Edmund Dulac (1882-1953), a French illustrator, worked during the “Golden era of book illustration” of the early twentieth-century. During his long career, Dulac contributed illustrations to over 800 books. His illustrations brought to life fairy tales by Hans Christian Anderson, the plays of Shakespeare, and the poems of Edgar Alan Poe. The book I had found was a reprint of the 1907 Stories from the Arabian Nights. And though it was a reprint, it was obviously printed with an understanding of the illustrations’ powerful effect on the narrative.

My friend’s friend was happy to give me the book, seeing as he was going to donate it anyway, and I looked eager to have it. So I brought the book home, with a plan to eventually have the colour-plates framed. The book sat there for a couple of years, waiting for me to get around to cutting out the plates.

A few weeks ago I was going through my books, and ended up looking through the Arabian Nights. On the front cover, written neatly in ball-point pen, was a name I’d never noticed. And since I hadn’t noticed the name, I hadn’t recognized it either. It turns out the book belonged to another of my friend’s fiancé. The next time I saw my friend’s fiancé I asked her about the book. Well, it turned out she had been given the book by her grandfather, and it was one of the few things she had from him. Years ago she lent the book to the person who gave it to me. And since it had been years since she had heard from him, she had guessed the book lost for good. But writing her name on the front cover, the thing so many of us do with our books, helped it come back to her.

It’s hard to describe the emotional connection people have to books. I wish I were a more emphatic writer, so I could express the joy and gratitude my friend’s fiancé showed when I handed her the book–all the more poignant once she knew what I had planned for it. Books are mnemonic. Especially books from our childhood. They remind us of the joy of sharing the imaginary space of a story, with our parents, siblings, relatives, and friends. Books we’ve loved connect us to our past. I was so glad to have reconnected my friend’s fiancé with her book, and her memories.

Bite-size Edits, Hugh McGuire‘s recent start-up, provides snippets of texts–some uploaded by their authors or publishers, others from the public domain–to users for them to suggest changes to, i.e. edit. That’s Bite-size Edits in a nutshell. I get that much. What I’ve had trouble understanding is the purpose of Bite-size Edits. In following the site’s development, I’ve noticed Bite-size Edits has two emergent identities: a game (impractical) and a source of editing (practical). These two indistinct identities are symptoms of Bite-size Edits’ ambiguous purpose.

I’m an editor (This is one of those times when self-disclosure seems appropriate), and being an editor, I have strong opinions about things like language, grammar, usage, good writing. I also have an opinion about the place of the editor’s craft in publishing, both book and periodical. Before I pass any further judgment about Bite-size Edits, I should make clear that I’ve spent some time on the site and am familiar with the Bite-size Edits process, so that I don’t feel my opinion is unfounded. And it’s not my intent to unduly criticize Bite-size Edits, but to provide feedback. (Hugh, you understand, right?) In fact, my interest is in helping clarify Bite-size Edits’ purpose; to sweep away some of that ambiguity.

Is it a game or a utility?

One of Bite-size Edits’ early goals was to provide a source of proofreading for Project Gutenburg texts. I think this is a great application for the site. Soon, the crowd sourcing of proofreading expanded to include editing in general–and not just for public domain texts such as those hosted at Project Gutenburg. After Bite-size Edits was launched as its own site, separate from Book Oven (another of Hugh’s projects), there was talk of the site being “addictive, soothing, and fun.” Somehow Bite-size Edits had become a game–complete with points and prizes. Games aren’t usually practical; but that initial purpose of providing a source for proofreading continues to influence how Bite-size Edits is seen.

Earlier I mentioned how Bite-size Edits suffers from an ambiguous purpose, caused by a split-identity. You can see the ambiguity in people’s conversations about the site. Erin Balser, over at Book Madame & Associates, says,

Bite-Size Edits democratizes and crowd-sources editing like never before. The possibilities for this new program are endless. Readers can become active participants in the creation of a book, editors can hone their skills, writers can draw on a super-talented and devoted community of editors. Can you imagine this in a classroom? A writing group? A communications department? Hell, Hugh and co. turned Bite-Size Edits into a game. And games are awesome.

I don’t want to read into Erin’s post too much, but it seems the comment Bite-size Edits was turned into a game was more an afterthought. The main point conveyed is the site “democratizes and crowd-sources editing.”

In their review, *openmargin dialogue said,

Bite-Size Edits was first built to allow authors to crowdsource the editing process by utilizing their social network…Of course editing contextless pieces of texts becomes a less enjoyable experience once the ‘newness’ wears off, so that’s why recently a gaming element was added.

Hoping for some clarification “from the horse’s mouth,” I went to the Bite-size edits FAQ, and found Hugh and his team had anticipated some vitriol. Choice FAQ (are these really frequently asked?) included:

You are barbarians! How can you [do] something so egregious to the precious written word?

Actually, we are doing this because we love words, we love writing, and we want to find new ways to connect people with text, to connect readers and writers. Bite-Size Edits is really a celebration of the craft of writing, and the pleasure of reading. It’s an acknowledgement of the hard work writers and editors must do to make those basic building blocks of writing — sentences — as sharp and polished as they can be. Of course, there is room for raggedness in writing too; and not every text will be improved in Bite-Size Edits. But this is a new way to connect people who love words, and that, surely, is worth a little bit of barbarism.

Or:

An editor and a writer have a sacred relationship. Have you no shame?

There is no way that Bite-Size Edits could ever replace a writer-editor relationship. It is our hope, actually, that it might create those relationships, by helping writers and editors find each other. But Bite-Size Edits is not something that should be used instead of a “real” editor, if a “real” editor is available. It can be used in addition to a real editor, in parallel with a real editor, or even in series. Still, if you don’t have access to an editor, Bite-Size Edits might be the next best thing.

Some problems with Bite-size Edits…

I might as well explain my own problems with the site as a source of editing. The first is the seeming confusion of the writer’s and editor’s craft. Writers express in the written word; editors help writers’ expression to be understood. And to do that, editors develop a list of editorial skills: proofreading, copy editing, substantive editing, developmental editing, production editing. Bite-size Edits works well for proofreading, or mechanical editing–correcting typos, spelling, grammar, and usage errors. It doesn’t work so well for stylistic editing–the recasting of sentences to ensure clarity and consistency. The contextless snippets of Bite-size Edits makes it difficult for editors to create (or maintain) clarity and consistency. A recurring problem I found with the site was finding ambiguous (or at least they appeared so) pronouns and not having enough text to find their antecedent. As an editor, this drove me up the wall. Another problem I foresee is the cliche “too many cooks spoil the broth.” Without an editorial style guide, multiple editors can make contradictory suggestions for changes, leaving the author to sort out the contradictions, trying to create or maintain consistency throughout their text.

…and some benefits

One of Bite-size Edits benefits is its accessibility; what Erin called the democratization of editing. But the source of the editing is specific: good readers. A key point in writing is having your writing read. A good reader can make valuable suggestions for changes. Good readers also make good proofers, able to correct typos, spelling, grammar, and usage–mechanical editing. But readers can’t replace the work of editors; the Bite-size Edits FAQs says as much.

My take on Bite-size Edits? It’s a fun game, but not a source of quality stylistic editing. The newspaper industry continues to confuse the writer’s and editor’s craft, cutting their copy desk staff and having reporters edit their own stories. Consequently, we see more printed errors in newspapers. Not because reporters make lousy editors, but because they aren’t trained in the editor’s craft (and they have their own deadlines to manage). I’d hate to see book publishers make a similar mistake. I don’t think Bite-size Edits is necessarily the first slide down a slippery slope, to the eventual end of copy editing as we know it. I do, however, feel writers and readers should better understand what an editor can do. As for Bite-size Edits: I’ll still play the game, but I’d be surprised if the conversation about the sites practical applications doesn’t continue. People ingeniously bend new technologies to their will, so I wont deny seeing some potential in Bite-size Edits for improving our writing. The least it does now is connect writers with readers; such an important step in the writing process.

What I’m trying to say, in a characteristically circumvent way, is that Bite-size Edits needs to clarify its purpose: is it an impractical game, or a practical utility. If it’s meant to be a utility, the type and character of the editing it provides needs to be clearer and more transparent. The site, in my opinion, is a good source of readers, but not editors (even though there are great editors on the site).

Proofreading isn’t simply about ensuring a quality publication, it’s about respect–namely, for your product and/or service, and your customers or clients. By taking the time to ensure your publications are error free, you ensure your clients and customers you respect what you do. Sure, quality and respect go hand in hand, but often organizations sacrifice quality without realizing they’ve sacrificed respect as well. So proofreading saves face. And proofreading saves money, too. If the error is big enough–or embarrassing enough–you’ll have to pay to have your publication reprinted.

Aside from typos, proofreading can catch a number of mistakes. Proofreading is meant to correct spelling, grammar, usage, and to ensure all a publication’s tables, graphs, figures, and references are accurate, in that they are formatted correctly and point to the right place in the publication. A good proofreader will also comment on readability, highlighting any phrasing that should be recast. Indeed, proofreading is another step in ensuring your publication is clear, accurate, and consistent. And that’s important to note–proofreading is another step in the editorial process. It’s not the same as copy editing. Proofreading is about getting a second opinion, a second set of eyes to look over your proofs. After working and reworking the copy of a publication, that same writer shouldn’t be expected to catch every typo or grammatical error. A fresh set of eyes is much better.

So break out the red pens and proofread each other’s work. And if that publication is going out to your clients or customers, consider having an editor look at the print proofs. No one wants to be known as the “Chariman of typos,” especially not by their clients or customers.

I’m continually looking up words in the dictionary to make sure I understand their usage. There are some tricky distinctions in the English language. For example, the difference between “continual” and “continuous.” Continual means frequently occurring; intermittent. Continuous means occurring without interruption; unceasing. If I were continuously looking up words in the dictionary, I’d get no work done. Other examples are the distinctions between “affect” and “effect,” “anytime” and any time,” and so on. Sometimes, however, usage can be idiomatic–that is, the language of the everyday or vernacular, rather than that of formal writing. A recent example of this, and one that illustrates the importance of idiomatic usage, is the use of “swine flu” vs. “H1N1.”

Health care professionals somehow convinced media to use “H1N1″ when talking about that particular strain of influenza. In spite of this, people generally kept referring to this same flu as “swine flu.” Now here is where an editor’s touch can make all the difference. When writing about this particular flu, what is the more appropriate usage? Well, it depends on your audience. And part of an editor’s role is to understand your audience and to ensure your copy speaks clearly to that audience. So, for example, if you were producing a memorandum for hospital staff, it would make the most sense to use “H1N1.” But if you were writing a piece on preparedness meant for rural families, it might be best to use “swine flu.” Emily Amos, of Word Savvy Business Writing, wrote about this on her blog. The point being, often usage has more to do with speaking to your audience than with strict prescriptivist definitions. As well as correcting simple faulty-usage, a good editor can help you choose the words that best suit your audience.

So next time you run that spelling and grammar check on your computer, give some thought to usage. The right word can go far toward clarifying your meaning for your audience.