Defining editing and the top five rules

by Geoff Hart

Previously published, in a different form, as: Hart, G.J. 1999. Defining editing and the top five rules. The Technical Editors' Eyrie Newsletter, Issue No. 27, 19 November 1999. http://www.jeanweber.com/news/tenews27.htm#define

In response to a question from someone about what it is to be an editor, I wrote: "I coined the phrase professional idiot some time back. The explanation is that as a substantive editor, the idiot part of my job is to trip over anything any reader, including me, could potentially trip over (even if they could eventually figure it out); in effect, that means you need to adopt a certain naivete towards the writing so that even if you're an expert in the subject, you can empathize with readers who aren't. The professional part of the phrase means that I have to do more than trip; I have to figure out why I tripped, and how to fix the problem. (It also refers to the fact that I'm good at this, and get paid to do it, rather than doing it solely for the love of the job.)"

Another question was "what are your top five cardinal rules of editing". I replied:

First, do no harm: this means no harm to the author's intended meaning, reputation, or legal liability; no harm to the reader, such as by omitting necessary safety information; and no ethical harm, such as by knowingly distorting the truth.
Second, the reader's needs are paramount: if the author plans to publish, the goal is presumably to communicate with people who don't live inside the author's head, and this means that the communication is inevitably centered on the reader's needs, not those of the author.
Third, the second rule notwithstanding, the author's needs are also important: recognition of the reader's needs never means that you get to eliminate the author's voice and conceal the author's joy in writing.
Fourth, recognize that some things are more important than others and that the time constraints in real-world editing mean that you often need to do triage: some things (e.g., comprehension) are crucial, other things (e.g., misleading typos, unclear antecedents) are less important but still need to be done, and other things (e.g., minor typos and minor inconsistencies) simply aren't important enough to worry about while there are still bigger fish to fry.
Fifth, understand that editing is collaborative, not dictatorial. Your job is to help bring the author and reader together, not eliminate either from the equation. If you can keep this in mind while you edit, everything else tends to fall into place fairly naturally.