“Are you going to make my work perfect?” is a question or rather a desire often expressed by clients. In this Ed’s Elevenses blog post, I am going to be full and frank about whether or not editorial perfection is a realistic expectation and an achievable mission. I hope clients, authors, and language users alike will benefit from understanding the pragmatic considerations underlying editorial work, and join us in contributing to a healthier editor–client relationship.
When dealing with language projects, I concur in the esteemed Catalan surrealist artist, Salvador Dalí, who said and I quote: “Have no fear of perfection — you’ll never reach it.”
How can perfection never be attained? Let’s all consider the following two key factors rationally:-
- Subjectivity
- Previous rounds of revision
Subjectivity
Perfection is a highly subjective concept. To exemplify, try this: invite five independent proofreaders and editors to work on a passage, you will be given five different versions back; pass these over to five individual readers and ask them to review the edits, you will get five different responses.
Why is it so? Well, language is alive and constantly evolving, and we ought to consider the multitude of factors that influence the way we use and perceive language.
Consider this: “A sentence that ends with a preposition is wrong.”
Some people are taught that one should never end a sentence with a preposition, so they would say yea to “From where are you travelling?” and say nay to “Where are you travelling from?”; however, other people might say the opposite, for instance, those who follow New Hart’s Rules.
Similarly, some people might argue that “infinitives shall never be split”, but The Oxford Guide of Plain English suggests that this practice is sometimes preferable, and I agree totally. You may refer to our blog post to learn more about split infinitives.
After all, the main objective of our editorial work done at The Languaging Lab is to make sure your target audience can understand what you are saying. Therefore, to me, personally, if you don’t specify a particular style for me to adopt, I will not do anything to such a sentence. I believe every language user should enjoy their rights and freedom to create, and that is the beauty of language.
Now, consider this: “Thin, deep-fried slices of potato are called ‘chips’.”
If you are thinking “Of course, that’s true, what else would you call them?”, then I would advise you to take a step back and think about regional variation.
It may be true in the US and in Hong Kong to call them “chips”; however, in the UK, it may be called “crisps” instead.
The same applies to, for example, the term “dinner”, even within the UK. In some regions, “dinner” is what one might regard as “lunch”. Interesting, eh?
If we rule something out merely because of our personal belief and limited knowledge (for instance, on the subject of singular they), then we are missing the whole point of what language essentially is about (and indeed, of what languaging is all about).
In today’s inclusive and interconnected world, I believe it is necessary for us as language users to always remind ourselves, as Louise Harnby puts it, that “one person’s rules are another’s preferences, one person’s errors are another’s push for realism; one’s ignorance is another’s knowledge”.
Previous rounds of revision
Apart from subjectivity, I believe it is important for clients to understand that it is impossible to achieve perfection in several editorial passes, let alone the one commissioned to us at The Languaging Lab.
Let’s put this into perspective by considering the following publishing process:
1. With your raw text ready, you will naturally require substantial editing. Structural/Developmental editing is the stage where the flow, coherence, relevance, and completeness are dealt with; and is where a structural/developmental editor works closely with you and makes critical and constructive suggestions and reading, in order to improve your writing.
If you are a student, the role of a structural/developmental editor may well be played by your dissertation/thesis supervisor. If you are a fiction writer, your editor will provide detailed feedback that ensures connection between your readers and your writing.
2. Next come the line editor, followed by the copyeditor. Line editing (or as we call it at The Languaging Lab, Premium Editing) aims to improve the tone, flow, and intended readership of the text at sentence level, whereas Copyediting aims to look at consistency, clarity, and accuracy.
The extent of revision at these stages is heavy as editors will make thousands of changes, including but not limited to typos, grammatical problems, inconsistent formatting (capitalisation, hyphenation, etc.), and punctuation gremlins.
3. The revised document will be returned to the client, who will review the editorial amendments and attend to queries made by editors using functions like “Track Changes” and “Comments”.
4. Once the review stage is over and done with, the reviewed file will be made into a “proof” by typesetters and layout artists (or by yourself).
5. The first proof will be sent to a proofreader. Proofreading aims to mark up major errors in consistency and correctness, like typos and missing page number, using functions like “Track Changes” and “Comments” on Word documents or BS 5261-2:2005 marks for proof correction on PDFs.
There are always errors at this stage despite the previous rounds of extensive editing, but the extent of revision at this stage is considerably lower than that in Premium Editing (line editing) or Copyediting. We are talking about tens, most of the time, or hundreds of revisions here.
6. The revised document will then be returned to the client, and the reviewed file will be sent to the designers to create the second proof.
7. The client will then review the file one last time before publishing.
As you can see from the workflow above, it is logically not possible to identify every single problem in one pass; hence, perfection is simply not possible even when your work has undergone several editorial stages.
Let’s face it: The truth
As a professional editor, I certainly aim for perfection. While I would love to tell you that “I have made extensive revision and I guarantee that I have not missed a single error in one pass”, I am sure you will, by now, know that it is merely wishful thinking.
I will not promise you perfection because I cannot, in fact, no one can provide you with that guarantee.
As a responsible editor, however much I would want to strive for perfection, I would still refuse to mislead you into believing in editorial perfection because of ethical considerations.
Let’s face it: The reality
There was a real-life case where a client once filed a complaint to a national consumer body arguing that a professional proofreader should have edited her manuscript to perfection; claiming that “the proofreader in question created a grammar problem” was a violation of editorial professionalism; and demanding a full refund.
Long story short, responding to this client, whose manuscript had clearly never been copyedited before, the manager explained to her about the factor of subjectivity and the importance of previous extensive rounds of professional revision. He emphasised that it is vital “not to mistake professionalism for perfectionism”. It was also pointed out to her that “no professional editors would, or indeed, could ever be qualified to provide anyone with that guarantee”.
Dear reader, you must have guessed what this is all about, already; I am not going to lie, a similar incident actually happened to us, too. Are we covering ourselves though? In all honesty — no. Let’s look at what the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading says about the standards in proofreading and the practicality of client expectation, particularly when the typescript in question has not been through previous rounds of extensive professional editorial revision.
Let’s face it: The standards
With regard to whether or not perfection can be expected from proofreaders, the Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading writes:
“That is the aim, but perfection is rarely possible. By the Law of Diminishing Returns, perfection requires inordinate amounts of time and money. It is not realistic, but nor are some clients. Even when time is tight, they still want perfection while paying only for ‘good enough’. If they did not pay for copy-editing, the proofreader can only sort out the worst problems . . . An experienced professional proofreader, reading a copy-edited typescript, should be able to spot and deal appropriately with at least 80% of all errors but at least 90% of typos – other things being equal.”
What does this mean for you?
In an ideal world, it would be most sensible to commission various editors to work on your typescript at different stages, however, I do acknowledge and am aware of the fact that there may only be sufficient money for most of you to commission one round of professional editorial service.
Having said that, as I believe you now understand that several rounds of revision, let alone one pass, are never enough to achieve the unattainable perfection. Therefore, I suppose it is only fair and safe to say that you will have understood what expectations are reasonable and realistic in respect of the one time you hire us to edit your work within your budget.
What does this mean for us?
Even if you only commission us to manage one editorial pass, at The Languaging Lab, we will still aim for the highest possible editorial standards and do our absolute best to help you improve the quality of your work. We will never make false promises regarding perfection as a gimmick. We pledge to run our editorial business properly and with integrity, and work on your typescript with utmost respect, professionalism, and ethics.
Looking for a professional proofreader/editor?
Learn more about the different editorial services that we offer or get in touch to discuss your language needs and budget.
Author’s note: This blog post is inspired by and built on the UK-based veteran fiction editor and proofreader Louise Harnby’s “Will your book be perfect after editing?” — an honest and pragmatic discussion on editorial perfection that offers advice and assurance to both editors and clients. A significant proportion of the content has been taken from Louise’s work, and I highly recommend you to read hers, too. I applaud Louise for standing up to unrealistic client expectations, and thank her for providing me (and other language professionals) with invaluable and practical guidance on the subject matter. I believe being honest about what is realistic and practical could effectively make a positive impact on editor–client relationship in general, as well as on the editorial industry overall. I cannot thank you enough, Louise!
Edison Tam MA MCIL CL is a Translator, Proofreader, and Copyeditor (zh-hk/en) who works with students, independent non-fiction writers, academic researchers, and clients from businesses and organisations of all sizes.
He is Chartered Linguist and Member of the Chartered Institute of Linguists (CIOL), and has undergone wide-ranging academic training in Business, Modern Languages, and Applied Linguistics in Hong Kong, London, and Barcelona.
The Languaging Lab | 香港翻譯校對服務 