Technology

Editing Sure Has Changed. Or Has It?

by Gene Bodzin

It has always been part of the editor's traditional task to search for the mot juste. This was especially true in technical fields: words could not be expected to guide readers if they were not accurate, and the mechanics of production made it costly to change words once they were published. Today, however, particularly in fields where much of what is published can become obsolete within months or weeks, fewer and fewer research organizations employ a full-time copy editor to refine the wording of their texts. Instead, to keep pace with the need for current information, our offices are being equipped with the latest tools for electronic text production.

In these circumstances, four related factors are responsible for a variety of problems in the production of useful, coherent publications.

Inadequate and Improper Use of Technology

No matter how advanced technology becomes, much of the text-production process continues to be carried out manually, by people with specialized literacy skills. Even with the use of word processors, many of the basic steps have not been eliminated or changed. Raw ideas are still converted into readable prose by writers and copy editors, and verified by proofreaders.

Many experienced writers and editors first practised their craft on a typewriter. Some continue to function as they did when their only significant technological problem was how to line up carbon copies. Word-processing novices often fail to take advantage of certain software capabilities, such as formatting features. A writer who continues to use a keyboard as if it was on a typewriter unwittingly complicates life for the editors and printers who follow in the production process.

After more than a decade of movement toward automation, publishing is still in transit from paper to the electronic environment. With a small investment in time, professional-looking publications can be produced on office printing machines; so, even without altering the text, we make format changes and print out as many versions as necessary until they look right. Offices already capable of electronic text production are still overwhelmed by paper. We use technology mainly to produce paper documents.

The recognition that documents can be produced often and quickly has, along with time constraints, dulled the creative acuity of writers, editors and designers. Because technology has made it possible for them to delay changes longer in the production process, the sense of finality and urgency that used to permeate their work is rarely required in the early stages of production. Overlooking details has become less important; there will be plenty of opportunities to correct them later. Yet, although the time and money spent in printing out one draft after another are rarely figured into the final cost of producing documents, they are no less real.

Over-Reliance on Technology

Word processors and page-layout programs have made it possible for miniature publishing houses to appear everywhere. Within a brief period, many traditional factors have become irrelevant to the cost of disseminating knowledge. Number of copies, quality of paper, and design cost are almost archaic concepts.

Because computers have streamlined so much of the production process, production managers sometimes assume that machines can also help creative writers and designers develop ideas more quickly. They disregard the fact that even the most dazzling technological advances in the manipulation of data do not ensure quality. The widespread use of technology in text production is of questionable benefit unless we are also attentive to basic aspects of communication itself, such as how messages can be clearly expressed and how they might be transmitted in the most appropriate medium.

In many offices, the people who revise, lay out and produce publications have been hired because of their computer skills. While expert in the use of software, they typically know little about traditional editing and design conventions. When they publish manuscripts submitted by engineers or technicians who are also would-be book designers, it is a wonder that the results ever talk to anybody.

Technology is quality-neutral. It is only a tool, and no more capable of producing fine writing than was the smoothest fountain pen or the most advanced typewriter. The proper use of editing or design software programs requires a thorough prior knowledge of the principles of the appropriate craft. The widespread abandonment of traditional publishing skills in the rush to take advantage of technology has been accompanied by a decline in the general level of writing, and the greatest compliment that can be given to a small-run document is that it looks good.

Integration of Tasks

Writers and editors trained in design are as rare as designers who are competent editors. The boundaries of these functions are becoming increasingly blurred, however, and it is no longer easy to keep the actual tasks from impinging on each other. Editorial firms associated with designers and design companies linked to editors are often invited to bid on the same contracts to produce publications. How much attention is given to each aspect of the job will vary with the people who carry it out. Editorial and design standards can deteriorate unless practitioners in both fields respect the standards of the other and insist on skilled attention to all aspects of the process.

Isolation of Tasks

The functions of text writers, printers and designers, once largely separate, are now interlinked. Today, in the automated office, tasks have been redistributed. Secretaries are rare, editorial functions have merged, and everybody must know how to operate a word-processing program. Copy editing can continue far into the production process, but editors no longer cut and paste text; they are more likely to be administrators and coordinators, valued for the extent to which they can oversee the intricacies of publication. They must speak the jargon of designers and printers.

But if editors are generally expected to be able to rush publications into print, few are required, as a priority, to be specialists in language, logic or effective communication. At the same time, technology has made it easier to publish without editors or designers. With electronic data storage and page-layout programs, text and graphics can proceed directly from a writer to a sort of designer, who can produce a passably attractive published product.

Writers and editors have always worked closely. Today, the need for cooperation is much greater because, from the beginning, an electronically generated document is already the final version, not a model for another version. In fact, most software programs can produce the electronic equivalent of a page proof at any point in the publishing process. But the similarity between software programs is deceptive. A document produced by word-processing software differs in invisible ways from one produced by page-layout software. If writers, editors, designers and printers do not work as a team—if they insist on isolating their functions—they will be hampered by frustrations of their own making and will be unable to take advantage of the benefits of technology.

Gene Bodzin is a Publishing and Editorial Officer at Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.