Yes, I’m an author, but I make my living as a freelance writer and editor. Because of that, one might think I have little tolerance for error in written content. On the contrary, being a professional editor and writer affords me greater tolerance because I know just how difficult producing clean, well-written content is.
OK, I admit to having DNF’d a book after encountering the third copy error. Normally, three copy errors in a book wouldn’t bother me, but those three egregious mistakes were in the book’s very first sentence. Three errors in the first sentence didn’t bode well for the quality of the rest of the book.
I come across very few books so atrocious; however, that does support my constant assertion that all writers need editors. Even editors need editors.
When I finish a rough draft of a manuscript, it’s not ready for anyone else to see. There’s still a lot of work to do. I go back to the beginning of the story and start reading, hands on keyboard, eyes peeled for flaws. I correct and revise and rewrite as I go through the document. I advise other authors, especially inexperienced writers, to do the same, but with a notepad and pen at hand. That way, they can jot down those major issues that needs substantial and substantive rewriting and/or revision while they proceed through the manuscript and correct the minor flaws. After that round, I’ve got a second draft. Once again, it’s time to go through it and rigorously self-edit the document.
When the third draft is complete, it’s time to contact my editor. I could continue to review and revise ad infinitum, but the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Also called the law of marginal returns, it’s a concept primarily applied to manufacturing and finance. The basic premise focuses on the loss of utility or impact: the more you do somehing, the less benefit you derive from it. In writing, this applies to the pursuit of perfection.
Pursuing perfection is futile. The author (or editor) can tweak words and punctuation forever with ever-diminishing improvement. When the exercise yields little to no real benefit, it’s time to settle for excellence. Excellence allows some tolerance for error, because to err is human.
Only God (and perhaps mathematics) is divine. (And y’all should know that I dislike mathematics.)
Luckily, these days we have robust editing software that can assist the editing process, although software cannot replace the human eye or human understanding. At least, not yet. This often leads into a discussion as to which editing programs are the best. The answer is, as always, it depends. I believe the most robust and useful programs are AutoCrit, PerfectIt, ProWritingAid, and Hemingway. Each has its advantages and disadvantages; none should be used without a strong dose of critical thinking and evaluation of suggested changes.
So, when you read my books, yes, you’ll find some errors. My editor an I did my best to rectify them, but we’re only human. Therefore, when I read books, I apply that same tolerance.
How tolerant are you?
