The worst proof readers, the very worst, perceive themselves as ‘guardians of language’, as defenders of ‘correct usage’. They actively seek out dangling modifiers, split infinitives, sentences ending with prepositions and so forth. Paradoxically, they appear to take pleasure in the displeasure that these contraventions cause them.
I have no problem with people who are niggled by such things. People get niggled by things. It’s human nature. Personally, I can’t stand the ‘beep’ that supermarket bar-code readers make. I don’t know why. Something about the pitch and the clipped quality of the thing (it seems to stop just as it starts) winds me up. I also find the writings of the likes of Lynn Truss very entertaining. However, it is only that: entertainment. Eats, Shoots and Leaves shouldn’t be perceived as some kind of instruction manual. It’s a piece of linguistic fluff, not a stick for beating ‘less educated’ people with. I mean, ‘not a stick with which to beat ‘less educated’ people’.
The proof reader who practically obliterates a document with red scrawl is not going to be very popular when further investigation reveals that the majority of his or her comments consist of little more than splitting hairs over split infinitives and the like.
If you’re proofreading an academic tract, then, yes, you probably need to ensure that the strictest rules of grammar are adhered to. But the vast majority of documents you will proofread are likely to be presented in a less formal style, and intentionally so. When proofreading, don’t ask yourself whether or not something is grammatically correct; ask yourself is it clear, effective and pleasant to read? Obviously, some grammatical errors are likely to call into question the professionalism of the copy’s originator, so, yes, all those apostrophes do need to be in the right place and we don’t want ‘you’re’ where we’re supposed to have ‘your’ etc.
As The No-Nonsense Proofreading Course relentlessly reiterates, let common sense be your guide.
In my experience, the proof reader who labours over ‘who versus whom’ is the proof reader who misses a glaring spelling error in 36-point Helvetica Black.
For an infinitely more eloquent take on this, I highly recommend this podcast by Stephen Fry.
I have no problem with people who are niggled by such things. People get niggled by things. It’s human nature. Personally, I can’t stand the ‘beep’ that supermarket bar-code readers make. I don’t know why. Something about the pitch and the clipped quality of the thing (it seems to stop just as it starts) winds me up. I also find the writings of the likes of Lynn Truss very entertaining. However, it is only that: entertainment. Eats, Shoots and Leaves shouldn’t be perceived as some kind of instruction manual. It’s a piece of linguistic fluff, not a stick for beating ‘less educated’ people with. I mean, ‘not a stick with which to beat ‘less educated’ people’.
The proof reader who practically obliterates a document with red scrawl is not going to be very popular when further investigation reveals that the majority of his or her comments consist of little more than splitting hairs over split infinitives and the like.
If you’re proofreading an academic tract, then, yes, you probably need to ensure that the strictest rules of grammar are adhered to. But the vast majority of documents you will proofread are likely to be presented in a less formal style, and intentionally so. When proofreading, don’t ask yourself whether or not something is grammatically correct; ask yourself is it clear, effective and pleasant to read? Obviously, some grammatical errors are likely to call into question the professionalism of the copy’s originator, so, yes, all those apostrophes do need to be in the right place and we don’t want ‘you’re’ where we’re supposed to have ‘your’ etc.
As The No-Nonsense Proofreading Course relentlessly reiterates, let common sense be your guide.
In my experience, the proof reader who labours over ‘who versus whom’ is the proof reader who misses a glaring spelling error in 36-point Helvetica Black.
For an infinitely more eloquent take on this, I highly recommend this podcast by Stephen Fry.
RSS Feed
