An Editor's Tips for Writers

This isn't a tip, but an observation. Have you ever noticed how we treat books so delicately, almost as though they were ancient artifacts? Eager to begin reading, we buy a new book, its pages crisp and fresh and enticingly unexamined by any other human eyes. An exciting new adventure is about to begin within.

Yet somehow, we cringe with reluctance when we break the spine. Finally, the deed is done and the reading begins, but still it's as though we're holding a treasure in our hands. Heaven forbid we should spill a few drops of coffee on the cover, or accidentally drop a blob of food between its revered pages. The blob is quickly wiped away, but an oily stain remains. Ouch!

Why do we venerate books so? Especially in this computer age, when, only a few years ago with the advent of e-books, some folks in the publishing business proclaimed that physical books would quickly be going the proverbial way of the dodo. Well, most of us now know they were wrong. There's just something about holding a physical book in our hands while lying on the couch with a cup of tea and a snack that simply cannot compare with staring at a computer screen, no matter how convenient that may be. (For another opinion on e-books, see the Big Bad Book Blog's article at http://www.bigbadbookblog.com/2007/05/31/e-books-whats-the-deal/).

This idea that books are overly esteemed occurred to me recently after I read a letter to the editor from an irate library user. The fellow was complaining about people who borrow library books and then proceed to mark them up - you know, pencil notes in the margins, highlighters, red-penned corrections, clever (or not) comments about the contents, and the like.

I beg to disagree. I love seeing marked-up books. It fascinates me to see what others have thought of the book; their opinions, their insights, perhaps their new ideas. To me, the more marked-up a book is, the more people have read it, and therefore the more popular it has been. It serves only to make me want to read it more!

As someone with a passion for proper spelling and grammar, I won't hesitate to admit that a lot of this comes from my own obsession with correcting mistakes - I simply can't let a typo (and there are typos in every published book) or error pass my eye without taking my editing pen to it. Recently I found a tiny error in some sixth printing by Doubleday of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Five seconds later, out flew the red pen, correction made. I literally could not help myself.

Now, I must emphasize here that I don't condone the marking up of library books or other people's books - they're not your property. But by all means, mark up your own books! It's just paper, after all. Mark them up and pass them along. It's democratic. Share your opinions with future readers. There are lots of us out there who'll appreciate your comments. Just don't let your kids read this post. (And my apologies to any offended librarians out there.)

Well, I'm back from a summer full of travel - short trips around our lovely province, mostly, editing work and laptop in tow - and a wildly busy month of editing this September. It's been some time since I've updated this blog, but, then, I maintain the stance that I'm not really the blog type. Do many people actually read them? I would love some feedback from any of you who many have stumbled upon my site. If only even one person is benefiting from my (scanty, I know) editorial tips in this space, I would be inspired to write more.

Having said that, today I'm going to address what is largely a subject of annoyance and confusion to many writers. That is, the three common kinds of dashes, and where to use each of them properly.

First, there's the hyphen. The smallest member of the dash family, it's used primarily for - you may have guessed it - hyphenation of compound words. If you follow this simple rule, you can't really go wrong. It's also used to separate numbers (such as in a phone number), or to separate letters in a word that is spelled out. Try to avoid hyphens in URLs; they can create ambiguity at line breaks.

The second-longest dash is called an en dash (in the olden days of typesetting, this was considered the length of the letter n). The main use of an en dash is to connect numbers and indicate ranges, including date ranges (1943-2006) and page ranges (pp. 167-179). The Chicago Manual of Style - 15th Edition, says, "In this use it signifies up to and including (or through). For the sake of parallel construction the word to, never the en dash, should be used if the word from precedes the first element." The same goes for and and between.

The en dash can also be used with spaces on either side to serve in place of a comma or brackets, as a pause in the sentence, or to insert and amplify or explain a related idea. Chicago doesn't recommend this, however, and neither do I. I prefer the em dash - I think it simply is more aesthetically pleasing - but it's your choice.

The third kind of common dash is the aforementioned em dash, which is the most common and versatile of all the dashes (in the olden days of typesetting, this was considered the length of the letter m). Use a pair of em dashes in the same way I described in the preceding paragraph - to amplify or elaborate on a related idea in a sentence. In dialogue, use an em dash in particular to indicate if the speaker is interrupted or if there is a sudden break in the speaker's idea (say, for example, a loud thundercap) or sentence structure. Use three dots (an ellipsis) only when the speaker's voice is trailing off.

Both the en and em dash can be found in "Symbols" under the Insert pulldown menu in Microsoft Word. When editing, I use a carat mark and simply write "N" or "M" above it to indicate the insertion of this mark.

Finally, you may have noticed that I'm rather ironically not using en or em dashes in this blog. I only wish I could! Some computer software and e-mail programs simply do not allow for their use, so I have to resort to using a hyphen - or two hyphens in a row - with spaces on either side, to indicate a longer dash. I've been known to copy and paste em dashes from MS Word into my e-mails simply to make my meaning clearer. Perhaps you already do this too!

Many editors use a feature in MS Word called "track changes." This tool enables your editor to make changes and corrections - additions and deletions - to your manuscript, and to comment on your writing style and make suggestions for improvement. It's a somewhat controversial tool and has limitations, but becoming familiar with it will be very helpful to you if you are working with an editor who uses it. When your edited manuscript is returned to you, you'll easily be able to accept or reject the editor's changes and comments.

Keep the track changes toolbar showing on your MS Word screen while you are working on revisions. To turn on this toolbar, from the top "View" pulldown menu, select Toolbars, and then select Reviewers. The track changes toolbar should appear. Another way to access track changes is from the "Tools" pulldown menu. Simply select Track Changes, and the toolbar should appear.

To enable track changes, first you need to click on the second button from the right. When you hover your mouse over it, you'll see it's simply called "track changes." On the "View" toolbar at the bottom of your screen, you should also make sure you are in print layout view. It's possible to work in web layout view or normal view, but it isn't as easy to see your changes on the screen.

Once you have enabled track changes, you'll be able to see the editor's corrections and comments in "balloons" on the right of the document. If you have an earlier version than 2002, the deletions will show up as strikethroughs, and the additions will show up as underlined.

Now return to the track changes toolbar. Experiment with the various buttons. On the left, you'll see a pulldown menu from which you can choose to view a clean final document, a clean original document, a final document showing markup (edits or corrections), and an original document showing markup.

Moving on to the other buttons, you'll see that you can accept or reject your editor's changes, either one at a time or all at once. You'll also be able to read any comments in the balloons. Under the "Show" pulldown menu, I often recommend unchecking the "formatting" box - leaving it checked just clutters the screen with information you don't need. I also don't recommend using the reviewing pane. It's cumbersome and not very useful.

Use MS Word's "Help" feature if you'd like to learn more about track changes, but I hope these instructions help you get off to a good start.

Rebecca Wigod, Books editor for the Vancouver Sun newspaper, wrote the following recent article featuring me and my colleague, book designer Fiona Raven. It was published Saturday, April 22, 2006. To enlarge the article to readable size, just click on the image a few times. If you'd like to obtain a copy for yourself, just let me know and I'll e-mail it to you. Here is the plain text, which is easier to read:

The rise of print-on-demand (POD) publishing and the popularity of the Internet are enabling a Vancouver woman who is clever with words to make a living as a freelance book editor.

Arlene Prunkl quit her day job in January because, after three years of shaping, honing and polishing manuscripts for self-publishing authors in her spare time, she found she had enough business to make a career of it.

"Print-on-demand started this explosion," says Prunkl, referring to companies like Trafford Publishing, AuthorHouse, Xlibris and iUniverse, which publish books for a fee, in quantities that are consonant with demand.

Once called vanity publishing, the process lets first-time authors who can't land a contract with Random House or HarperCollins get their work into print. And these people need editors.

"It's no longer a stigma to publish yourself," says Prunkl, who makes a distinction between classic self-publishing (forming a company to produce and market your books) and fee-based POD (paying a company like Trafford to do the tasks for you).

She isn't an editor who has a university degree in English, but she has always had an aptitude for language. "I was always the office proofreader," she says, having worked in television and in financial and fine-arts organizations. Until recently, she proofread Business in Vancouver each week before it went to press.

Prunkl has edited more than [40] books, including several for Granville Island Publishing, which is not a traditional house, in that its authors pay to be published.

Granville Island publisher Jo Blackmore relies on five or six freelance editors to get a manuscript into shape. She says, "I end up going with a structural edit and then a copy edit and then the proofreader, and everyone's working hard, including me, to refine it."

Blackmore says Prunkl doesn't just do proofreading but "puts her brain in gear in critiquing" what's on the page.

In her home-based business, Prunkl edits mostly non-fiction books for niche markets, on subjects such as salesmanship and coinage. Ninety per cent of her clients are Americans who find her on the Internet.

Her company is called PenUltimate Editorial Services (www.penultimateword.com) and, thanks to her webmaster's skills, it shows up close to the top when you Google "freelance editor."

"Ten years ago, I could not have done this," says Prunkl. Writers come to her because "they've heard about POD and they get the idea that they can do all the legwork themselves: find the editor, find the cover designer, the interior page designer, the printer, and publish themselves or find a POD company."

The Internet makes it easy to find all of these professionals.

Fiona Raven, a close friend of Prunkl's, is a Vancouver freelance book designer who has been self-employed a few years longer and has designed about 70 books. The Internet is a factor in her business, too: With one book she worked on, the author lived in Britain, the substantive editor was in California, the copy editor in London and the printer in India.

Raven, who designed her first book in 1995, is now flooded with work, again mostly from self-publishers. The advantages of self-publishing, as she sees it, include testing the market ("sometimes self-published books get picked up by publishers") and having control over the way the book turns out.

* * *

Freelance book editors and designers who work within the traditional publishing environment are in a different situation. Barbara Pulling, who edited J.B. MacKinnon's Dead Man in Paradise for Douglas & McIntyre, says that if authors plan to self-publish, then "they decide how they want it to be and they take your advice, or not.

"When you're working for a publisher, then you work with the author, but you're both working within the publisher's vision of that book, as well."

Pulling worked in-house for D&M for 10 years before becoming a freelance book editor eight years ago. She is well respected, having won a Tom Fairley Award for Editorial Excellence for her work on The Bear's Embrace: A True Story of Surviving a Grizzly Bear Attack (Greystone Books, 2001), by the late Patricia Van Tighem.

Pulling teaches editing through continuing studies at Simon Fraser University. She says that in today's highly competitive atmosphere, publishers often sign authors to contracts very early in the writing process. Therefore, a book editor who is working freelance must raise a red flag if the manuscript diverges from the way it was billed.

"You're always representing the publisher to the author and the author to the publisher," Pulling says. "If you see something coming in very different from what the publisher is expecting, then it's time for the author and publisher to sit down and sort that out."

Holly Keller, managing editor at UBC Press, for which Prunkl edited a book, says: "We use a lot of freelancers - not only editors but also designers, proofreaders and indexers. A lot of ex-librarians do that.

"There's such a talented pool of people out there who love books. They're really smart people. Especially the copy editors are often really dedicated sorts. We can sometimes take advantage of their perfectionism - they just can't help but do a good job."

Freelance book editors acquire a good reputation based on the work they have done. One group with good word-of-mouth is West Coast Editorial Associates.

Nancy Flight, associate publisher at Greystone Books, says her company, too, relies on freelancers and respects their work.

A former freelance book editor herself and a past president of the Editors' Association of Canada, Flight points out that when a writer takes a manuscript to an editor before self-publishing it or going to a fee-based POD company, he or she may not be able to judge the work the editor does.

"They say, 'I guess you're an editor. Okay, edit.' They may not even know what they mean by editing."

At the moment, anyone can set him- or herself up as a freelance book editor. The editors' association plans to offer a certification exam for working editors this fall. It says its highest priorities include training and certification for editors.

Meanwhile, business is booming in the fee-based POD and self-publishing spheres. Prunkl is reveling in the variety of manuscripts sent to her for editing.

"I love it. Every book is different. It's as though I'm being paid to get a liberal-arts education."

So many are pouring in that she is subcontracting the work she can't handle to half a dozen other freelance book editors.

rwigod@png.canwest.com

Many people are confused about the exact usage of the relative pronouns that and which in North American English. Which is correct and in what context?

That is always used in a restrictive sense, that is, it defines or narrows a category, or identifies an item in a group. A clause using the word that is necessary to the sentence or restricts the meaning. For example:

The picture that has the gilt frame is up for auction. In this example, we're told specifically that it is only the picture with the gilt frame that is up for auction and presumably no others. The clause "that has the gilt frame" defines which picture is up for auction.

Which is non-restrictive, that is, its clause is not necessary to the meaning of the sentence, but merely provides additional information about the subject. For example:

My aunt's picture, which has a gilt frame, is up for auction. In this case, the clause "which has a gilt frame" is incidental to the main sentence; it's just extra information and the sentence is not harmed if it's removed.

If all this is too complicated to remember, there's a simple rule of thumb that works in most cases. Which is almost always preceded by a comma, a dash or a parenthesis, and that is not. You would never write, for example: My aunt's picture, that has a gilt frame, is up for auction. The exception to this rule - isn't there always one? - occurs when which is used restrictively and preceded by a preposition. E.g.: The picture in which many people showed interest was up for auction.

Note that this distinction is rarely made in British English. It's also interesting to note that you can get away with substituting which for that without too many grammarians writhing in discomfort, but you can never substitute that for which. The above example, My aunt's picture, that has a gilt frame, is up for auction, is clearly wrong.

Since the advent of proportional spacing that word processing programs provide, it has been deemed unnecessary to place two spaces after a period (or other punctuation at the end of a sentence). This custom harks back to the days of typewriters, when two spaces followed a full stop at the end of a sentence. In a line of non-proportional spacing, this made it easier to discern that the sentence was, in fact, at an end. Today, both word processing and layout software such as inDesign have a tiny, built-in space in the period character, resulting in slightly more than one space after the period and subtlely allowing for the visual break the eye welcomes at a sentence's end.

Having one space instead of two at the end of a sentence is still a matter of contention in some circles. Certain people just can't let old habits rest in peace. But the great majority of publishers, book designers, and editors now advocate using only one space after a period.

Most editors want to see a manuscript arrive in ideal shape for editing, and that includes single spaces after every period. If you've created a long document or manuscript with two spaces after every period, never fear; there is a quick method to correct this. Here's how:

In MS Word, from the Edit pull-down menu, select Find. You'll get a Find and Replace dialogue box. Choose the Find tab, and in the "Find what" field, press the space bar twice. Next, select the Replace tab, and in the "Replace with" field, press the space bar once. Click on Replace all. The program will automatically replace each double space with a single space.

Run this search several times in case you've accidentally placed more than two spaces after a period. Each search will successively remove one space. This entire process takes less than a minute and will remove hundreds or thousands of double spaces in just a few keystrokes or mouse clicks.

Your editor will be delighted!