First, let’s define the difference between proofreading and
editing your work. Editing is revising to improve abstract
and opinion-rooted characteristics like clarity, flow, organization,
and development. They are easy to name and hard
to identify, but you know them when you see them abused
in someone else’s writing. Proofreading is much more
straightforward: It is finding and correcting mistakes. This
includes misspellings (or correctly spelled words used in the
wrong place, the bane of computer spell chequers, sic), sentence
fragments, punctuation, subject-verb agreement, word
omissions, all those things on which teachers drilled us in
school. Too often, these overzealous teachers stressed correctness
over content. Both are important, but not at the
expense of the other (a topic for another day). Proofreading
is typically the last stage before you dance the “I’m done!”
jig, or it should be. But if you rely on your own eyes and
brain to ferret out those mistakes, you may be making
another mistake.
Let me show you an example. Test your ability to recognize
on demand. Count the number of “f’s” in the following
sentence:
Finishing files are the result of years of scientific study combined
with the experience of years.
Did you count six? If not, you probably missed the “f’s”
in the “of’s.” The experts tell us that most readers skip the
word “of” in English because, as a mere connecting word,
it is implied and, therefore, overlooked. This type of “blindness”
is not uncommon when proofreading our own text.
Consider now the following passage floating around
the Internet. Read it; it may be a bit difficult to start, but
most likely you’ll get in its flow.
I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was
rdgnieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid. Aoccdrnig
to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer inwaht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl
mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae
the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod
as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? yaeh and I awlyas thought slpeling
was ipmorantt
How did you do? Even if you struggled with this, its
content is quite interesting. To me, it invoked a mixed
response. First, since I could read it, it did say to me how
difficult it is to proofread, a struggle that is amplified when
proofreading one’s own writing. Next, we can read this not
only because of correct first and last letters, but also because
we follow the context and know what to expect, another
source of proofreading difficulty. I say this because if you
look at individual, scrambled words out of context, deciphering
is more difficult. I recently tested some students and
found this to be the case. They had no trouble reading this
but found it much harder to unscramble isolated words.
(Personally, I have great trouble finding words in scrambled
letters and for that reason, I rarely play Scrabble with players
over 12 years old.)
If proofreading is so tough, what’s one to do? Since I’m
as inept as anyone, I went for help—the Internet! Google
got me to Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab, OWL,
which suggested some good strategies.
OWL offered two categories of strategies—general and
personalized. In the general category, it recommended taking
a break and distancing yourself from the manuscript.
Even a five-minute break helps you return with a fresh eye
and mind. You may also want to read something else during
the break to get your focus away from the original topic.
Next, OWL stressed slowing down! This will help find mistakes
that at your normal reading speed you jump over—
remember the “f’s” above.
Another strategy is to read aloud. This encourages you
to read what’s on the page and not what you think is on the
page. You may even want to point to each word as you read.
I recently used this strategy in a technical writing class and
the students were really surprised how, when they read
their own works aloud, it enabled them to find both mistakes
they’d failed to find in earlier (silent) proofreadings,
1130 THE LEADING EDGE NOVEMBER 2004
Proofreading your own writing? Forget it!
KENNETH D. MAHRER, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, U.S.
WRITER’S BLOCK
Tips, tools and techniques for technical writers
plus more profound difficulties that required revising. You
may want to slide a piece of paper down the page as you
read. This will encourage you to focus on a line-by-line review.
Another suggestion (not OWL’s) is read paragraphs at random.
This will tend to keep you from getting into a flow and
speeding up.
A favorite personal strategy is read the manuscript backwards!
This will tend to isolate words and punctuation from
the context and allow you to identify anomalies. It will also
keep you from getting into a flow.
OWL’s personalized strategies include:
• Find the sentence (or two) that gives the thesis of your
document. Can’t find it? Then structure one into an
appropriate place. Readers need this cue.
• Locate the main or key point of each paragraph. If you
can’t find one, imagine how lost your readers are in trying
to identify key issues. Fix it; restructure to include a
main point sentence or statement for each paragraph.
• Think of the most common mistakes you find in your
returned manuscripts (e.g., sentence fragments, left-out
words, run-on sentences, incorrect syntax, improper parallels,
etc.) and go through sentence by sentence looking
for one common error with each pass through. Tedious?
Yes! Necessary? Only if you want a clean manuscript.
Note, that the first two of these border on revising, but
what the heck, the goal is a readable, useful document.
AVirginia Tech Web site on proofreading says that most
errors in writing are made unconsciously (Really? And all
this time I was putting my errors in knowingly; silly, silly
me!). Nevertheless, there are two sources of unconscious
errors: First, faulty information from your kinesthetic memory.
In simple terms, if you have always misspelled a word,
you will unthinkingly do it again even after you know better.
The second source is a split second of inattention. The
mind works far faster than fingers on a keyboard or pushing
a pen. The lesson here is to work from a printout copy,
not from the computer screen. It’s too easy to drift in front
of a computer screen. (Of course, I am saying this as I work
from a computer screen but I have backup—those super editors
at the TLE. They catch me all the time!)
And my final point is that spell checkers and grammar
checkers are not a reliable line of defense. They are wonderful
compared to what it was like without them, but they
will not reliably save you from yourself. A case in point: I
proofread and spell checked this manuscript many times.
Each time through I found more mistakes (e.g., I called a
run-on sentence a rub-on sentence). Nevertheless, the final
defense, those wonderful TLE editors, found things I missed.
They do an incredible job! So, if you want to turn out a correct
manuscript, you must rely on more than yourself. Find
a tough individual or group of individuals who love finding
errors. Don’t take what they do personally—remember
it’s not a spawn, it’s a document—consider their contribution
a step toward a successful final product, a product from
which you get the credit! It works great! TLE
Corresponding author: kmahrer@do.usbr.gov
NOVEMBER 2004 THE LEADING EDGE 1131