It’s ridiculous, really. I shouldn’t have to spend an hour considering how to write my own job title. I mean, come on, I’ve been an editor long enough. Isn’t it my duty to stay on top of this kind of thing?
Well, yes, it is. In theory. But it turns out that even those who are employed in the editorial profession can’t agree among themselves on what they should be called.
Time to weigh in
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that editors can have various job titles, depending on exactly where they work and exactly what they do. That, however, is not what I’m talking about here.
Today, I’d like to explore one specific issue: how should the words “copy” and “editor” behave when they become, um, intimately involved?
Should they remain two separate words, or be linked forever by a hyphen, or throw caution to the wind and smoosh together into one lovely, big compound word?
In the red corner
Judith Butcher, the doyenne of the copy-editing world, was quite clear on this point: the activity was “copy-editing” and the person who did it was a “copy-editor”.
Considering that Judith played a fundamental role in the establishment of copy editing as a semi-respectable profession, and also wrote the definitive handbook on the topic, the snappily titled Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders,* perhaps we should listen to her.
There we go, then. Job done.
In the blue corner – and the yellow corner
Except… some of us can’t help wondering why that hyphen was ever there in the first place. Was it simply copied over from the term “sub-editor”, Judith’s original job title?
“Sub” is, of course, a prefix and therefore fully deserving of its little connecting line.
“Copy”, on the other hand? Not so much. That’s a full-fledged word of its own. It’ll happily accept the help of a hyphen when it’s time to grab a partner and settle into a comfortable threesome with a nice-looking noun, but otherwise that bit of punctuation looks awfully redundant.
Meanwhile, and I’m sorry to say this, but times do change. Judith was working in the middle of the 20th century. Attitudes have evolved significantly since then. In particular, there’s been a trend for formerly separate groups of letters to snuggle up and create whole new words of their own. I blame the Spice Girls. A generation of buzzwords got it on to the fivesome’s reductive but oh-so-seductive lyric “Tonight is the night when two become one.” The rest is history.
Is “copy editing”, then, the way to go? Or should it instead be “copyediting”?
Circling the ring
Perhaps what we need to settle this three-way bout of indecision is a referee. Some kind of expert in the field. Surely the number-one internet-based encyclopaedia or the leading brand of word-processing software can help us make the right call?
You might think so. You might very well think so. Wikipedia, however, can’t seem to make up its mind. Its article on Judith Butcher refers, appropriately enough, to “copy-editors” but can’t resist one mention of “copyeditors”. The site’s main page on “copy editing” (two words, no hyphen) notes in passing that the activity is “also known as copyediting” but then proceeds to use all three variants of the term interchangeably as the text continues.
Perhaps it’s for SEO purposes. Who knows?
Microsoft Word seems equally happy to accept any of the three alternatives. I didn’t see a single red wavy line as I typed this article. That’s always good for the ego, but it doesn’t exactly help a doubtful author (or a doubtful editor) make a decision.
A shout from the audience: “Oi! What about proof reading? Or proof-reading? Or proofreading?”
Yeah… I wasn’t planning to talk about that, but it is the elephant in the ring, isn’t it?
Where there’s muck there’s brass, and where there’s a copy editor there’s usually a proofreader, even if they’d sometimes prefer not to admit it.
What’s a proofreading copy editor to do? Should they ensure consistency above all, even in their own job title? If they side with Judith Butcher, must they style themselves a “proof-reader”?
Here it seems there’s some wiggle room. Even Judith, or her publisher, made a stylistic distinction between “copy-editor” (hyphenated) and “proofreader” (one word).
Why? I’m not sure, and sadly it’s no longer possible to ask her. But it’s noteworthy that Butcher’s Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Copy-editors and Proofreaders also uses -ize spellings throughout, when most British publications would reach more readily for an -ise.
My conclusion? It was simply a matter of personal preference.
Oh, come on. We’re getting nowhere!
I know. Like a pair of anxious pugilists or two keen but nervous lovers, we keep dancing around the subject without ever quite making a move. This can’t go on.
Sometimes you just have to pick an option and run with it. It’s always better to be consistent with your terminology than to look like you can’t decide.
What was my solution? I’m so glad you asked.
I decided to call myself an editor and proofreader, which I think neatly sidesteps the whole issue while hinting at the fact that what I do is sometimes more than just copy editing.
*Grins*
I bet you weren’t expecting that ending, were you?
Hang on a moment…
Oh, all right. Obviously things aren’t quite that easy.
Sometimes, as in this article, it’s necessary to refer to specific kinds of editorial effort – and in those circumstances there’s no choice but to coger el toro por los cuernos, as one might put it if one were standing on the plains of Spain.**
So, let’s go ahead and do that. Not the Spanish part. Just the bit about the bull and the horns.
I like to think I’m pretty modern in my outlook, but I just can’t countenance the use of “copyeditor” or “copyediting”. What those terms might gain in simplicity, they lose in aesthetic appeal – and beauty always wins the day when it comes to language, at least when I’m the one applying the makeup.
Nor – sorry, Judith – can I get fully on board with “copy-editor” or “copy-editing”. I’ll happily use that hyphen when an adjectival phrase demands it, but otherwise it just feels surplus to requirements.
A decision, on points
That leaves me with “copy editor” and “copy editing”: two pairs of words that say all they need to say without unnecessary adornment or inappropriate personal contact.
And hey, it turns out that the AP Stylebook, Merriam-Webster and the American Copy Editors Society, not to mention Mignon Fogarty, aka Grammar Girl, all agree with me. I didn’t discover that until I’d finished my piece, but I have to say, it’s left me with a nice afterglow.
“Proofreader” and “proofreading”, meanwhile, are simply the industry norm. I’m happy to go along with that, even if their use does seem slightly contradictory. Why make things more difficult than they need to be?
So, there you go. That’s how I’ve referred to the two jobs in the pages of this website, and that’s how I’ll continue to do so – unless, of course, someone manages to persuade me otherwise. It’s always possible.
There are precious few knockout blows in the world of writing and editing. The unlikeliest contenders often live to fight another day.
Tonight’s match-up is just another waltz around the ring.
* Thank heaven for that apostrophe. I think we can take it as read that she didn’t butcher her copy editing.
** If you ever feel tempted to do the same while standing on the plains of Latin America, I’d recommend that you pick a different verb or you might find yourself having a short conversation with the local farmers – and a longer one with the local police.
