are, of course, some areas where a specialist writer may be required, but the majority of copy can be provided by a skilled and flexible copywriter. For copy-editing and proofreading, there are few limits on the type of material suitable. Editing and proofreading is a process applicable to all material, and as long as a thorough dictionary or glossary is available, there is no reason why a professional copy editor and proofreader can't effectively and efficiently check the material.

Flexibility creates variety, and it is this essential component of the editor and writer's job that I enjoy most. This year alone I've gained a wealth of knowledge, an eclectic mix that demonstrates my adaptability as a freelance proofreader, editor and writer. Here's a snapshot: Romans, parenting, animation, property investment, drugs awareness, GCSE curricula, pesticide testing, anxiety, gardening, environment, economics, grammar, Doctor Who, football, muses, digital marketing. And that's just the non-fiction . . .

The difference between copywriting, copy-writing and copy writing

This is where most of my clients come unglued - hyphenated (copy-writing), spaced (copy writing) and compound (copywriting) words.

If you look at my website, you'll see my three key services are exactly these sorts of tricky words: copywriting (copy-writing, copy writing), copy-editing (copy editing, copyediting) and proofreading (proof-reading, proof reading) - and this includes permutations like copywriter, copy editor and proofread.

Sometimes, this is a matter of style and is open to interpretation; sometimes there is a right style and a wrong style. So how do you know the difference? Two words: the dictionary.
Copyediting, for example, is not correct, but copy editing and copy-editing are, although most dictionaries agree the correct style is copy-editing.

Because there are no clear rules governing styles such as these, you're only hope of getting it 'perfectly write' is to pick a dictionary, and then stick with its particular style. I use Oxford style (although you may go with Chambers or Penguin), which means I style my services copywriting, copywriter, copy-editing, copy editor, copy edit, proofreading, proofreader, proofread.

The golden rule, however, is consistency. Pick a style for a word or phrase, check it in a dictionary, then stick with it in your writing. Nothing is more off-putting for a reader than a copywriting service by a professional copy-writer.

Spellcheckers are not a way around proofreading

A pet peeve of mine is people relying on spellcheckers to ensure their written material is accurate and error free. Although useful for picking up on the odd typo, spellcheckers will miss many, many mistakes.

This poet hits the nail on the head:

Eye halve a spelling chequer by Sauce Unknown
I have a spelling checker.
It came with my pea sea.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea.
Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh.
My checker tolled me sew.
A checker is a bless sing,
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when I rime.
Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.
Bee fore a veiling checker's
Hourspelling mite decline,
And if we're lacks oar have a laps,
We wood bee maid too wine.
Butt now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flair,
Their are no fault's with in my cite,
Of nun eye am a ware.
Now spelling does knot phase me,
It does knot bring a tier.
My pay purrs awl due glad den
With wrapped word's fare as hear.
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaw's are knot aloud.
Sow ewe can sea why aye dew prays,
Such soft wear four pea seas,
And why eye brake in two averse
Buy righting too pleas.

My article Spellchecker: Friend or Foe has more detail on the dangerous assumption that these tools get it ‘perfectly write’.

Nothing replaces careful, thorough proofreading, so for more tips on how to do this, check out my article Ten Top Tips for Proofreading.

Proofreading is not synonymous with speed-reading

The Society for Editors and Proofreaders believe a professional proofreader can read an average of ten pages an hour, with 300 words per page.

That’s ten pages, not sixty odd. It never ceases to amaze me that people think anyone, let alone a proofreader, can do a top-notch proofreading job if reading at speed.

Yet, that seems to be the case. I’ve certainly encountered it, and a fellow proofreader recently recounted to me the bawling out her boss gave her for missing a mistake (just one mind) in a long document she had been forced to speed-read with constant interruptions of, ‘Are you done yet?’

Proofreading by its very nature is slooooooooow and methodical. Speed-reading may seem an efficient way to get the job done faster, but it comes back to bite you in the end if you want a good, accurate result.

As a professional proofreader, I can’t really see the point at all of hiring a proofreader and then asking for speed-reading: You may as well not bother having the document proofread in the first place as it won’t finish up error-free.

That’s one of the things I love most about working for myself, and in my home office. I can take as long as I need over thoroughly reading material, and there’s no one hovering over my shoulder distracting and pressurising me.

To coin a phrase, more haste less speed, and if a job’s worth doing, it’s worth doing properly.

My favourite kind of phone call

There’s nothing that brightens my day more than a call from an author I’ve worked with telling me a publisher is interested in their book. Today one of my authors has been contacted by three reputable publishers asking for more, more, more material and meetings.

I know from my own writing that books are often your babies, and it’s very hard to let someone else in to offer advice or improvements. This particular client is a real gem who welcomes my comments, changes and creative ideas, and trusts my expertise.

She had already sent these stories to the publishers in question before working with me, and been rejected. Which just goes to show the benefits of letting a copy-editor and proofreader help – publishers are interested in books that are accurate, consistent and properly laid out, as well as being well-written, of course.

I share her excitement and pride and wish her much luck in her journey ahead.

What's your style based on?

One of the most important jobs for a proofreader and copy-editor is to ensure text is consistent. So if on page one of my website I’m a proofreader, copy-editor and copywriter, on page two I can’t be a proof-reader, copyeditor and copy writer (note the spacing and hyphenation).

That’s why it’s essential to stick to one style of writing.

When I started proofreading and editing, I bought myself some lovely huge reference books – now well thumbed and somewhat tatty. I chose Oxford because I particularly like their style, and they publish a wealth of guides answering just about every language question under the sun. They’ve been about a very long time, they know their stuff and their style is popular in printed material.

So when I’m writing or editing, I base my style on Oxford. I have a style sheet I’ve built up over the years with notes on grammar, punctuation and spelling, and I add to this pretty much daily.

There’s only one element of Oxford style I don’t apply – the use of z rather than s as in realise and realize. My feeling is that British English isn’t quite ready for this development – I’ve tried it out once or twice and invariably the response from my client is, ‘But it’s American!’

Although my personal taste is for Oxford style, I also edit within other styles for clients when they ask. One of my clients prefers using Chambers, which is fine – as long as your style is consistent, it’s not important which dictionary you work from.

Invest in a big dictionary – when you’re not using it to help with your writing, it will come in very useful as a step for changing lightbulbs (so that’s why mine are so tatty!).

Beating those blind spots

Here's a conversation I commonly have with clients following proofreading or copy-editing their text:

Client: Do you know, I've read this document so many times and I've never noticed that rogue apostrophe/random capital/missing word.
Me: Of course - when you're so close to something, it's often very hard to see every tiny mistake. Your eye has scanned the page that many times, it gets a little bored and starts skipping detail.

That, in a nutshell, is why proofreaders are so important. You may think I’ve read this document so many times, it must be perfect, but unfortunately reading it plenty of times is no guarantee you haven’t got some blind spots.

On my website (www.perfectlywrite.co.uk), you’ll find help on improving your proofreading, as well as other areas of your writing. My top tip? Proofread until you’re sure that it’s 100 per cent right, then ask someone else to proofread it as well. You may be surprised what they find!