Longtime readers of this blog know that I’ve been
proofreading since adolescence. Copyediting and certainly indexing came much
later.
My proofreading hasn’t changed much. Except for items that
might appear in technical manuals, I’ve seen about everything a proofreader can
see. Neither the marks nor my approach to the task has changed much over the
years. Be aggressive, and be friendly about it.
Copyediting: I go back and forth. I used to put commas after
short introductory phrases; now I’m as likely to delete them. I used to think
style sheets were more trouble than they’re worth; I’ve changed my mind. Used
to be that I’d want to strip out every “there is” in a manuscript. I’ve relaxed
a little and figured (and been told) it’s not necessary. Even Chicago Manual of Style standards change
over time, as has some of the technology (e.g., XML coding).
Indexing is the strangest bird, for many reasons. I’m
embarrassed by my early indexes (almost 20 years ago now -- gulp), and I still mull over the best
way to approach the task.
Presses are also different -- as are authors -- so the
matter of managing expectations comes into play. I recently had an exchange
with an author for whom I was writing an index, and we came to a mutual conclusion that I’m more of an author’s
indexer than a publisher’s indexer. I tend to overindex, which delights the
former and can frustrate the latter.
Consider two highly regarded scholarly presses:
Press 1 allows the indexer free reign. The managing editor’s
attitude is not to restrict the indexer at all, page count be damned.
Press 2 sets strict guidelines for length of the index and allows
me to exceed that number only reluctantly and with good reason from me. Some of
the books they send . . . I swear that I could not deliver a useful or
comprehensive index in the space allotted.
I have one of those books coming up from this press,
although I’m working directly for the author. I wrote the press’s managing
editor, groveling in advance for some extra lines and asking for any advice.
In response I received some wonderful thoughts that were
really a pretty severe critique of my work. It’s one of the most helpful emails
I’ve ever received. Now it’s just a matter of putting it into practice.
Thanks, AW, for these comments. Authors, editors, and fellow
indexers, take note:
If I recall your earlier indexes
correctly, the wording of entries and esp. subentries was very thorough,
sometimes more so than was needed. The index just needs to guide the reader to
relevant pages; it doesn't need to tell him exactly what he will find there. So,
more economy in wording would help. Also, although you followed such a
consistent pattern that I found it difficult to condense or eliminate subentries,
there were times when you provided subentries when the number of page citations
did not warrant them. In some cases, the subdivisions were repeated throughout,
and so it was useful to keep the pattern of subentries, even though there may
have been only one or two citations in each one. Perhaps [this book] will not
lend itself to that kind of repeated pattern and you will be able to condense
or skip more subentries. Sometimes a little wandering around in the book has
benefit for the reader.
I’d love some feedback from the readership. I know you’re out there.
***
UPDATE: I sent the note above to one of my other managing editors, who responded,
Hmm.
To tell you the truth, I think your indexes generally include just the
right amount of detail—but then, I come from an academic text
background. We’ve
had more problems in the past with indexers who include entries with 20
page refs, which indicates to me that it should be broken down further.
We always review the indexes, and the editors invariably cut out a
handful of the single-page-ref entries, but on
the whole, I have absolutely no complaints about, or even suggestions
for your indexes. The new indexer you recommended could definitely use
these guidelines—good indexer, but MUCH too much detail. But not you.
However,
in the interests of making your life easier, let’s call a 1000-line,
8-10-page index, with the amount of detail described below, the
“standard.” I
don’t even think much of recommendations that the editors make on the
Production Memo. I’m far more comfortable with you deciding whether a
more, or less, detailed index is required.
I
make MY life easier by surrounding myself with people who know what
they are doing, and then NOT micro-managing. My job is half over when I
FIND the right
people. And people enjoy their work more when it’s THEIR work.
The
only thing that would really help me is if I were able to tell you how
many text pages I need for the index, but that’s a tough call, does not
always jive
with the kind of index the content demands, and my typesetters can
generally play around and get it to fit anyway. For example, I’m hoping
for a 16-page index for [the current project] simply because that’s about how many
pages I need to fill. I could do a half signature
and use an 8-page index, but then I worry that such a short one isn’t
adequate for that book.
Man, I bet you’re sorry you brought this up.
No comments:
Post a Comment