One of the hats I wear is that of copyeditor. Sometimes people think I am a proofreader. There is nothing wrong with being a proofreader, but
proofreaders and copyeditors are not the same thing — and I must admit that with my master’s degree and teaching and school administration credentials (not to mention my grammar books), I get insulted when I am called a proofreader. A true proofreader performs rather mechanical tasks. Part of the misunderstanding is that the role of proofreader has become muddied since the advent of technology and print-on-demand.
There are actually several types of editors: substantive, technical, content, developmental, line, copy, tempo, and proofreaders. And there is certainly some overlap among them.
When I was a technical writer, we had substantive, technical, and copy edits:
- The substantive editor saw the manuscript first and commented on the content and presentation, not so much the nitty gritty of grammar, punctuation, etc.
- In technical writing, we had editors who made sure that the technical content was correct, since they were tech people and we were, for the most part, writers.
- The copyeditor did the final edit of grammar, punctuation, typos, word usage, consistency, clarity….and a good copyeditor can usual find some technical inaccuracies as well.
Now, I am involved in writing books and self-publishing. The main types of editors we hear about now are developmental and copy.
- A developmental editor works with the writer to develop the book. I have never used one and was always under the impression that novelists used them more than nonfiction writers. Developmental editors deal with early drafts of novels and help the writer with content, flow, superfluous information, and the elements of fiction such as back story, point of view, etc.
- The copyeditor then sees the book when it is in good shape and performs the same tasks as copyeditors have always performed: grammar, punctuation, typos, word usage errors, capitalization, consistency, clarity, and any inaccuracies they can find or question.
So what are those other types of editors? And what does a proofreader do?
- A content editor is a substantive or developmental editor. They are all concerned with the book as a whole.
- A line editor is a copyeditor. They primarily look at the manuscript line by line, although they really do look at the book as a whole as well.
- I have now heard of a tempo editor, a new one for me. A tempo editor works with the author on the flow and pacing of a story.
Now, what does a proofreader do? Many people think a proofreader is the same as a copyeditor, looking for typos, misspellings, grammatical and punctuation problems. Not really.
A proofreader does exactly what the name implies. However, with digital publishing, there really aren’t proofs anymore. Manuscripts used to be typeset, and the printer would send proofs — otherwise known as galleys or blues (they were blue) — back to the author or publisher. Enter the proofreader. The job of the proofreader was to compare the final manuscript, before printing, to the now-typeset manuscript to make sure nothing happened in the process of typesetting. For example, words may have been left out, or a line might be missing, or a word could look fuzzy…..in other words, errors made by the printer. In fact, it was not really the time to catch typos and punctuation errors because fixing anything once it was typeset was costly. If it was a printer error (marked by the proofreader as PE), the printer would fix it at no change. However, if it was a typo or other type of author error (marked as AE), the printer’s client (author, publisher, newspaper, company, etc.) would bear the cost of author error. Often it was decided to fix problems, but it would cost the client.
Because of technology, we don’t really have many problems in proofs any longer. However, even in print-on-demand and self-publishing, authors are encouraged to get a proof, which is generally just a copy of the book, to make sure everything is okay. In converting to e-book from print book, it is also wise to check a proof, since things can definitely happen in the conversion.
Since there are no real proofs today, authors often think copyeditors and proofreaders are pretty much alike, but in truth they used to be separate functions. Now, an author himself or herself will generally check a proof if he or she is self-published.
Note: I have never been traditionally published, so most of what I say is based on my experience as a self-publisher. And no offense to proofreaders, who these days usually do just about the same work as copyeditors!
Oops. There is a typo in the column. It’s on the third bullet point: …and a good copyeditor can usual find some technical inaccuracies as well.”
Was this a test? 🙂
Yup – it happens. It is a typo, not a test!
Arlene — great post with clear definitions of the different types of editors.
I would just like to add that memoirists and creative nonfiction writers are among those who need developmental editors, since structure is not straight forward and may be similar to that of novels. Critique groups and beta readers are great, but they don’t usually have the experience to see a book length work in terms of overall structure and coherence or have the skills to help an author find ways to achieve the highest impact. A developmental editor (or someone who has those skills) is, or should be, a crucial part of the writing process for most authors. Exceptions are for nonfiction of the how-to or reference variety, which are more linear in structure.
Thanks, Amber…..and as mostly a “how-to” writer with a little different experience, I welcome your helpful comments!
I enjoyed the piece. Like you, I am often apalled at material that I read that screams out for a copy editor. Unfortunately, no one is listening.
As an editor of more than 35 years and having survived battles with copy editors of my own material, I recognize specifically the unyielding requirement to maintain the author’s voice. As an editor, I can change every word (an exaggeration, naturallly). If the resulting piece maintains the author’s voice and point of view, I’ve done my job. On the other hand, if I change a SINGLE word and it changes the author’s intent, I have not done my job. Would that every editor could “get” that particular mandate.
I’ll also echo Mary Lynn Archibald’s comment: Writers who think they can edit their own work are idiots. A fresh pair of eyes is indispensible to making sure you said what you think you said.
Steve – All true! Thanks for your comments!
Most interesting. Although I worked for 40 years as Editor and Senior Editor at University of California (San Diego and Davis), I was not aware of all the finer distinctions among the types of editors out there! Basically, I have always been a copy editor, helping professors (often foreigners) express their scientific results in a professional manner. Frequently I was not an expert in the subject (hematology, Crohn’s disease, other mostly medical and veterinary research topics) but I felt confident that if I didn’t understand the final product, others would not either, so my goal was to make it understandable to a reasonably intelligent reader not familiar with the subject.
Since retiring from UC, I have enjoyed helping friends write books and news columns, fortunately in fields I’m more familiar with (horses, real estate). Recently I edited a couple books for the Masters of Foxhounds of America, and it was delightful, as a foxhunter myself, to be able to add more substantive corrections to the text.
In the past few years I have read numerous e-books and been astounded by the great need for copy editors by the many self-published authors of these books. It seems that self-publishing has become so easy that anyone can do it, and far too many need help with the basics of grammar, punctuation, consistency, clarity, etc. Please, people, seek help!
I heartily agree with Pete Masterson’s final comments about not extinguishing the author’s tone! It is their writing and must still feel like that.
Thanks so much for addressing this topic!
Eileen – I am glad you liked the post….and Pete Masterson also has masterful things to add….he’ absolutely correct. I think when we think of editors, we think mainly of copyeditors –someone to look at the grammar, punctuation, typos, consistency, standards, etc. And yes, we self-published writers need to make sure that our books meet the high standards of traditionally published books, although those seem to have skipped editing sometimes too!
Thanks for this. I have a question about content editors. Say they take a job and the book needs a lot of work, and they point out what most needs to be done. Is their job done? Or are they responsible for looking at the rewrite and suggesting a next level of changes?
I am not really a content editor, but I will take a stab at it. I guess it is up to the writer and the editor and what they have worked out. I would think the content editor would work closely with the writer until the book was in good shape, but then there are also critique groups and Beta readers to read drafts of books.
Thanks for this post, Arlene. Tempo editor is a new one to me.
Interesting that the boxer in the Scribendi graphic at the beginning of your blog is saying “speciality,” which is usually the British spelling for “specialty.”
Longtime copyeditor/line editor/content editor/sometime proofreader — LindaJay
Tempo is a new one for me too, but we have one at Redwood Writers.
I know of a tempo editor, but that’s the first I heard of it.
Hi Arlene,
Thanks so much for this. As an editor myself, I also receive a lot of confusion about just what we do. And as an editor, I would NEVER dream of editing my own work!
Thanks for the comment!!
Having been the manager of a book oriented typesetting company — back at the beginning of the “desk top publishing” revolution — let me add a couple of thoughts:
The typesetting service I managed had a staff proof reader. Her job was to compare the manuscript as received from the publisher with the typeset copy. Since “hot metal type” was a distant memory, the output was on a photographic paper — and our production typesetting software was sophisticated enough to paginate the project — so our output looked rather like what you’d see from InDesign or some other page layout program today. The proofreader might catch the occasional misspelled word or other obvious typo — but her _real_ job was to ensure that the output matched the input.
Once the project was proofed, copies were sent back to the publisher, where their copyeditor would review the proof, marking any errors that were discovered. Depending on the nature of the contract between the publisher and the author, the author might also have a chance to review the proof.
All errors were marked (by the publisher’s copyeditor) as “EA,” “AA,” or “PE” — for editor’s alteration, author’s alteration, or printer’s error. The charge to “fix” each alteration (back in the early 90s) was $1 per “line affected” plus $1 per page. The dirty secret of the typesetting business (as it related to books) was that we made our profit on the charges for alterations — the basic per page charge for the typesetting barely covered our costs. (The pricing was based on the time it took the typesetter operator to find and fix the errors … and the per-page charge covered the cost of outputting the altered page on the phototypesetting machine. A page that was altered might have 2 or 3 alterations (that is, lines impacted by the alteration) so the charge would be $3 or $4 for the fix to that page. Of course the PE’s were not charged except that there were some occasional debates with clients over the responsibility for some alterations’ classification as either EA or PE.
Publishers have many people with the word “editor” in their title. That’s just a publisher tradition, as many “editors” handle administrative functions, but they are honored with the editor title. (For example, a “managing editor” is one of the top executives of most publishing companies. Such an individual may never have held a blue pencil and marked a manuscript in their life.
The transition to the digital world of publishing has significantly reduced the amount of work required to bring a manuscript to publication and many publishers have reduced the number of editors they employ. (Though the publishing industry has a long history of hiring freelance editors, designers, and other specialists for different aspects of book production.) These days, a large publisher probably would not assign a developmental editor to a new or first time author. Rather, the acquisition editor would review the manuscript and either accept it or reject it (assuming this is already a contracted project). If rejected, the author would be responsible for working with an editor of his/her choice to get the manuscript into acceptable condition. (This moves the cost from the publisher to the author.) In most cases, the publisher might recommend a selection of freelance editors that can assist the author. In some cases the author is asked to hire a “book doctor” — this is an editor who goes beyond editing tasks and actually might rewrite substantial portions of the manuscript.
There are cases, even with nonfiction where a developmental editor is involved. In the nonfiction situation, as an example, a publisher of technical works might feel the need to cover a particular project and they might solicit authors they’ve worked with in the past to write a work on that topic (sometimes multiple authors might be involved). Here the developmental editor would work with the author(s) to ensure that the finished manuscript addresses the topic to the satisfaction of the publisher.
There are also firms called “book packagers” who also seek out authors for particular projects — and then their developmental editor helps the author cover a topic. The book packager meanwhile matches up the work with the needs of a publisher. This spreads the investment risk around… the packager actually takes on the risk of compensating the author (and editors involved) until the ready to print book file is delivered to the publisher. The publisher generally pays the book packager a previously agreed to price — ensuring that the publisher does not take on a risk that a project might run over cost (as that risk is the book packager’s to handle).
The one-order/one-print business model has also affected the larger publishers, many have established (essentially) “self publishing” divisions within their overall company. These accept books that are prepared at the expense of the author and then they are marketed through the publisher’s normal distribution system. The publishers do maintain a rather picky approach (as they do with all projects) but they’re much more likely to accept projects that might not look risk-worthy if the publisher has to advance most or all the upfront costs.
One last comment: An editor while fixing and clarifying the author’s work should never “extinguish” the author’s voice. The writing, after editing, should still “sound” like the same author. One risk for authors is discovering that an editor rewrites material so that it sounds different. Such an editor is not held in high regard.
As always, fabulous and knowledgable comments!