Errors of Judgment

I have been for many years now an editor of essays, articles, short stories, novels, poetry, dissertations, theses, memoirs and business textbooks. Working with many writers across these spheres of interest, I have found to my surprise that people are sometimes more concerned with their own image as ‘all-knowing’ and ‘all-perfect’ in the eyes of the public, than with the factual accuracy of their own work. Editors are, in fact, disliked by many writers, because their role is to point out errors in the writer’s work. 

These errors may be factual, or may be stylistic - typographical errors, such as minor spelling errors, or grammatically clumsy expressions, or even an awkwardly placed comma. The factual errors are usually the author’s responsibility to check, and get right before publishing their work in the public domain, as it is the author who loses face, if they profess to be an authority on a subject, and then make inaccurate claims. 

The editor of the publication in which the article appears can then take the decision to publish a retraction in the next issue, with a list of the errata, so that the credibility and reputation of the publication does not suffer as a result. 

The public domain includes printed national or even local/regional newspapers, magazines, and quarterlies. And today, in the age of the internet, it includes blogs and Facebook posts and online articles, which have a huge global public reach, being far more accessible than any print publication could ever be. Most newspapers now have websites, where the contributors’ articles are published online, after they appear in print. 

The responsibilities of sub-editors, therefore, ideally include checking each article which will appear in their publication for these errors. They are also responsible for the layout and presentation of the content: the font used, the wording of the main headlines and the creation of sub headings which sequence and pace the article to make it clearer for readers to understand, the choice and positioning of appropriate visual images to accompany the text, and any caption quotes and the accurate citation of any accreditations for these. 

Some writers get very defensive when errors are pointed out to them. This is because they do not really understand the vital need for factual accuracy, in the service of providing public information. They feel they are losing face or being made to feel small, by the criticism of their work. They may feel that they are being reprimanded, or ‘commanded’, or even ‘scolded’ by the editor, and this is unfortunate because a professional editor will usually be seeking only to improve the writer’s work, by assisting to clear away anything which obscures or obstructs the writer’s contribution to the world, via the written and published word. I have said many writers dislike being reprimanded. When a writer is egotistical, the dislike intensifies, fuelled by self justification and personalized hostility. 

In this sense, editing is a continuing life lesson in human communication. Tact is needed, and so is determination and commitment. The editor may be seen by the writer as a ‘know-it-all’, as rude, provocative or even insulting; or - if they are a younger woman and the writer an older man - the editor may be perceived misogynistically as someone who is unreasonably focusing on ‘trivial’ matters, and this leads (depending on the levels of maturity and self restraint involved) to belittlement, disparagement and low standards of conduct on the part of the writer. 

It is a learning process, on both sides, and it is ultimately worth it, if the quality of the published work significantly improves as a result. 

I also think editing for publication has a moral dimension. What we write and disseminate in the public domain in this age of misinformation either adds to the sum of human knowledge, or detracts from and diminishes it. 

Assessment of a text and judgment of a person are very different things, and should not be conflated. A medical doctor for example does not think badly of a patient who presents with unsightly symptoms of an illness. She identifies, diagnoses, and suggests remedies. Similarly, an editor should be professional, objective, and distanced from the writer, and ‘call it as s/he sees it.’ 

If writers would set aside their egos, and master their own insecurities, it would enable a relationship of trust and respect to develop between editor and writer, which would assist the focus to be kept on the written text, which is where it belongs.