Articles

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. There are many things I love about my job.

One of the best aspects is the diversity of manuscripts that I get to edit. This year’s assortment included everything from picture books to PhD theses, and from personal development texts to post-apocalyptic epics. There were also meditative coming-of-age stories, quirky short fiction, and philosophical musings on loneliness, fate, geology and love, with a bit of sci-fi thrown in as well.

Distinct as each of these manuscripts is from any other, what is constant in all of them is the heart that has gone into their creation. Some of the texts I’ve edited this year have been deeply personal, and all contain a powerful sincerity. The courage each writer has shown in expressing and sharing these truths has been a privilege to witness.

This leads me to another wonderful quality of my job. I’m fortunate to have some incredible clients, who are not only amazing and dedicated writers but simply lovely people as well. This year, a number of them experienced the joy of becoming published authors for the first time. Others successfully completed their PhDs, entered their stories into competitions, saw their novels move closer to completion, realised their dreams of creating a print magazine, and were offered multi-book publishing deals.

Already, the new year is brimming with more exciting editing projects. I’m honoured to be involved in every one of these, and I’m looking forward to seeing what else will evolve as the months of 2017 unfold.

For now, I want to give my thanks and best wishes to all my clients, all my readers and all my colleagues. You are the ones who make this whole thing matter, and it means a lot to me.

As the year ends, I hope you find time both to reflect and to imagine. The past twelve months are sure to have brought pleasures, regrets, lessons and remembrances for every one of us. With the new year soon to begin, my hope is that we will all enjoy new adventures, new discoveries and the delightful surprises that life offers us.

Be well, my friends. And thanks for everything.

What are your highlights of 2016, writing or otherwise? What plans, projects and possibilities are you contemplating for 2017? What are you giving thanks for now?

I mean because the thing is because um like well you know how we don’t people don’t like talk like we write we sort of you know oh I’m going off over here and then I’m over here something else and it all kind of runs together whatever and then kind of because what it is is that you talk as you think you don’t really think about it you just well maybe sometimes you do but most of the time it’s just say it you don’t don’t think about it you know and I guess that maybe that kind of makes it a bit hard

Well, yes, actually. It does make it a bit hard.

If you’ve ever tried to turn spoken utterances into written text, then you will know it is not as simple as it sounds. The transformation involves a number of steps, usually beginning with transcription. Already this can present difficulties, as there are different ways to transcribe audio files. Even in their raw form, some transcripts require an exacting accuracy, while others can afford more flexibility.

The presentation of the transcription can vary as well, depending on who does it and for what purpose. Linguistic transcription, for instance, is sprinkled with cryptic symbols that signify all those meaningful parts of speech that are not words. These include, entertainingly enough, the use of the “@” symbol to indicate laughter, while the “#” symbol is applied to utterances that are deemed unintelligible or uncertain. (And suddenly hashtags make way more sense to me.)

Where things get interesting from an editor’s perspective is after the words are turned from speech into script. This is often when they need to be emended – whether slightly or significantly – to ensure they appear in an orderly form for their audience.

As the sample text above endeavours to explain, we do not speak in neatly punctuated sentences. We hedge and garble, we pivot and maunder. We cram our conversation with all manner of fillers, with the result that much of what we say isn’t really what we mean.

Quiz a scribble of editors about this and you’ll get a range of responses, shared with varying degrees of vehemence. Some will insist that no changes can be made to the text. None. Every “er”, “um”, “like” and “you know” must be retained in their original form to avoid any risk of misrepresentation. Others might argue that the inclusion of such phrases is disrespectful to the speaker, who would surely prefer to seem lucid and intelligent in print. You’ll also find editors who will cheerfully change the odd spoken word or two in order to bend a sentence into a correct grammatical form. Their colleagues may do so too, but more warily.

Depending on the context, any and all of these approaches could be appropriate. In determining what to do, editors must take into consideration the preferences of their clients, the needs of the readership and the nature of the publication, as well as their own inclination. In some cases, a verbatim presentation of the speech as spoken is the only ethical option. Yet even here, complexity arises, as the words must still be shaped into written discourse. At the very least, this involves the application of some punctuation, and even the most benign of these marks can change the interpretation of a phrase.

One illustration of this involves the words “you know”. These are often heard in speech, but can prove problematic to punctuate. Note the difference in the following:

It can be an interesting process, you know? It’s not always as obvious as it seems.
It can be an interesting process. You know, it’s not always as obvious as it seems.
It can be an interesting process. You know it’s not always as obvious as it seems.

The absence or addition of the question mark, comma and full stop alters the nuance of this utterance. In the first version, the words “you know” are used to seek confirmation of understanding or agreement. In the second, they seem to express a reflective insight, while in the third they serve as an instructive or even didactic mechanism. While the overall meaning of the remark may be similar in all three, the mood decidedly is not.

Without hearing the intonation of the speaker, it would be difficult to determine which is the most exact rendition. The answer may be apparent in the transcription itself, but transcribers do not always add all relevant textual details. Editors therefore need to be prudent when placing punctuation in the written version of a spoken source. If necessary, they should check for accuracy with the client, transcriber or speaker.

Ellipses can be interesting in this regard too. Otherwise known as those three little dots (“…”), they are used to indicate omissions, such as when words are left out of a direct quotation. You may also have seen them beetling off the end of a sentence, as if to show uncertainty or an unfinished thought or an idea that just kind of trails away… A bit like that, really. They can be troublesome when present in the written account of a spoken text because they could be interpreted as serving either of their functions. Again, it’s best that editors confirm their usage is correct.

One other piece of punctuation to mention is square brackets. These are used in cases of of editorial insertion and contain something that did not appear in the original. Instances of this may include introducing a person’s full name in place of a personal pronoun or adding a word for the purposes of precision or grammatical clarity.

This brings us to the question of how to edit the rather garbled passage at the start of this piece. If I were editing the text as a quotation in an article and had consent to make changes, I may do something like this:
People don’t talk like we write. We sort of go off over here and then over here to something else, and it all kind of runs together. You talk as you think, and you don’t really think about it. Well, maybe sometimes you do, but most of the time you just say it, and I guess that kind of makes it a bit hard.

If I needed to maintain a closer adherence to the original utterance, it might look like this:
I mean, the thing is, well, you know how we don’t, people don’t, like, talk like we write. We sort of, you know, ‘Oh, I’m going off over here and then I’m over here [to] something else’, and it all kind of runs together, whatever. And what it is is that you talk as you think. You don’t really think about it, you just – well maybe sometimes you do – but most of the time, [you] just say it. You don’t think about it, you know? And I guess that maybe that kind of makes it a bit hard.

It is worthwhile reflecting on the difference that would be made in the above example if a question mark rather than a full stop ended the first sentence. As it is, the phrase “you know how we don’t” appears as more of a definitive statement than a query. Similarly, a semicolon could be used instead of the full stop after “talk as you think”, and a full stop could replace the comma after “don’t really think about it”. Would that change the meaning or emphasis at all?

One other oddity to note is the repeated “is” in the third sentence. This known as a double copula, a reduplicative copula, a ‘double is’ (sometimes ‘double-is’) or, neatly, as an ‘isis’. Debate surrounds whether or not these can be judged as acceptable grammatical constructions, while a whole separate squabble circles around how to punctuate them. If I encountered one of these in writing, I would most likely try to revise it. They are yet another illustration of the issues that can emerge when editing the written form of spoken words.

This discussion has raised a number of these conundrums, but there are of course many more for editors to ponder and resolve. We have also dipped into some (hopefully edifying) digressions here, all of which bear some relevance to the matter at hand.

The reality is that when it comes to editing texts that derive from speech, there’s quite a bit to consider. You know?

What challenges have you faced when turning speech into text? Have you ever had your spoken words edited by someone else? What was that experience like? And just between us, you did find those little diversions about linguistic transcription, ellipses and reduplicative copula interesting, didn’t you?

One of the wonderful things about my job is the opportunity I have to work with authors in a variety of genres. From novels to memoirs to academic texts, each style of writing presents a different challenge, and although I wouldn’t like to pick a favourite, I do find a definite pleasure in editing poetry.

There is something in the rhythm and precision of a poem that really appeals to me, both as a reader and an editor. At its best, poetry presents a new or skewed vision of the world we know, inviting us to encounter the familiar in wondrous ways. It does this partly by playing with language – exploring it, inciting it and ultimately enlivening it – and that’s what makes it so intriguing to edit.

Regardless of the material before me, my aim as an editor is always to ensure the text is clear, consistent and correct. Crucial to my work is an ability to see what needs to be altered and to identify what could be improved. I am confident in my understanding of how language works and will happily make changes to grammar, punctuation and spelling in most styles of writing. I will also rephrase sentences as necessary, although the writer may decide whether to accept these revisions or not.

When it comes to poetry, however, my approach is different. In a poem, the usual rules of form and even meaning may be set aside. Perhaps more so than other kinds of writing, poetry is idiosyncratic. It can be very personal as well, and it is for these reasons that I edit it with a greater sense of deference.

These observations could relate to the tone or imagery of the poem. They may question the position of a line break or highlight a shift in cadence. I could offer you my perception of the metaphor you are using, or encourage you to be braver and take your poem even further. Such reflections are made as comments on your document, and any changes are usually accompanied by an explanation.

With all my clients, I am happy to discuss my corrections and suggestions. I hold strongly to the value of shared respect between author and editor. It is a reciprocal process, a dance of response; yet here again, the sensibility differs a little when I work with a poet.

Editing poetry involves being guided more by instinct. I consider my impressions and then share them with the poet, who can in turn affirm or adjust the poem. It is a distinct way of thinking and of engaging with a text, and it fascinates me.

Perhaps if I were a poet myself, I could express the sense of it more cogently. For now, I will continue to search for the words to convey that allure, and I’ll welcome the chance to do more of this kind of editing.

Have you ever had your poetry edited? What was the experience like for you? What matters to you when an editor engages with your poems?