PEs and EAs

A former colleague who’s applying for an entry-level production editing job e-mailed yesterday with this inquiry about EAs and PEs:

Would you clear something up for me? I took their proofreading test, have to return it today, and don’t get something. The test consists of a setting manuscript (word doc marked up by the copyeditor) and corresponding first page proofs (no markings). Some of the copyeditor’s alterations are reflected in the proofs, some are not. There are also errors in the proofs which do not appear in the setting ms. The directions say to mark corrections as pe’s or ea’s, but my understanding from Chicago is that ea’s and aa’s are changes made to the proofs, therefore all discrepancies I find between the setting ms and the first page proofs would be pe’s. Or are pe’s only errors in the proofs which do not appear in the setting ms?

Did you follow that? I couldn’t. But I answered it anyway with the following tract, which I’m posting here in case anyone else out there is confused on this issue. And judging from the incorrectly marked up proofs I have to decipher from time to time, there are more than a few professional proofreaders who don’t quite get this concept: Continue reading “PEs and EAs”

The Dictionary of Record

A recent post at Heaneyland!, whose last few offerings had me gasping in great honks of laughter for more than a minute, reminds me that I’d like to make a qualified recommendation of the electronic version of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, aka the default dictionary of U.S. book publishing.

Recommended because it’s the default dictionary, and if you do anything related to book editing or production you should be in the habit of looking stuff up in it, and if you must look stuff up, it’s a lot faster to do so right on your computer than to have to get up from your desk, drag down the dead-tree version of what’s probably the previous edition of the dictionary, and thumb to the appropriate page. Continue reading “The Dictionary of Record”

Recommended: Editor's Toolkit Plus

About four years ago, when I was living entirely off my freelance editorial income (which is to say, when I was living off my savings), I spent a month or two trying to keep up with the discussions at Copyediting-L. And while regularly reading this very busy listserv may cause insanity, I do still recommend taking it in small doses, if you’re at all interested in editing. Because no matter how good you think you are at English grammar, reading just a day’s worth of wrangling on CE-L will impress upon you how vast is the portion of that realm that you don’t know. Flexibility is important in copyediting and proofreading, and once you see how even a group of longtime professional editors can disagree on what may seem like the most fundamental “rules” to you, you’re more likely to remember to wield your pencil lightly when changing all those whiches to thats.

I no longer follow CE-L, because I have actual work to do nowadays, but it was while skimming that list that I kept coming across mentions of a site called Editorium.com. Probably people were discussing Word macros, or how to use the Track Changes feature, or something like that. Editorium has an excellent newsletter that gets into all the nitty gritty bits of MS Word that people who work on manuscripts need to know—how to keep the spelling checker from skipping certain words that are correctly spelled but often misused, for instance, or how to delete unused style sheets. If you use Word, you should subscribe; it’s great.

But when I visited the site, I found that the real mindblowing thing at Editorium.com is the software—complex collections of well thought-out and documented Word macros and scripts. It’s these I can’t live without, specifically a package called Editor’s Toolkit Plus. Whenever I have to reinstall Word on my computer, the second thing I do—after turning off practically everything under the Tools->AutoCorrect menu—is install Editor’s Toolkit. Whenever I go to a new day job, I plead until we buy a license. Because without ETK, Word to me seems broken.

Continue reading “Recommended: Editor's Toolkit Plus”