Paper chase(r)

When I copyedit—especially at a level that involves some significant text changes—what I do is I . . . I . . . Maybe I shouldn't say.

It's kind of a shameful thing to admit. I've never really talked about it with other editors. One I told once looked at me blankly. So I've always assumed this is just my little oddity, something no one else needs to do. I'm slow-witted, clearly. I should keep my obvious competence lacunae to myself.

But it really helps me. I can't be the only one, right?

Okay [deep breath]. I edit the electronic file, until it looks good to me on my display screen.

Then I print it out (!) and read the printed pages (!!). And I see a million, bazillion errors and infelicities I still need to fix.

This always happens. I require a printed-page read to get my edit a lot closer to fine/rigorous/tight.

I have no idea why this is so. Does each medium light up different language-function cells, in different parts of the brain?

All I know is this: The printed-page chaser never fails to yield stuff I need to fix. I've tested this approach many times over a lot of years. I can only conclude that I see in a different way when I look at words on paper than when I read from a computer screen.

I have enough mileage as an editor to remember the time when it was ALL paper. I wouldn't go back to those days for love or money. Working with electronic files lets you really dig deep, and buff to a high-gloss finish.

But firing up the inkjet for the last round (or two) of edits is essential quality control (for me).

Hello, my name is Proof Cabinet, and I need paper.