What school of thought do you subscribe to? The 3, 4, 5 or 6Cs? Yes, even whilst publishing ties itself and others up in knots by calling just about every job some kind of ‘editor’, copyeditors can’t even agree on the principles of their own corner of the publishing business!
Some groups of Cs are more aligned with principles of writing rather than editing, but there’s at least one 7Cs of copyediting, apparently. Unfortunately it’s on a website that is compromised by a trojan, so I can’t get to it.
Well, hold on to your hats – I’m not content with the 3, 4, 5 or 6Cs I’ve found. I’m gunning for my own 7Cs!
But first, what have others already come up with? Because you just know I’m going to be stealing some of those.
Other people’s principles
Their lists aren’t the same but there’s a lot of overlap, which is encouraging!
3Cs: Hurix: Correctness, Consistency, Completeness
4Cs: Amy Einsohn, The Copyeditor’s Handbook: A Guide for Book Publishing and Corporate Communications (3rd edition, University of California Press, 2011, p3): Consistency, Coherence, Clarity, Correctness
5Cs: Wikipedia, in instructions for editing the site: Concise, Correct, Clear, Comprehensible, Consistent
Chartered Institute of Editing and Proofreading, Cathy Tingle blog post: Correctness, Consistency, Clarity, Completeness, Convention
6Cs: National Open University of Nigeria: Concise, Complete, Clear, Consistent, Correct, Courteous
Considering the principles
Correctness – absolutely, and all the versions include it. We get a lot of nightmares about one of our edits introducing an error into the text. But we also have a brief and a style guide to work to, and we need to be sure we follow the instructions we’re given. If those instructions are problematic, then have a conversation about them with the client.
Consistency – again, absolutely, and it’s in every list. Consistency is why copyediting is so important – it sorts out all the drifting around that writers do when they’re producing their text over an extended period of time, and get influenced by their resources, or by some spiffy new phrase they’ve heard somewhere, or because they simply get bored doing something the same way all the time and decide to spice up their text with a bit too much variety. Editors come along and calm things down – you want the reader concentrating on what you wrote about, not why ‘focusing’ is now spelled ‘focussing’.
Clarity – four of the five groups include ‘clarity’ or ‘clear’. No arguments here. Communication with the author or other client about the edits and queries about the text is crucial to a good outcome. And edits must be made with clarity for the next person in the production chain, whether that’s the typesetter or designer, the proofs collator or the desk editor, let alone the author!
Completeness – this one gets three votes and I don’t disagree with it. A half-finished edit, or an edit that picks up some examples of a problem but leaves others untouched isn’t much use to anyone. It’s the editor’s own consistency of approach here, rather than the consistency of the text that’s at issue.
Concise – this appears on two lists, and certainly with Wikipedia I get the impression it’s more about how the text ends up rather than guidance for how to copyedit.
Now we have the Cs that appear just on one list each:
Coherence (Einsohn) – this seems a bit of an overlap of clarity and completeness. But certainly in author and client communication, coherence is a plus point, as well as in the edited text.
Courteous (National Open University of Nigeria) – I entirely agree. There is no room for snark in copyeditors’ queries or comments, nor in their communication with the author or other client. As an author, it’s painful enough seeing the copyeditor’s feedback without being made to feel bad about your innocent blunders! I’ve already covered this in my 7 golden rules for writing author queries.
Comprehensible (Wikipedia) – not one I could argue with, but I’m not clear (ha!) on how this differs from clarity.
Convention (Cathy Tingle for CIEP) – I’m surprised this one isn’t on every list! You might think of this as ‘know your audience’. Each field of study has its own way of doing things; the different target readerships have their own requirements; different purposes for writing have necessarily different approaches. There are best practices for compiling questions lists in textbooks, for instance. This is all common sense.
Plus there are the current conventions of grammar, punctuation, spelling and just about every element you can think of to make up text that is intended to be read (rather than listened to). These conventions can be general, or they can be specific, e.g. as required in the publisher’s style guide.
My principles
So, what are my Cs? In alphabetical order, of those that have already appeared:
1 Complete
2 Consistent
3 Conventions
4 Correct
5 Courteous
and I’m going to add…
6 Comprehensive (not on anyone’s list)
7 Credible (ditto)
Possibly ‘comprehensive’ doesn’t appear on other people’s lists because, to a degree, it depends on the brief – on what your client wants you to do. Being comprehensive can be seen as overstepping your boundaries – privileging what you want for the text over what its originator or publisher wants.
But I’d argue that it can be interpreted within narrower bounds, as doing all that is required insofar as you stay within the brief. If there’s a severe flaw in the writing – perhaps you’ve spotted some plagiarism or libel – but it falls outside the brief, there’s nothing at all to stop the copyeditor saying, ‘Oh, by the way, this thing here may cause you a problem down the line. What do you think? Do we do something now? I just thought you should know about it.’
Why ‘credible’? Well, can you account for your edits beyond ‘it looked funny’? As any editor will tell you, this is actually a perfectly sound reason to propose or make a change ‘It looked funny’ = instinct = subconscious processing of expertise. However, your client may well prefer to see your workings – can you explain the basis for your edit in terms your author will follow?
How about you?
What principles do you work to, as a copyeditor or other editorial professional?
If you’re an author, a publisher or a project manager, what principles would you expect your editorial hires to obey?
Pop your ideas in the comments!
