Copyediting ICF’s second book

The Indian Copyeditors Forum’s (ICF’s) second book Copyediting: A Closer Look has a blog of mine as one of its chapters. But my contribution as an author is quite minimal in comparison with my role as the copyeditor of the book.

Although I've been with individual copyeditors through entire books, and I have nurtured hundreds of books through the entire process, copyediting ICF's second book was a personally enriching experience that went on for almost a year. I tried my best to follow almost every process that I had laid down for my copyeditors over the years. With the vast exposure that God has given me (almost 30 years in the field now), I tried every combination of method and macro I could use—besides the inevitable reading and editing—to create a great product.

Somewhat early in the project, some tough (commonsense?) decisions had to be taken. For example, the chapters did not come to me in a logical sequence (although I always had a bunch of chapters). Chapters were being written and rewritten and rearranged in the Table of Contents (TOC) even as the copyediting was in progress—not an ideal situation, but something done in an attempt to save time. This meant that an updated/revised or reviewed chapter may have the number Y, when the original chapter was numbered X. I decided to retain the original numbering till the end (till I finalized the copyedited-and-reviewed files, ready for typesetting) to avoid the myriad confusions that could arise (imagine renumbering the chapter number, tables, and figures repeatedly)! I followed this method (renumbered each chapter immediately after receipt to its original number) no matter what number it had when it was sent to me, at whatever stage. (There was a time when three chapters had the same number, but I remained sane.) Needless to say, I had folders for every stage of the process—Original, Book analysis, Markedup [formatted], Copyedited, Recopyedited, Copyediting reviewed, Prefinal, Track changes accepted, and Final files for typesetting, as well as folders for the FM/BM and various TOC versions (some of them out of necessity, and some files with revisions 1, 2, etc.).

If that paragraph made you smile or laugh out loud at the possible chaos that was avoided, I'll tell you a little secret from all my years of experience in the field: Publishing is probably one area where a lot of educated people work together with a common goal and can still create a big mess—no matter how great a product they finally produce! When a group of people work together, they may be so focused on what they are doing that they sometimes forget to connect with what happens at the next stage or at subsequent stages. And when there are groups of people working at every stage, you better be prepared for inadvertent goof-ups at any stage! Let me tell you this: I have seen such chapter-renumbering mishaps even in the projects of every major publisher I’ve worked with. Such things do happen occasionally, even when well-intentioned individuals come together to work, and our ICF volunteers are no exception. So let us look at them with compassion. It was simply because of my earlier experiences that I managed to recognize and defuse the problem at the earliest stage—to never let that mistake become a chaotic problem later.

Handling multiauthor (contributed) works can always be tricky, for various reasons. Chapters not coming in sequence AND coming in at varied time frames can themselves cause enough tension in a copyeditor! Editing the works of different authors can also seem like a daunting task, more so as every author may have a different style of writing. You will have to spend some time trying to understand not only the topic of discussion (the chapter title), but also each author’s approach to the topic and their unique way of thinking and expression of ideas. You will have to get a grip on that before you start meddling with the chapter; but doing that is not easy. That is why it is always considered a blessing if you can learn journal work first and then move on to simple book editing (editing books by one or two authors), and finally to editing multiauthor works.

And do you know what adds more confusion to this (already) difficult task of editing the works of multiple authors? Each author’s choice of font, point size, and leading! Yes, these are the fancy things that add to the confusion. And I eliminate all these at one stroke by using a customized Word styles template for the project. In fact, every chapter or book I edit has the same (familiar) look for me and I use the same (familiar) shortcuts all the time!

There can also be other variations relating to reference citations (more so if clear instructions had not been given to the authors), and you will have to choose one style and stick to it. I saw many variations in the book—and chose a single style. But some authors have the unique knack of combining different citation systems and confusing the already tired copyeditor! I did get completely lost in one chapter, forgot the chosen style and did something else, realized my mistake after clearing up the original mess, and then re-did the citations all over again.

Book design (or at least the layout of individual chapters) is another important thing. I would even say that this is the most important thing a copyeditor should ask for (other than a style guide, if at all provided) before preparing the Word styles template for the project. In fact, the template should be completely based on the design. I know there are other views on this—that one can do the copyediting independently. Over the years some publishers have understood my request immediately, and some publishers and production or workflow-design staff have even asked me why I needed the design. But having handled scholarly multiauthor texts of 100+ chapters as well as books with 20 colored boxes, each with their own heading and list styles, I'm clear that the book design must be prepared before the chapters are sent for copyediting. Some publishers may want to do it parallelly to save time. But getting the design ready (before copyediting) is one thing that will eliminate innumerable pitfalls all through the production process. I would recommend upfront preparation of the typesetting design for almost everything other than fiction.

For ICF's first book, the design was prepared after the copyediting was done. I was involved in the preparation of the design. That was also the time when I presented a webinar titled Book-Production Workflow. For ICF's second book, we reviewed the design and made minute changes to it even before I prepared the project template. We also tweaked the footnote and multilevel list styles when we realized that they could be presented in a better way.

For me, the process is everything—beyond of course a more fundamental skill, namely, the ability to analyze, understand, and edit sentences (or leave them untouched because of that understanding). For years, I had told my copyeditors that if you simply follow the process, the results and the product would be good. But following the process—in this case, a process that I decided and only I knew—simply meant integrity and self-discipline, no matter what the temptation to take an easier route.

I can honestly say that I followed every process I had given my copyeditors at various stages of my corporate life. I would even say that my overall process now IS an amazing copyedit workflow. The world does not know of it yet, and I will write about it one day. All I can say now is that I really enjoyed my own copyedit workflow.

Although I could not see the results initially—I was perfecting certain combinations of tasks even while copyediting various chapters—I would say that the final results were satisfying. When you spend your entire life finding fault and judging things—isn't that a humorous way of describing a copyeditor's life?—it's almost a miracle if you feel happy about your own work, particularly when the task is complex and it goes on for months at a stretch.

It would be easy for a copyeditor to just do his job and keep quiet. But I had a deep sense of responsibility—that this is our book, ICF's own publication on copyediting, that we must get the best from every author who has contributed to this book. So much so, I often went beyond my role and doubled up as a developmental editor. I nudged authors to add something more about a particular point, asked them to include some clarifications, gave them ideas to expand on (and sometimes recommended cutting short or clubbing certain parts). Sometimes—when I was absolutely sure of what I was doing—I went further and rearranged entire parts or groups of sentences, to make the ideas flow in a seamless manner. In most cases, these changes and recommendations were graciously accepted. One author even wanted a discussion with me (on my suggestions and her possible responses)! Although such interactions are generally not permitted (for various practical reasons), even that was allowed (after all, this is our own book), and we had a fruitful discussion, which made the chapter still better.

I’m aware that I have (as a copyeditor) caught and corrected hundreds of things in the chapters of this book. I’m more aware that I learned some tidbits from the writings of some authors or their responses to my queries. I'm also aware that I had to leave certain things untouched—despite all my internal cringing, disbelief, or dislike—because the authors wanted them that way. But despite all the efforts that a copyeditor, project manager, and proofreader may put in, omissions and errors do creep in. As mentioned earlier, my chapter in the book is simply a reproduction of one of my own blogs. It is about navigation in Word, but all the navigation is within a single Word window. It was chosen as a chapter for the book simply because of its absolute usefulness to any person using Microsoft Word for editing. When I opened my copy of the book, I discovered—to my surprise—that there was no chapter footnote indicating that it is a reproduction of a blog. The advantage of that footnote would have been that, if any reader wanted to use the few macros mentioned in the chapter, they would have known that they could easily pick up these macros digitally from my blog. I will ensure that the missing footnote is added before the next reprint.

That omission is a classic example of authors missing important things even in their own chapter while looking at the proofs! But despite such inadvertent omissions, the overall task of copyediting the book has been an extremely satisfying one. For me, it was also a way of testing my own methodology and processes (without any distraction of administrative duties, project/production/revenue reports, client meetings, standup meetings, interdepartmental meetings, review meetings, sample reviews—things that I had to accommodate earlier in my corporate life).

Acknowledgments in books are rarely long—generally a few paragraphs, sometimes just over a page. But when you see an acknowledgment that goes beyond three typeset pages and you know that you are the culprit, then you also know that you've meddled too much during the copyediting process. I guess I have said enough to kindle your curiosity to pick up the book and read the Acknowledgments!

Some editors who have taken my training, who have seen (i.e., personally experienced) the way I analyze sentences, have asked me a question innocently, out of plain curiosity: “Sir, do you also edit manuscripts, besides the training you do?” The idea behind the question was basically something like Can this man—or anyone for that matter—really analyze sentences like this in live work? My analysis of sentences (with them) was already live. But still the question arose in their minds, as they doubted whether it was practically possible to analyze sentences that way in live work.

In reply, I tell them that I do edit manuscripts, and that it is possible to analyze sentences critically even in live work. In fact, it would be meaningless to edit anything without analyzing sentences that way. And the example I give them is the way we drive home after work: so often we drive home without remembering where we paused, stopped, or accelerated, or which route we took, and we still reach home safely. In the same way, when we perfect our ability to analyze sentences, the analyses will happen almost automatically, paving the way for that sense of awe in those who see our editing skills. Steady practice leads to perfection. Krishna defines yoga as dexterity in action.

But I often downplay my answer, jokingly quoting Bernard Shaw, who said: “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

Most casual readers do not read the acknowledgments section of a book. But those who have read the Acknowledgments of ICF’s second book and are able to appreciate the results of my copyedit workflow will also understand that the method must involve something far beyond the ability to analyze sentences in live work. It involves an overall understanding of

• what we do in copyediting,
• how the production process works in general,
• who contributes in what way to the process,

and how the entire process can be strengthened at the copyediting stage by adopting a copyedit workflow that takes advantage of

• Word shortcuts,
• Word styles,
• Word macros, and
• Utilities such as
  • find and replace,
  • highlighting,
  • shading, and
  • font color

in a well-thought-out manner to create a sensible, practical, and enjoyable workflow for the copyeditor as well as help one to prepare word lists for every chapter, culminating no doubt with word lists for the entire book.

Word lists alone do not mean much—copyeditors in the West have been doing this for ages. The more important thing is designing a workflow where you not only take care of the current project but also develop your ability to do a better job on the next project by building practical and useful databases in your own field of work. What I mean is a workflow that makes you sharper and better with every piece you edit. Using Word's features in a random or need-based manner is one thing; using them in an organized way to create a seamless and enjoyable workflow is another. I feel it is this part of my copyedit workflow that even established copyeditors in the West will appreciate. I'll write about it, and perhaps demonstrate it, one day.

If investors, company heads, and influential people ever feel that academic copyediting is easy (or that it can be done by ChatGPT), this piece should let you know that it is not.

Copyediting is a complex task, with a long learning curve that extends to years. It has its rewards too, if you are willing to learn and be patient. And companies can gain too, if they are willing to train their editors to international standards. But this also requires a willingness to look beyond short-term revenues.

And setting up a copyedit workflow goes far beyond the ability to analyze and edit sentences, journal articles, and scholarly books. Our problem today seems to be an unbalanced focus on using technology without a focus on the more basic editorial skills.

If you want to know more about me, you can read it here: https://www.theartofcopyediting.com/ri-about.
If you want to know more about the effect (the results) of the processes I followed—my copyedit workflow—you can read about it in the Acknowledgments section of the book.

And once you read the Acknowledgments of the book, do come back here and leave your thoughts, or write your comments on the relevant social media post.