If you've followed along with my crazy tales, or even paid attention to Handy Edits on Twitter (@HandyEdits) then you'll know I'm in the process of becoming fully certified as an editor. As part of that process, I'm at the moment learning more specifically about proofreading. Proper spelling and grammar have been drilled into me from a young age and I often find myself correcting the mistakes of others without even being aware of it until someone points it out. Now, however, I'm learning the actual mechanics behind what I have been doing all along, and learning that becoming a certified editor is not as easy as most would think.
I've had a number of people scoff at my choice to become an editor. Most consider it a skill that's been replaced with spellcheck and grammar check. They don't understand just how much an editor does that has nothing to do with dotting an "i" or crossing a "T". It's something they think is easy, because they have a serious misconception of the job's duties. Even as an author, it's easy to forget sometimes just how much work editors put into your book. And that there are so many different kinds with so many different focuses. Proofreaders, copy editors, developmental editors, line editors, and more. Each one has a task, and each one focuses on a specific part of publication.
Strangely enough, most people think of proofreaders when they think of editors. Someone who is responsible for making sure there are no sentence fragments, missing or incorrect punctuation, and spelling or grammatical errors. Of course, those who work in the field know a proofreader is just one type of editor, and that there's far more to proofreading than just correcting for missing periods. But in my experience, when I tell people I'm an editor, that's what they think I do. I frequently get asked "Isn't it boring to just check spelling all day long?" and "Can you even make money doing that? I thought that's what spellcheck was for." Because of these misconceptions, people underestimate just how much work goes into any particular publication. Proofreaders are an essential and necessary part of that process.
I admit I'm only starting my education, but to learn there's a standard of marking that's universal to all proofreaders is fascinating. It means that no matter who is doing the work, anyone will be able to read it and translate it into actual changes. From author to publisher, everyone with a modicum of training will be able to understand what all the "strange little marks" mean and what to do about them. To learn there are so many, and each one means something specific, makes my neurotic little mind dance with joy, because it allows me to organize my corrections in a way that prevents me from spending hours explaining why I wrote what I wrote. They allow me to be understood, and that's something I cherish both as a writer and as an editor.
Of course, for those outside the world of publishing, they think an editor is either a proofreader, or someone larger than life like the editors portrayed in comics. In particular, the characters of J. Jonah Jameson and Perry White come to mind. Both of these are alpha males, completely in control of their publications, determined to print what fits in their vision. They're more like puppet masters in control of the media than editors, and their portrayal gives people yet another misconception about editors that has to be dispelled. Being an editor isn't necessarily about controlling the narrative. Yes, many times a story has to be approved by the highest ranking editor of a particular media outlet, and if a media outlet has an overt bias it can directly impact whether or not a story is reported. Editors in general, however, aren't interested in whether or not a piece fits a particular narrative. Instead the goal is to improve what an author or journalist has crafted until it's polished and ready for publication. It is not the role of the editor to judge, but to grow.
Particularly for proofreaders.