The invisibility factor
10/April/2009 10:42 AM Filed in: On Editors &
WritersEditors
Serving Writers
"A
foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little
minds." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Occasionally, an author will notice discrepancies in the editing choices of different books on a subject. Which one is right? Which example should the manuscript I'm now editing follow? If the author as an expert in the field doesn't have a clear preference and if either option is acceptable according to the style guide we're using, I usually reply, "Don't worry. As long as your text is consistent, you'll be OK."
Why this emphasis on consistency? When something is consistent, it becomes invisible. If a phrase (editor in chief? editor-in-chief?) is hyphenated or not all the way through a text, the reader picks on what, not how: readers focus on the concept of the phrase and not on the way it's been edited. The editing becomes a distraction only when the same phrase appears in different ways throughout the book.
Copyediting often
reminds me of housekeeping. When it's done well, it's
invisible. When a house has been beautifully cleaned,
guests notice the decor or the view from the window
or the other guests invited to the party. Only when
housekeeping has not been done well do visitors think
about it, noticing the unswept floor or the piles of
unfolded laundry. In the same way, when all the
"little stuff" of a manuscript is consistent, readers
pay attention to what is being said rather than how
it appears on the page.
My husband tells me that this principle applies also the the role of the umpire at a baseball game. When the ump makes a good call, it's just part of the flow of the game. If he makes a bad call, the fans boo. The manager and ump may get in a shouting match. If the ump makes a really bad call, a brawl may break out.
Bad editing rarely results in punches being thrown. But my goal, ultimately, is to be a good editor: I want to make my work invisible — so that the ideas and voice of the author are the only things capturing the reader's attention.
Occasionally, an author will notice discrepancies in the editing choices of different books on a subject. Which one is right? Which example should the manuscript I'm now editing follow? If the author as an expert in the field doesn't have a clear preference and if either option is acceptable according to the style guide we're using, I usually reply, "Don't worry. As long as your text is consistent, you'll be OK."
Why this emphasis on consistency? When something is consistent, it becomes invisible. If a phrase (editor in chief? editor-in-chief?) is hyphenated or not all the way through a text, the reader picks on what, not how: readers focus on the concept of the phrase and not on the way it's been edited. The editing becomes a distraction only when the same phrase appears in different ways throughout the book.
My husband tells me that this principle applies also the the role of the umpire at a baseball game. When the ump makes a good call, it's just part of the flow of the game. If he makes a bad call, the fans boo. The manager and ump may get in a shouting match. If the ump makes a really bad call, a brawl may break out.
Bad editing rarely results in punches being thrown. But my goal, ultimately, is to be a good editor: I want to make my work invisible — so that the ideas and voice of the author are the only things capturing the reader's attention.
|
