Answers to Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Do you explain why you did what you did?

I usually offer general comments about the writing and what my approach will be after editing the first few pages. I make contextual comments when, for example:

• » The reason for change may not be obvious.
• » I don't understand what the author means.
• » I reworded for clarity but may have misinterpreted.
• » A quotation doesn't look right.
• » The point was especially interesting.
• » I made a lengthy deletion.
• » I propose a rewrite of the text.

[back] [top]

Q2. Will the editing make the writing sound "vanilla"? Or like you?

Everyone has a style, a voice, and vive la difference. I don't change your writing personality unless you want it changed. I can usually adopt the tone of an author's voice after working with a few pages.
[back] [top]

Q3. How do you know what to change?

I edit what sounds wrong. Apart from the obvious, a few reasons that come to mind are listed below. When in doubt, I refer to the Chicago Manual of Style (but am familiar with European standards of punctuation, spelling, capitalization and format).

• » Sentence or paragraph sequence
• » Transition between paragraphs or sentences
• » Non-sequiturs
• » Hyperbole
• » Gender neutrality
• » Overuse of a particular word or phrase
• » Redundant paragraphs or sentences
• » Wordiness (I am heartless)
• » Clarity
• » Awkwardness
• » Clichéd or informal
• » Sounds like a child talking
• » Syntax
• » List etiquette (all those little rules about in-line or called-out lists)
• » Note etiquette (all those little rules about notes, endnotes and footnotes)
• » Citations, quotations and references *

* I do not investigate citations unless they are obviously wrong. I note incompleteness and correct their format. I comment on but do not correct quotations, as the original may well have been written incorrectly. Responding to comments on citations or quotations is the author's responsibility.
[back] [top]

Q4. Do you have references?

Yes. I will provide names and e-mail addresses upon request.
[back] [top]

Q5. How much does the inital editing cost?
Q6. And what about iterations?

I charge by the word ($0.05). Authors do generally want iterations after they address initial questions and comments. Because this process is far less time-consuming, I charge an hourly rate ($45.00). There is a $20.00 wire transaction fee, if applicable.
[back] [top]

Q7. What if I don't like it?

Ah, yes. This happened once - the first chapter of my first (paying) client's book. The mistake was being too aggressive; as he said, "This is great, but no one will believe I wrote it." And I presumptuously changed his voice to something I imagined he wanted. I re-edited the chapter at no extra charge and all was well with the world. I went on to finish his book and have edited several documents for him since. I've learned over the years. Editing is a give and take process. We work things out.
[back] [top]

Q8. What do you not do?

Because I review a document more than once, proofing errors will be rare, but I am not a proofreader. Proofreaders sometimes read backwards to make sure that a the text the reader expects is what is actually written. (How many got that? If not, read it again.) More significant to this question is that, if authors continue to work on an edited document, they introduce error. The statistic for doing so in my experience is 100 percent. It pains me to see carefully edited text go to press with misspellings, spacing errors and other errata. (See "iterations.")

I more or less maintain the formatting of the author's original document (but often set headers such that I can view the document in outline style. Reformatting is negotiable. There is a small fee for converting to PDF.

I do not, for obvious reasons, provide new ideas or material in academic work.
[back] [top]

Q9. What does it look like when I get it back?

Decimated. In Microsoft Word 2003, the text is returned looking something like this:

The pink text in the manuscript is anything I've inserted; deletions are called-out in black; the called-out blue comments correspond to the blue-highlighted text in the manuscript. (You may choose whichever color scheme you like.)

It is hard to read in reviewing mode; I advise reading it first with revisions off. Does something sound odd or wrong? Then switch from "final" to "original" on the "reviewing" menu. You have every right to disagree with what I did and ask me to supply the reason for change. And, of course, the author has the last word.
[back] [top]

Q10. English is my second (or nth) language. Can you help me?

Yes, in fact, it has become a specialty. I admire anyone who writes books or papers in English when they have learned it after the childhood "window" of language acquisition has closed, or if they were taught early but rarely spoke or heard it. Sometimes the writing has the echo of American films or songs. Or the author may sound stilted. Others reuse pet words or phrases to an irksome degree. Prepositions, syntax, word sequence and punctuation are usually problematic.
[back] [top]

Q11. What are your qualifications?

I'm a Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude graduate of Wellesley College with a degree in economics. In my senior year, I taught writing at Wellesley in a pilot program of students teaching students. I was the only non-English major; we were accepted on the basis of a few written works.

Wellesley is how I came to know the economist Arjo Klamer. He was writing Conversations with Economists at the time, and asked me to help with reviewing it. Thus, in 1982, the book editing began. I've been working with Arjo ever since and have helped a number of his students with their dissertations.
[back] [top]

Q12. In general, how much is deleted?

If one of the goals of the editing is to shorten the book (and many times it is), then 25 percent or so. In any case, expect about a 10-15 percent reduction in the word count from - what shall we call it? - lifting the fog.
[back] [top]

Q13. Do you have samples of your editing?

13a. The author of the following speaks several languages beautifully, but is not practiced in English. Without omitting or contributing to substance, I reduced it by about 25 percent and reworked it into three paragraphs. (I should add that we were well into the dissertation and editing expectations were well-defined.)

Original

Final

Reactions were strong, not only in Italy but also worldwide. It was not only the loss of masterpieces that caused the reactions. Assisi is very important from a religious point of view for Roman Catholics, it has furthermore a great symbolic importance having hosted a meeting of the chiefs of world religions who pray there together for world peace on October 1986. Assisi is also important from a tourist point of view attracting thousands of visitors every year. The Italian Ministry for Culture, not surprisingly, then focused its attention and efforts on the restoration of the Basilica. In Italy, no type of intervention on cultural heritage takes place very quickly. The procedures and rules that have to be followed unavoidably slow down the beginning, development, and completion of any type of endeavour. In the case of the Basilica of Assisi, however, the restoration works started only a couple of days after the earthquake. Even more incredibly, after a restoration that cost more than 37 million Euros, and lasted 'only' 18 months, the church was reopened in November 1999. Without doubt, the restoration of Assisi constitutes a special case for its complexity, but also, and notably, for its speed compared to the average duration of restoration works of cultural heritage in Italy. Several reasons were behind the speedy restoration. The importance of the site from an artistic, religious and symbolic point of view coupled with the beginning of the Jubilee of 2000 transformed the restoration of the church into a top priority. The same did not happen for most of the other small centres in the surroundings, which, seven years after the earthquake, are still in the same state they were immediately after the earthquake took place. With the exception of few 'minor jewels of art' (De Luca, 2000) that have been restored, work has not even started in many places. This despite the fact that the Minister of Heritage and Cultural Activities at the time (Giovanna Melandri) argued that there was '(...) a new philosophy aiming at the enhancement of minor monuments next to the 'family jewels', as they can become the source for the development of many areas in Italy' (De Luca, 2000).

Reaction was strong and worldwide - and more than the loss of great masterpieces was responsible. Assisi and its famous Basilica have significant religious importance for Roman Catholics. Having hosted a summit of the chiefs of world religions praying for world peace in October 1986, the area has symbolic value. It is important for tourism, attracting thousands of visitors every year. Not surprisingly, the Italian Ministry for Culture focused attention and efforts on the restoration of the Basilica. In Italy, no type of intervention in the realm of cultural heritage takes place quickly. Procedures and rules unavoidably slow the onset, development, and completion of any endeavour. In the case of the Basilica of Assisi, however, the restoration started only days after the earthquake. Even more incredibly, €37 million and eighteen months later, the church was reopened (November 1999). This was an extraordinarily prompt restoration, especially in light its complexity. The impending Jubilee of 2000 and Assisi's artistic, religious, symbolic and economic importance were two apparent drivers. The same did not happen for most small centres in the area which, seven years hence, are in the same state they were when the earthquake took place. With the exception of a few "minor jewels of art" (De Luca, 2000), work has not started in many places. Giovanna Melandri, then Minister of Heritage and Cultural Activities, claimed that there was "a new philosophy aiming at the enhancement of minor monuments next to the 'family jewels', as they can become the source for the development of many areas in Italy" (De Luca, 2000). Nonetheless, minor monuments - at least those that are not bejeweled - have been neglected.

[back] [top]

13(b). The following is the work of a prolific author and well-respected economist. (The carets were to emphasize something metaphorical. I found them disturbing.)

Original

Final

Let's face it. Values inform our actions as economic agents. When I choose from a menu I need to value the various items on display - do I go for the fish and leave the desert because I value <my weight> or do I join my companion in the steak and the sumptuous desert because I value - ah well, let's call it the <synergy> between the two of us? Other values may be involved. I may value <variety> - and therefore will go for the unknown - or may value the custom of always choosing a dish with spinach or eggplant. A simple action like choosing from a menu is a complex weighing of all kinds of values. You will have personal preferences for spinach, say, but you will also adhere to social values like the value of <freedom of choice> - the great attraction of a good Chinese restaurant - whereas I value <to be exonerated from the compulsion to choose> - and therefore love the Italian restaurants where the owner decides what is being served that night. I may value the <atmosphere> more than the <quality of the food>, or vice versa, I may value <the choosing by myself> or <in consultation with my companion(s)>, I may value <the advice of the waiter> or may be actually embarrassed when my companion is asking the waiter for her advice ("Tell me, what do you recommend" - as if the good woman could know what my companion likes). I may even include the <prices> in my internal deliberations. Or I may advance a moral value of <soberness> and judge this entire discussion decadent.

Do values inform our actions as economic agents? We might agree when we think about it. There are all those situations where we were (or were not) hard workers, honest corporate presidents, voters in political elections, respectful of elders, and the like. We seldom consider, however, the ubiquitous values that more subtly inform our actions in everyday decision-making. The simple act of, say, choosing from a dinner menu is a complex weighing of a host of values. Do I go for the fish and skip dessert because I value physical health? Or do I join my companion in a sumptuous dinner because I value the synergy of affection it creates? One friend values curiosity and chooses from the unknown; another follows personal tradition and always selects a dish with spinach or eggplant.     Social as well as personal values come into play in choosing a menu genre. We exercise freedom of choice in going to a favorite Chinese restaurant, or going to a place where we value the atmosphere more than the quality of the food. We may seek exoneration from the compulsion to choose by dining at a restaurant where the owner decides what is being served that night. Some value the advice of the waiter and choose what he or she recommends. Many include prices in deliberations while others elect to be unburdened of price decisions by choosing a prix fixe restaurant. You, however, may advance a moral value of gravity and judge this entire discussion decadent.

[back] [top]

13(c). This author's educational credentials were terrifying, but he tended to wander around a bit in his writing:

Original

Final

If we agree that government is responsible for the delivery of a standard of living, there are two categories of misunderstanding that need correcting. The first involve the economic interpretation of the common good that: a. living standards are mainly related to economic indexes b. that government possesses the innovative ability to run public services c. that borders can define national interest. The second type is about the powers behind 'the throne' or sovereign. The unity of government requires a closing of ranks which puts a brake on the 'truck, barter and exchange' type of interaction characteristic of trade and family.1 By putting too much emphasis on negotiating economic interest the credibility of government is undermined. The delivery of a standard of living is not served by dividing the electorate in interest groups as producers and consumers, employers and employees, high and low income groups, etc...Standards we can share, including rights and responsibilities is a better way to approach the common good. 1the characterization of Adam Snith.

If we agree that government is responsible for the delivery of a standard of living, it needs to confront the misunderstandings that now hinder the process. One involves the economic interpretation of the common good that requires the assumptions that (1) "standard of living" closely correlates to economic indexes; (2) the government has the ability to run public services with market innovativeness; and (3) borders can define national interests. Another concerns the powers behind "the throne" or sovereign. The government's closing of ranks suppresses the "truck, barter and exchange" that so characterizes trade and family.1 Furthermore, emphasis on negotiating economic interests undermines the credibility of government. Dividing the electorate into sectors - manufacturers, consumers, employers, the rich, the poor and so on - does not best serve the decision-making process. Addressing standards we can share, including rights and responsibilities, is a better approach. 1"Truck, barter and exchange" is Adam Smith's characterization.

For no reason better than curiosity, I justified every change I made in the paragraph above - an experiment not worth repeating: the paragraph of 140 (or so) words required nearly 400 words of explanation. In order of appearance:

1. "There are" is extraneous here (assuming you mean government to be the subject).
2. Misunderstandings are not really "corrected."
3. Sentence cut to be stronger.
4. Your later "first" and "second" indicate two categories and it seemed awkward.
5. Subject-verb agreement ("category involves").
6. The interpretation of the common good is not a, b, c; a, b, and c are assumptions. Plus now you have 3 assumptions to prove false.
7. Changed to numbers simply because of the confusion caused by "a. a standard of living"
8. List: "...that (a., b., c.)" not "...that (a., b. that, c. that)...".
9. "Standards of living" has a more official tone than "living standards."
10. Mainly - yesterday's "basically"? (So what will replace "primarily"?)
11. Cf. Chicago Manual of Style.
12. Sometimes the simple words are better.
13. Even if they had innovative ability, they wouldn't necessarily run them innovatively, thus "innovative" here modifies "run" not "ability."
14. This is the proper punctuation for an in-line list.
15. Double quotes unless inside double quotes.
16. Unity and closing of ranks here is sort of the same; it doesn't seem to need the extraneous "unity requires" - the point is that it exists and what it does to Smith's natural forces. Conversely, you could say "the government's unity..." This depends on how you want to make the government sound: superior or insular.
17. Whenever possible, reference marks come at end of sentence (don't disturb reader's flow).
18. Footnotes are complete sentences.
19. Spelling.
20. The characterization was made by someone, not of someone.
21. Cut to be clearer, shorter.
22. "Truck, etc" specified because note mark is now removed from its subject.
23. You're introducing a new point here; give the reader warning.
24. Hyperbole. "Emphasis" is sufficient.
25. "Sector" implies a "common interest" (plus it repeats from previous sentence).
26. Spell out abbreviation; punctuation.
27. An ellipsis means "and so on" so you don"t need an etc with it. Plus, ending a sentence in such a way is usually reserved for fiction and casual writing. I prefer "and so on" to "et cetera."
28. Subject-verb agreement (standards ... is). Changing it to a gerund makes the subject singular.
29. Passive to active (without specifying who will do the addressing; we can assume that.)
30. Participle phrase is set off by commas.
31. An approach already is a "way."

[back] [top]

Q14. What is the process like?

All is done in the latest version of Microsoft Word (U.S. version) and transmitted via e-mail.

My initial pass through the document is long and laborious. I may ask the author for clarification. In total (apart from the initial reading), I go through the manuscript three times. The primary purpose and tasks of each "pass" are different.
[back] [top]