Before this project, I would not have known what an editor did. I knew they read articles, documents, and novels, and made corrections or adjustments, but I couldn’t understand how that was a full-time job.
My brother was a journalist. While working with a newspaper, he would keep his eyes and ears open for a story. He would go to the courthouse. He would telephone the guards. He would interview people involved in current affairs. When all of this information was gathered he would write numerous articles in a day, and then send them to the editor.
I could see how my brother was putting down the day, gathering information and writing. I had difficulty understanding what the editor was doing all day while this writing was happening. Were they sitting in their office waiting for the articles to arrive in? Did they even really need to change anything in the articles? My brother has a master in journalism and is an excellent writer. Did the editor just get paid to read the paper before anyone else?
The tables, however, have well and truly turned. We are in the editing phase of our virtual project. To the readers of last week’s blog, this statement may feel like déjá vu. Last week we were also in the editing phase of our virtual project. A week has passed and I now understand how an editor spends their time.
As mentioned last week, we were struggling to come up with a system that would enable us to edit as a team. We decided to put the text into Google Docs and put our thoughts into comments. If we agree or disagree with someone’s comment, we reply ‘agree’ and resolve the comment, or ‘disagree’ and add an alternative suggestion.
With a team of three editors, this has actually been going well. We have, for the most part, been in agreement about certain changes and cuts. The writers decided to keep their distance from the document during the editing phase. This is a decision I would highly recommend in a project like this. The writers did a fantastic job. They had spent a lot of time on their first and second draft, and I know if I was in their position, I would not enjoy watching a group of editors dissect my work. It also gave the editors the freedom to express their opinion without feeling like they were stepping on any toes.
Even though our editing process has worked for us, it is still not an ideal system.
- It is time consuming.
That is evident in the fact that over a week later we are still editing a relatively short document. When we make a suggestion, we must wait to hear back from the other editors before making the change. The positive side of this is that it ensures that the edits are really well thought out. However, it makes the process seem never-ending.
2. It is difficult to know when to stop.
I find that every time I look at the document, I think of something that I would change, omit, or add. I mentioned this to the group and they all felt the same. We reintroduced the writers to the document yesterday and even after all of our editing, a new pair of eyes saw issues that we did not see. I think knowing when to stop must be one of the skills of a good editor.
Our system has its pros and cons: it takes time but we are producing a document with which everyone is happy. I’m sure this isn’t the last time each of us will be involved in the editing of a document. I was reading some blogs to see what advice other writers have for the editing process. One blog I found, called A Writer’s Path (https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/72085838/posts/95226), gave two helpful pieces of advice with regard to editing, and I would apply these tips in the future.
- The blog advises proper preparation before editing.
We did prepare and devise a system prior to editing. However, this blog recommends formulating a strategy and having one particular aspect to work on during each rewrite. This got me thinking that maybe instead of looking at the document as a whole during each rewrite, we may have been better off looking at sections of the text, or focusing our thoughts on different elements of the text, such as the numbering of the steps or the headings. It may have made our tasks more defined and our discussions more focussed. Still, this advice is not fool proof. I do think there is value in looking at the text as a whole, particularly a set of instructions.
2. The blog recommends a healthy amount of self-criticism.
While it is important to be critical of your own writing, it is possible to be too self-critical. Self-criticism helps us to edit our writing and improve on drafts. However, looking at a text too critically, as a writer or editor, can inhibit the whole process. Naturally, this advice resounded with me. As mentioned already, I realised a few days into editing that it didn’t matter how many times I looked at the text, I was always going to find something to tweak.
The key message I would take from this blog and apply to future projects is the following strategy:
- Ask somebody else (another editor or writer) to read the document.
- Compare their comments to your own comments, to gauge your level of criticism. If their criticism is similar to yours, your editing is probably on the right track. If your comments are much more critical, you are probably being too hard on yourself, or the writer.
If I was to do the editing process again, I think it would be better to assign a head editor. I think the head editor should be given time to review the document and note the edits they would make. Then the head editor should follow the two-step strategy above, by giving it to sub-editors and using the sub-editors’ notes to review their own comments. The head-editor should lead the process and seek advice from their sub-editors throughout.
EDIT: Even after publishing, I have gone into this blog three times to edit something. It is time to close the laptop!
Áine's E-Learning Blog 