Proofreading is definitely one of the challenges we face here. Not just because there are an infinite number of dialects, but also because languages are malleable and changeable. And, to be honest, because we like to get more than we like to give. But, hairy stuff aside, I'd like to share an excerpt I came across that could very well be used as a principle—or, at least, as a starting point. Plus, the last piece of advice is mind-blowing.
What makes a good proofreader?
...the ability to focus on each sentence as a separate unit and see what is actually there rather than what we assume is there. A good proofreader keeps aloof from what he or she is reading. Being swept away by a good story is the prime reason for missing typos. Reading from the back of a book to the beginning is a good practice to avoid getting caught up in the story and is a recommended proofreading technique.
Thalia Newland—Writer and Editor
Of course, there is much more to being a good proofreader. Proofreading requires more than just spotting errors; it's about maintaining objectivity, improving clarity, refining the flow of the text, and retaining the author's voice and vision instead of replacing it with our own.
I think I’m going to try my hand at reading posts backwards. It may not improve my proofreading but it might be fun.
Headline image by benwhitephotography on Unsplash
I would be curious to hear what you think about the backwards proofreading style after you've tried it. I can imagine the possible benefits, but also the drawbacks. First, because sometimes sentences can feel correct when they are incorrect, or vice versa, without context. (I have definitely added a suggestion, continued reading, and then removed my suggestion after learning more from the author). For my own personal experience, I find that my writing in spanish often has logical gaps. I intrinsically know something, but it never makes it to the page because I am limited by my (lack of) mastery of the language and basically forget that I haven't written everything that I had been thinking. I imagine this experience is not unique to me, and it makes me wonder if such mistakes would be overlooked by reading backwards.
Anyways, totally agree with the premise and thanks for sharing! I also hope that everyone would try to offer suggestions on another post every time they make their own. It's just a bit fairer.
I’ve noticed that some editors of Journaly posts go beyond proofreading. In their zeal to be helpful, they rewrite posts entirely, and as a result the author’s voice is lost. Then, it becomes unclear whether what was written originally is incorrect or whether the edits are simply the editor’s preferred way of saying something.
I would add that there’s a difference between proofreading and editing. Proofreading focuses on correcting errors in spelling, punctuation, grammar and formatting. Editing focuses on improving the content, structure and clarity by rewording awkward phrasing, for instance. But I think there is a limit to how much we edit. We should ask ourselves if we are “retaining the author's voice and vision instead of replacing it with our own.”
Interesting. I would add one more quality of a good proofreader: the ability to keep deadlines. Professional proofreaders often confront tight deadlines. In some way, the deadlines are the one of the most stressful aspects of the work.
The point of "retaining the author's voice and vision instead of replacing it with our own" is absolutely essential, not just at Journaly, but in general, and regardless of the technique you may use. Personally, I have an allergic reaction to people who confuse "correcting" and "rewriting", often missing the intended, underlying or clearly stated meaning altogether, changing the flow, the tone, the style, the rythm and - in the end - simply (and bluntly) destroying the authenticity of the text. Coral and her texts are a beautiful example of what an authentic text (writter) is.