Reading Reflection #4
Both editing with a hard copy and with a digital copy come with their advantages, along with their own unique challenges. No one way or method is correct, like many other facets of editing, and both have their own place and time that they are appropriate.
I like the idea of working with a hard copy a lot as I think that there is something almost romantic about the idea of it. It is the same feeling that I have about books in contrast to kindles or ebooks. There is just something about the feel of a manuscript or book in your hands that you just don’t get with a digital medium. I appreciate the tangibility of physical copies, and think that it can feel more personal when working with something that you can put your hands on. It almost feels more like an art, this way. This method, in most cases, I would expect to be more preferable for the editor than the author. For an author, this method could be frustrating, unless they are handwriting their work or using a typewriter onto the pages themselves. If they are working in a digital format, the transposition from digital to physical could potentially be inconvenient or unwanted. As an editor, and for myself, I think that hand editing could be easier to follow. I know that when using the track changes feature on word, being able to see the changes sometimes makes it difficult to find what I’m looking for in the text. I find that the readability of changes being marked by hand is easier to take in and work with. Coming back to the author, though, these changes may be more difficult to make on paper. Say, for example, we have an author who is married to their typewriter, and wouldn’t change their writing medium for the world. If that change is to be made, it will take far more work to make the edit on the physical page than it would be in a digital format where a few keystrokes would take care of the job.
I think that the merits of using a digital medium are great, despite the lack of romanticism associated with a screen. There are so many digital tools that you can use to make the work easier or more efficient. Especially in the business of making the first pass edit on a document to correct punctuations, spelling, or other copy-editing errors, working with the digital page allows you the use of more tools that are easily accessed. On the other side of that same coin, though, is the lack of retention that comes along with those tools. Sure, you can hone your craft as an editor by not using these tools in a digital environment, but they are there at your disposal, and I think that there is the potential for better retention of editing knowledge when you are working with the physical copy. I have always been a paper and pencil gal when it comes to notes to help me better understand material, or remember important things, and I think that we lose some of that when we are working with Microsoft Word and Google Docs.
The ease of editing that comes along with a digital format is appealing to many authors and editors alike. The transport of these files is much simpler and almost instantaneous, with changes being an email away from their recipient. If you are working in a Microsoft Word document that you both have access to, the author can see the editor making changes in real time without the necessity for the exchange of documents. This can cut down on the time it takes to bring a manuscript to its final form, and can allow for collaboration between artist and editor from separate locations.
For myself, I think that a mix is what I prefer. I know that when I edit chapters of my husband’s work, I prefer to be working with it in a digital format so that he can see my changes easily, update them, and we can develop the work further efficiently and collaboratively. When I edit more short-form media, like a script, I prefer to have the paper in my hands and make edits on the page itself. Both methods have their merits, and to be proficient in both allows you to make the most out of any edit with any author.
