As a reviewer, I will deduct ½-1 point when I find a number of typos and errors/inconsistencies. Thinking on it the other day, I questioned whether this was fair, given that it can really be the editor’s fault and not the writer’s.
But is it really? As a writer, I do my best to catch all typos and inconsistencies in a manuscript, but given I’m human, I might not necessarily capture them all. As an editor, I do my best to catch all typos and inconsistencies in a manuscript, but given I’m human, I might not necessarily capture them all.
The editor in me will honestly confess that it sometimes irks me when I receive a manuscript abundant with errors, some so glaring and numerous it makes me wince. It suggests the writer completed one draft and didn’t give a fig about revising or editing. Perhaps he/she knew there’d be an editor, so why bother or worry? Who needs to sweat the small stuff, right? The manuscript was completed; that’s all that matters. That’s fine, I suppose. But what if said editor is good but not great? What happens then?
This brings me back to previous posts re the importance of proofing and editing our own work. Most writers find it a tiresome if not daunting task, and I get that. But consider it this way: it’s a valuable way [practice] to augment writing skills. The more we edit and rework—polish—the more we learn and develop. And the less we have to rely on someone else to “perfect” our product. There’s a certain degree of pride in that, don’t you think?
Today, thanks to world of e-publishing, anyone and everyone can be an author . . . which is wonderful, because traditional publishing of yesteryear made the book world a very difficult realm to break into. Yet it can also lend itself to a certain apathy, where the standard of professionalism seems less critical (that’s another post, my friends).
Conclusion? Deductions will continue . . . as will counsel re the virtues of self-editing and augmenting our skills.