I was once at an event where I met someone who worked for a newspaper. I asked him, “Are you the editor or do you write a column?” He replied, “No, I’m just the proofreader.” The answer made me laugh because he implied that he did not think highly of his role in the newspaper; In my opinion, however, the proofreader is one of the most important people in the production of any piece of writing, be it a newspaper, a book, or a marketing article.

You probably know someone, it could even be you, who delights in finding typos and telling everyone about them. This person is not afraid to post a comment on your Facebook page or blog to point out the word you misspelled. Even people who aren’t that rude will often think less of a book or publication when they see that it’s full of typos. Mistakes in a post scream shoddy work. And today, with the influx of self-published books on the market, I’m more careful than ever to read a few paragraphs and look for typos before deciding whether to spend money on a book.

An editor is a vital part of the production of a book. A traditional publisher will assign an editor to a book, but will also assign a proofreader. Often three or four people will edit/review the book before it is published. Self-published authors who do their homework usually realize they need an editor, but don’t always realize they need a proofreader, too.

An editor can also do the review, but I would caution any writer to remember that not all editors are created equal. Editors come with various qualifications and skills. One might be good at editing content to help you improve your plot and characters, but might not catch a typo like “lightning” when you meant “lightning” or even be a good speller. Another editor might be able to correctly punctuate sentences, but doesn’t have the creative mindset to know how to develop a story or make a plot flow. And even the best editor is likely to get so close to the work, as is the author, that after the first or second reading of the book, he tends to read by heart, thinking he knows what’s on the page, rather than to do it. with his eyes, who would actually see what is on the page.

The editors I know who produce quality work are horrified when typos are found in the books they have edited, and they are also willing to admit that they are not perfect, that they may miss a misspelled word or a word that is used. wrong in a given context. . And a good editor will not be territorial, but rather pleased when an author hires a proofreader to double check the work.

Problems can arise when working with a proofreader, so authors need to be upfront with the proofreader about what they want. Many times I have heard publishers complain about proofreaders because authors reply that the proofreader found all kinds of errors in the book; the editor then discovers that the proofreader, instead of proofreading, decided to play editor and rewrite the book, not correcting typos but changing sentences according to his own stylistic preferences; the author, in turn, not possessing good editing skills, might not know the difference between rephrasing a grammatically incorrect sentence and a change of style, which may lead the author to believe that the editor was incompetent because proofreader went too far from the line

To resolve this problem, authors should always inform proofreaders that they simply want the proofreader to look for typos or grammatical errors. Nothing stylistic should be changed. In addition, authors must communicate with both the proofreader and the publisher. The editor must be able to see the changes or corrections that the proofreader suggests and then approve them or explain why they should not be accepted. The editor must get this second pass both to know where he made a mistake and to make sure that the proofreader isn’t introducing new errors into the book. I can’t tell you how many times an author who hired a good publisher ends up producing a book with typos because the proofreader was incompetent. Remember, just because someone is a teacher or has an English degree does not necessarily mean that they are a good proofreader, any more than a good mechanic is necessarily a good person to design a vehicle.

When you hire an editor, let them know in advance that you plan to hire a proofreader as well. If you get argumentative about it, you might want to find a different publisher. If you and the publisher agree that a proofreader is a good idea, you can ask the publisher to recommend a proofreader, perhaps you’ve worked with a proofreader in the past and you’ve worked well together. If not, ask for recommendations from other authors you know. While you can go online to find a proofreader, it’s always best to get recommendations. And before you hire a recommended proofreader, look at the book they proofread. If Mary Jane tells you that Henry proofread her book and did a great job, but finds a typo on the first page, think again: if you read another ten pages and don’t find a typo, Henry might be a good choice; no one will catch all typos. Be sharp and do some research before hiring a proofreader.

Finally, just as you would ask your editor to sample a few pages to see if you can work with it, you should ask your proofreader to sample it to see what kind of errors or problems it will catch. . If you do rewrite your manuscript, think again or keep in mind that you are finding problems that your editor should have caught. The point is to make sure you know what you’re paying for before you hire someone.

A proofreader can be the last line of defense between an author and the reading public. Don’t try to take shortcuts by not hiring a proofreader. Good proofreading is essential to producing a quality product that will get readers raving about your book instead of ranting about your typos.