 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Proofreading tricks
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 09 Jan 07 - 04:00 AM Widows. orphans, rivers & lakes. A widow, in printing terms, is when the last word of a paragraph is the first word on a page. It doesn't look nice. An orphan is similar, but in the middle of a page. Ending a paragraph with a single word on a line is not attractive. Lakes & rivers are easiest to spot if you turn the text upside down. A "lake" is formed when adjascent word spaces in consecutive lines amalgamate to form a gap in the text. A river is formed when such gaps snake across a page. Getting rid of these really improves the appearance of text. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 08 Jan 07 - 05:49 PM Is this the place to request a proofreading intervention for Bobert? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Rowan Date: 08 Jan 07 - 05:31 PM Ah, Slag, you've hit on one of my little jokes with Australian swimmers. In the (very) distant past, a "Freestyle" event in swimming competition meant that you could use any stroke; there was debate about whether butterfly or backstroke was the faster and "Freestyle" meant specialists in either could compete with each other in the one event. Then along came a guy from Papua New Guinea (or thereabouts) early in the 20th Century to compete in Australian events; he used an overarm stroke that was unbeatable. It was quickly taken up by Australians and dubbed "the Australian crawl." Once the Australians used it in international competition nobody ever again bothered with backstroke or butterfly in "Freestyle" events. Versions of it abound but these days "freestyle" really is "the Australian crawl" but very few modern swimmers know it. Thanks for the excuse. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Slag Date: 08 Jan 07 - 02:55 AM Dear Uncle DaveO, my apologies for not getting your name right. That was just laziness on my part. Thank you for your exposition! it was a serious question and I appreciate you entire answer. Rowan. Was that Austrailien "Freestyle"? If you swim against the current you will slow down to a crawl. More apologies all around |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Rowan Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:44 PM I might be swimming against the current, given the current thread drift, but a couple of earlier posters mentioned Style Guides for the US and the UK. The equivalent in Australia is "The Australian Style Manual." And I agree with DaveO. Sometimes the best results (in all sorts of activities) are achieved when you slow down. Cheers, Rowan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 09:03 PM Really. How would counting the leters help? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST, Topsie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:04 PM Yes, read it slowly and carefully, but . . . COUNTING THE LETTERS? Are you serious? I think not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 07 Jan 07 - 04:48 PM GUEST,syllabull got it right. The magic word in proofreading is "slow". Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST,syllabull Date: 07 Jan 07 - 03:48 PM I should not make my departure without revisiting a method I mentioned in the first post. When I try to check what I've written by sounding out the syllables, if I speak more or less in monotone I tend to lull myself into inattention. If I use silly-sounding inflections and tones of voice, however, I'm more likely to notice my errors. The method might best be tried alone, as laughter can be quite distracting. Two days ago another low-tech method occurred to me; i.e., in suspect passages, counting the letters of each syllable and monosyllabic word as I silently read it. Like any method I use, it's slow. Thanks again |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:43 PM Walt Whitman also. But his changes to Leaves of Grass would be revisions, not corrections. That also drives publishers and professors nuts--which version to is best, most authoritative, whatever? You can have a classroom of students who each pulled Mom or Dad's copy of Leaves of Grass off of the family bookshelf to use in class, but they varied so much over the years that it is almost impossible for all to be on the same page at once. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST, Topsie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM I read that James Joyce was constantly changing his manuscripts, even at proof stage - much to the frustration of his publishers - and laughing to himself as he did so. If he had been given more time Molly Bloom's soliloquy might well have changed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:14 PM Faulkner wrote when he was drunk. He said so. One anecdote he told about himself concerned a time when a local in Oxford, Mississippi asked him about one of his books. A gas station attendant, as I recall. The man said he finally tried to read one of Faulkner's novels, since he won that Nobel Prize, but the book didn't make any sense to him. And Faulkner said he didn't remember the particulars of the story, since he was drunk when he wrote it. Someone somewhere had to go through the stuff and decide what was publishable. I'm glad they did. There's a Faulkner character in the movie "Barton Fink." His "honey" wrote all his books. Hilarious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 07 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM Slag asked: David O, I 've always wondered when someone has the court reporter read back some statement does that also get put into the record? Including the re-reading? Slag, the answer is a definite, unequivocal "maybe". The transcript might look like this: Q Did you shoot the decedent? MR. JONES: Could we have the question re-read, please? [The reporter read the pending question.] But suppose the request was a lot later, after the question was answered, and there may have been several objections and argument. MR. JONES: Your Honor, could we hear what the original question and answer was? [The reporter read a previous question and answer, as follows: Question: "Did you shoot the decedent?" Answer: "The gun went off."] The key here is that the reader must be made completely clear on what was read back. In the first example, "the pending question" is fine, because there was no answer given before the readback, so the question is still pending, and it's recent enough (probably on the same page), that with a single glance the reader can find and identify it. Some formal matters are not reported, but merely summarized: [The witness was sworn.] There is no need to give the actual verbiage of the oath, because it never varies, and as I see it, the administration of the oath is more of an event than speech as such. There is a difference of opinion among reporters about how to handle such things as "uh-huh", or a nod or shake of the head. Some reporters advocate rendering "uh-huh" or a nod of the head as "yes". I see this as falsifying the record. "Uh-huh" and "huh-uh" are WORDS, and the witness's choice of wording is his and no-one else's. Indeed, how the witness expresses himself may affect the reader's judgment of his education and/or character, and thus his credibility. A nod or a shake of the head, while not verbal, has a culturally understood meaning of positive or negative, and I think it is effectively "speech". If there's a nod or shake of the head, EVERYBODY IN THE COURTROOM knows what the answer was just as clearly as if the words "yes" or "no" were uttered. Indeed, so powerful is the conditioning in our brains that many of those present would later tell you that the witness said the words "yes" or "no". Sorry, I didn't mean to get off into my lecture mode. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Captain Ginger Date: 07 Jan 07 - 05:38 AM Interesting, the idea that some passages have to be read aloud to 'settle' the punctuation. Conversely, however, you have the peerless Molly Bloom's soliloquy, with just three full stops (periods) in the whole screed, and it cries aloud to be read aloud; the voice careering along in breathless abandon and choosing its own rests free from the straitjacket of punctuation. The last few lines, ending in the sleepy 'yes' and the last full stop are, to me, among the most moving and life-affirming words ever written. Anyone inserting so much as a single comma into such a passage would deservedly be lynched! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Slag Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:56 AM 6 Steinbeck couldn't spell worth a damn and he knew it and he always tried to get someone else to proof his work if he could. David O, I 've always wondered when someone has the court reporter read back some statement does that also get put into the record? Including the re-reading? Wee Willie had a definite pattern to his patter. He could have been a preacher! But for a few little problems. He could surround an idea or a mood with a heard of words and corral the whole thing and then in addition to the lowing of the words themselves you would catch the distinct aroma of the stockyards although it was nowhere stated. Did you like that? On the fly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Stilly River Sage Date: 07 Jan 07 - 01:42 AM Faulkner isn't as print "readerly" as some writers--he is better when his work is read aloud, when it is heard by a listener who is breathing at the same rate as the reader. When I was in graduate school I had the opportunity one semester to read both Faulkner and Henry David Thoreau, and they are polar opposites as writers. Thoreau addressed the page much differently, I daresay he did a lot of proof reading and revisions, and his text is meant to be seen by the reader--if you listen to a recorded version of Walden you miss a lot. I found I had to go back to the book to see what he was talking about (sketches and figures and such). I can't tell you the history of how Faulkner wrote, but I surmise that editing did happen at some point in time because "corrected" versions of his work kept appearing. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Seamus Kennedy Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:26 AM I have joHn9 from Hull do my proofreading for me. *G* Hi Jihn! Seamus |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: katlaughing Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:13 AM The reading aloud, as SRS said, really works well! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Janie Date: 07 Jan 07 - 12:12 AM LOL! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:42 PM I have no problem reading Faulker, he just had a problem ending a sentence, but then he said he wrote best when he was tanked, so maybe it's the likker talking, and I think he was heavily edited, like Thomas Wolfe, and there's nothing wrong with that, both were great writers, and Faulkner especially, don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Jan 07 - 11:30 PM If you listen to Faulkner, there is a pattern to his writing that makes it clear he read out loud. It's a very listener friendly style. Find a recorded book (one of my favorites is Go Down, Moses) and listen to it. By the time you finish listening you won't have any problem reading Faulkner. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 10:57 PM Faulkner proofread? All those commas were intentional? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:38 PM Captain Ginger - You must be a real ol'fart like me to even remember Pitman. I'll concede that you can use a wedge tipped pencil, but it takes lots of practice to use the wedge and at the same time keep the wedge so that it keeps working. Much easier, I would think, with an inkpen that you can just spread the nib on. I never worked up enough speed with either to take dictation, but I've used Greg quite a lot for years to take notes. It's especially handy when the slob in the next seat gets annoying trying to read your notes over your shoulder - especially when they start talkin' instead of letting you take your notes. I'd be a bit afraid to use it much in public now, since somebody would probably think I was writing in one of the suspect funny languages and the "patriot patrol" would haul me in. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST,syllabull Date: 06 Jan 07 - 09:05 PM Thank you to each of you who has shared methods helpful to you. I have just learned from a a reliable source that access denial has begun. My disenchantment will curtail my participation here.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:35 PM The whole point of proofreading is to see if it will look right and make sense to the reader. So by definition it means getting a new pair of eyes (i.e. another person) to do it! Period! If you are proofing someone elses finished product versus their rough written draft, then a good 'trick' is to place the copy side by side and literally use your two index fingers running underneath the words one at a time, reading along and comparing the two. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Amos Date: 06 Jan 07 - 08:17 PM For shorter documents it is useful to read the lines backwards. It breaks the automatic pattern recognition up a little so you assume less about what is on the page. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Deckman Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:26 PM Here'another suggestion: write it, then translate it to another language. Read it in that language and translate it back again (I recommend Finnish for all of you Inglish speakers)! CHEERS, Bob(deckman)Nelson |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:19 PM Found it on Mr Google. Don't cheat! Because if you did, the test would be no fun. I promise, there are no tricks to the test. Read the sentence below and count the F's in that sentence. Count them ONLY ONCE. Do not go back and count them again. See solutions for your score. FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE- SULT OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF- IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF YEARS. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Paul from Hull Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:15 PM Hmmm...that vaguely rings a bell Peace, but I cant think of it sorry. Doubtless someone here will come up with it though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:13 PM ..and in the UK we have T-line instead of Greg; and neither has the potential for speed that Pitman does. At anything over 110wpm, there's nothing to match it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM Ooh John, you stick-in-the-mud - a 2B pencil sharpened with a knife is perfect for Pitman; thick and thin lines become almost instinctive as you vary the pressure. That said, machine shorthand is pretty darned absolute - far less room for mis-diagnosis than Pitman. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:08 PM Paul, thank you. Do you have the one where there are six 'Fs' in the sentence and most folks miss counting three of them? (Uses the word 'of' and that's the letter f that folks just don't "see".) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM Congrats and thanks to DaveO for a fine exposition of the problems of his profession. One of the problems that some courts were finding in my area a few years ago came from some reporters/recorders who were not quite so thorough. One judge was lamenting a rather large number of stenographic records that had never been transcribed from the shorthand - and they were so old they were in Pitman, which nobody - even then, a decade ago - could read. A current case that referred back to them was pretty much locked out of having them reviewed. (The Pitman system died, replaced by Greg, because one cannot write Pitman with anything but a fountain pen - or goose quill.) John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Paul from Hull Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM Peace, another is Lilacs in the the Springtime |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Captain Ginger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 05:30 PM DaveO - nuff respect; that's what I call an intensive writing career. I shouldn't think there are many here who could come remotely near your experience. For what it's worth, I'm a Luddite - if I have to submit a document that matters, I'll read a proof in hard copy first and use old-fashioned proof-reader's marks. I still seem to miss too many literals and blips on-screen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:40 PM The bear went over the the mountain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Les from Hull Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:38 PM All excellent advice here. I agree with the comment about 'get someone else to do it'. Ideally, get up to about four other people to do it, depending on its length and importance. Ideally your proofreaders should have the necessary skills and be aware of who your writing is intended for. They should also know what they are being asked to look for: spelling, grammar, style, layout. Another trick is to read line by line, covering the rest of the text with something opaque. Spell check and grammar check are useful as long as you understand what they do (and don't) do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Don Firth Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:24 PM If you're hot to post something in response to someone else, all bets are off. But in other situations, I usually let a piece of writing sit for a couple of days, then pull it up again and read it. I see a lot of stuff I just didn't see before. Another thing I've found very helpful is to print something out and read it as hard-copy, pencil in hand. Usually works for me. Best, I get my wife to read it. She used to be an editor for a publishing company. Very quick eye. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:21 PM I am, so to speak, a professional proofreader. By "so to speak", I mean that for forty-six years I have been a court reporter. I take down, in high-speed machine shorthand, every last word said in a meeting, along with the identification of the speaker, and what punctuation I can insert "on the fly" at three to four words a second. For twenty-two of those years I would dictate on a transcription machine everything, including paragraphing, speaker identification, and punctuation, and send the recording to a typist. Then I'd proofread what I got back from her. In the 80s, computer transcription came along, and I would deal on screen with what amounted to a rough draft, which will have to be paragraphed, punctuation corrected, and speaker identification checked/corrected. You should understand that I deal with others' logic, vocabulary, grammar, and syntax. So I need to know a lot about "the rules" but I can almost never apply them in a formally "correct" way. I have to apply "the rules" in something of an approximate way, trying to clarify the words that speakers supply by what is sometimes creative punctuation, and insightful paragraphing. In the years with the court before my retirement I would produce anywhere from nine thousand to fifteen thousand pages! Please believe that in that one fifteen-thousand-page year the level of proofreading was much lower than what I discuss below. Once through the text--which may produce two hundred fifty pages for one day's proceedings--I know that I absolutely may not, cannot just print out what I've produced. First I run what some would call a spell checker. The manufacturer calls it "an automated editing system". It's a spell checker all right, but it finds and flags repeated words, certain typical errors in speaker identification, and many punctuation errors. The punctuation errors of course may not be errors at all in the context of my work as described. After I deal with those possible changes, am I ready to print? Not on your life! Now I read the entire job while listening to a backup tape recording of the session. I always find problems that escaped in the previous steps. So now am I ready to print? Not on yer tintype, McGee! Now I read the whole thing again with the tape, trying hard to read with a deliberate, word-by-word focused attention, with no room for any kind of skimming. Again, I will almost always find something wrong even at this late stage. At this point I am so heartily sick of the whole matter that I declare it done. Any further proofreading, in addition to wasting a lot of extra time for very little more improvement, would drive me even crazier than I am by this time. I print. And STILL, if I were to read the hard copy (which I try to avoid), I will sometimes find something. Oh, well. In another post I'll probably discuss what I do to proofread my on-line posts, which is an entirely different matter. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Bat Goddess Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM Lots of good suggestions above. Especially true is that it is very very difficult to proofread your own work. A bit easier if you've let it sit awhile, but you'll still only see (especially as regards to interpreting type specs, etc.) what you saw the first time. Depends, too, on what you are proofreading for. Your document needs to be read several times -- once for each thing you're looking for. Such as once word for word with your original copy to ensure everything is there and spelled and punctuated correctly, second for sense and to catch awkard wording, grammatical errors, etc. and another time for adherence to type specs, hyphention (bad breaks or too many in a row), rag, etc. Words Into Type is another good reference for USers. If you're proofing your own work, Spell Check can be useful but you have to recognize that it can only catch some slips of the keyboard and you actually have to engage your brain when using it (and ignore most of its suggestions). Linn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:03 PM Faulkner, Steinbeck, many others, swore by reading out loud. Just so you know! Doesn't matter how long it is, or how tiring. If you want a good effective way to proof a piece, print it out and read it out loud off of the page. Pencil in hand to make corrections. That's all I have to say. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Peace Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:30 PM I agerr wiht pOgder. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Slag Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:04 PM Of Course! Wished I'd have thought of dat! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Podger Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:48 PM Do it right the first time and you won't have to proofread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: GUEST, Topsie Date: 06 Jan 07 - 04:23 AM I don't read it out loud - that would take too long and be very tiring. But I do pronounce it all in my head. The Chicago Manual of Style is fine for US style, but for the UK you should get Judith Butcher, Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Slag Date: 06 Jan 07 - 03:38 AM The following does not include the internet. Obviously. When I proof my own work I look beginning to end for spelling only. I then scan back to front for phrasing and sentence structure. That way I don't get lost in content. Last it front to back for grammar and content. That's always work pretty well for me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Rasener Date: 06 Jan 07 - 02:37 AM My wife is a professional freelance translator. She translates from English to her mother tongue which is Dutch. Mostly the translation houses that she does the work for, do all the proofreading. Occasionally she has to proofread her own work (which she doesn't like doing)and on all occasions she does a spellcheck and grammar check,and then prints the work out and proofreads the hard copy. She also gets work to proofread from other translators who have done work for the agencies. Very often she is appalled at the standard of some of the translators. She has a degree in both English and Dutch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:30 AM Akin to the old saw about "only a fool has himself for a lawyer" is the rule that NOBODY should attempt to proof his/her own work. The corollary rule that the proofer must know more about grammar, layout, spelling, punctuation, capitalization, etc, than the writer should be sufficient to encourage hiring a good proofer for anything critical. BUT WHEN YOU DO attempt to proof your own - A break of at least a day between composing and proofing is almost mandatory. It also helps, as noted above, to print the work in a different font/spacing/layout than used for the original composition. If you must "do it on screen" (assuming that's where you composed it) then at least open a copy and change ALL OF THE FONTS to a different typeface than what you used to compose. When you can spot the difference between a normal "." and an italic "." on a printout, you may forgo getting a professional proofer - if working on something for formal publication - maybe. The purpose and readership for your work will determine which references are best, but the Chicago Manual of Style and Websters Collegiate should be by your side and be used for common kinds of work. Note that it does take some skill/experience to learn when you need to look it up - for most of us. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:28 AM Read it out loud. You'll find a lot things that way, and you'll find sentences that don't flow the way you intended much easier if they are spoken. I am dyslexic, so as a writer, I have to give articles time to cool before I proofread them or I won't see errors. But the out loud reading is as solid a "trick" as anything else you can do. The syllable by syllable thing sounds excruciating more than anything else. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Proofreading tricks From: freda underhill Date: 06 Jan 07 - 12:00 AM In my job I have to edit my own and other's writing. I have to pick up spelling mistakes, changes in font, spacing and formatting irregularities and poor writing. It's hard for me to pick up all errors in the moment & on the screen - I can edit other people's work more easily than my own. For my own work I do better when I print off what I have written, and re-read the hard copy an hour or so later, or the next morning, pen in hand. One technique is to use a ruler and go down the page line by line, until each paragraph has been cleared or amended. good luck freda |
