Developmental, Line, Copy-, and Proofing: What Editing Means
When I was an academic, I would receive "edits" on my manuscripts. Usually these took the form of paragraphs about what I should include more of ("you must integrate findings form Scholar McScholar's monograph published in 1954 before it can be published"), what I got wrong ("this is a misreading of Adorno's definition of ideology"), and maybe a comment or two in the margins ("The CIA, not literary theorists, 'interrogate').
When I started writing for trade publications, I realized that editing could be much, much, more intensive--and fun. Editors would actually make the changes to correct my summary of Adorno! They would move the last sentence of a paragraph to the first and suddenly everything made more sense! They would correct my dangling modifiers and not even shame me for creating them.
I loved--and still love-- being edited heavily and often. It helps the content of my writing, but it also improves my writing per se, and allows me think about my style, voice, and use of rhetorical forms (arguments, analysis, etc.) in new ways. Plus, as careful readers of this newsletter know, I am a constant reviser, changes sentences as I go, even while I am proofreading (ack!), thus creating typos galore.
Not all writers love being edited, to be sure. But most published authors will be. There are different terms for different types of editing, and they can be confusing. Thus, a brief glossary:
Developmental Editing. My favorite to do. A development edit is wholescale, and considers the broadest issues of a manuscript. Is there a clear-enough focus? Does the argument need to be bolstered? Are there large--say, chapter-length--topics left unmentioned, that need to be added? Is the structure working? Are the tone, voice, and style appropriate? Does it sort of peter off in the last third, as the writer is tired/rushing to meet a deadline? Is it too long? Too short?
You get the idea. Usually, the first step in developmental editing is to write an edit letter that outlines all these large scale issues The writer then works for a few more weeks/months/years and sends in a revision.
Sometimes, an editor might do the developmental editing herself (I am currently about to embark on two such edits, on manuscripts that need structural changes that I think best done by me.) Sometimes, after an edit letter leads to a revision, an editor might do a second developmental edit herself to help the writer get the manuscript to where it needs to be.
Line Editing. Line editing is a tricky one, for me, to define. I consider it to be similar to a developmental edit but without as much concern with the most global issues or structural changes. So an editor might make many, many comments in margins about what might be changed/added/deleted, and make a few organizational changes ("how about we move the conclusion to the introduction?") But the term is also sometimes used interchangeably with both developmental and copy-editing.
Copy Editing. Copy editing (or copy-editing, depending upon your copy editor/copy-editor), involves going through the manuscript on the sentence and word level. The editor combs through the manuscript correcting grammar and punctuation, suggesting changes in word choice and syntax, spelling, and checks for factual accuracy.* A copy editor will also make suggestions to structure and form if there seem to be inconsistencies, or she feels it could be improved without a wholescale revision.
Proofreading. Proofreading, in publishing, is usually a second-round of copy-editing, ensuring there are no errors. The proofreader goes over some of what the copy-editor has already combed through--grammar, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and factual accuracy*-- again. Proofreading is usually done after the manuscript has been typeset, so it also includes checking chapter headings, margins, page numbers, copyright page, back cover copy, etc.
At Belt, all manuscripts go through copy-editing. A few, such as our anthologies, which have already been developmental and copy-edited, as well as proofed before they are sent to us, do not need another full round of proofreading; instead, the copy-editor and author might each check it again themselves. Most of our manuscripts go through both a round of copy-editing and a round of proofreading--done by two different people. Some--most of our single-authored non-fiction titles--go through developmental editing as well as copy-editing and proofreading.
*On factual accuracy and fact-checking: Lately, there have been discoveries of factual errors in prominent non-fiction titles published by Big Five presses. In response, many have been calling for publishers to fact-check manuscripts. But:
1.) Publishers have never fact-checked manuscripts;
2.) Publishers have traditionally done thorough copy-editing and proofreading, which includes checking facts.
Fact-checking per se is a much more intense process--you are basically re-reporting and re-researching everything the writer has done--not just double-checking the spelling of names--and has always been the contractual responsibility of the writer, not the publisher. Chances are those authors who are furious that publishers do not fact-check have signed contracts stating they are responsible for the factual accuracy of their manuscripts.
I will write more about how fact-checking fits in--or not--with book publishing next week.
What I'm Reading: I am absolutely thrilled that Belt has signed a contract with Lee Weiner, a member of the Chicago 7, to publish his memoir, focused on the Chicago 7 (or Chicago 8, or Chicago Conspiracy) trial. am currently working on a developmental edit of this book, and to help me with that, I have been reading about the trial, including Conspiracy in the Streets by Jon Wiener and The Barnyard Epithet and Other Obscenities by the amazing J. Anthony Lukas. I've also been watching the (strange!) movies based on the trials, including The Chicago 10, perhaps the best of them. (Aaron Sorkin is apparently working on a movie about the trial as well...!)
Shout Out: The writer who inspired my writing more than any other is Tony Horwitz. I did a downright talmudic analysis of A Voyage Long and Strange to help me figure out the structure for my book, A Skeptic's Guide To Writers' Houses. All his books--and all the ways he thought and wrote about ideas--have been enormously influential for me and countless other writers of narrative non-fiction. Not to mention the incredible histories and historical, cultural, and sociological analyses he provided to many readers. I am absolutely shattered about his untimely death yesterday, at age 60. If you haven't read any of his books, you have treats in store
Thanks for reading Notes From A Small Press. Support these weekly explanations of this crazy industry by pre-ordering a Belt Publishing title, such as Life Sentences: How To Get Out Of Jail Free, a book written by a group of five incarcerated men, publishing in September.
