Who Needs Copy Editors?

I do. And so do you. Bill Walsh of The Washington Post lays it on the line:

Readers of top-flight publications don't get their copy directly from the reporters for the same reason that a stalk of wheat and a cow do not a hamburger make, for the same reason that fiancees don't have a freshly mined chunk of carbon, mounted on a sliver of ore, deposited on their fingers. We hire editors to make the writing presentable the same way we hire designers instead of letting the stories flow onto the page or the screen scroll-style, a la Kerouac. There is a certain level of refinement that the readers expect and deserve in the presentation.

Here in the non-journalism world, I frequently have to explain to clients that a copywriter is not the same as a copy editor (hint: one writes, the other edits). Most folks don't know the difference between copy editing and proofreading, either. For them, I recommend Sherri Schultz's definitions: copy editing (she spells it as one word, Bill Walsh spells it with two; it's a style choice, and to ensure that your own choice is applied consistently you really should hire a copy editor) and proofreading.

For more on the importance of editors, see this post by Nancy Nall, which includes a priceless example of unedited newspaper copy. Excellent comments thread, too.

Comments

[goofy]

"...sharp-eyed copy editors are very important people. Can you imagine what published works would be like without them? I suspect they would be somewhat different: standard non-copy-edited English, which is what most writers write. If they do so, why are the changes made that are made? What function does copy editing serve and who wins and who loses from the attention copy editors give words? One obvious group of winners are copy editors."

Ronald Wardhaugh, Proper English

[Nancy Friedman]

Goofy: Oh, yes, copy editors are winners! They're lighting their cigars with hundred-dollar bills and laughing all the way to the bank! If investment bankers only knew, they'd be leaving Wall Street in droves for the plushly appointed corner offices that only copy editors are privileged to occupy.

In all seriousness, though, while your own prose may emerge from your computer in publishable form, I for one would no sooner go to press without a copy editor (and a proofreader) than I would cut my own hair or drill my own teeth.

[Orange]

I, a medical copyeditor, wrote a book. In the acknowledgment, the copyeditor mis-corrected a word that was actually correct (changing "Crossword Fiend" to "Crossword Friend"). Siiigh. Copyeditors are crucial, but dangit, they need to be good at their work.

[Orange]

P.S. That sigh was supposed to be in italics. Why does your Commenting Machine eat HTML code for breakfast?

[John Russell]

I rarely write for print, I'm usually writing dialogue, so my knowledge of the work of copy editors is somewhat limited.

However, one thing I've always known instinctively is that there's nothing like one's writing been looked over by a second pair of eyes -- preferably someone literate and, ideally, fresh to the subject matter. Anyone who cannot see the value of that is naive... though, as illustrated by the 'fiend/friend' example, I'd be reluctant to give them carte blanche to make changes. But then perhaps I'm in the privileged position of being able to take overall control of my own output.

[Dave Blake]

Just a comment before you post this article.

"I would rather drill my own teeth than go to press without a copy editor or a proofreader."

Test your metaphors by taking them literally. Isn't this one over the top to no particular effect? How about something more credible, like, say, "Representing yourself in court means you have a fool for a lawyer; editing your own copy means your copy editor won't be the only one wondering 'Did she didn't really mean to say that?' "

[Nancy Friedman]

Dave: Good point--and further proof of the value of copyediting!

[goofy]

I think Wardhaugh's point is that copy editing is not crucial for communication... we managed hundreds of years without it. Sort of obvious, and maybe not really relevant to your point. I just think it's a funny quote.