When NOT to Edit

by AnnaLisa Michalski

originally published in the ezine-turned-blog Word-wise, 5/4/08

While returning from mundane errands the other day, I stopped on a whim at the local library and was thrilled to find the latest release from one of my favorite authors available.

I eagerly began devouring the book as soon as I got home. While tellling the story, the author used the word loop where its homonym, loupe, should have appeared. Even as automatic a proofreader as I am, I was so engaged in the tale that I probably would not have noticed the single missed edit had some previous library patron not slashed through the offending word in bold black felt-tip and written the correction in the margin. But that would-be editor did not stop there. Emboldened by that first correction, this person marked additional edits through the remainder of the novel. I found myself more annoyed by the markings and less attentive to the plot the further I read.

Not only were these unasked edits utterly disrespectful of the publicly owned book and its every future reader, they also were ill-advised. Save the initial loupe vs. loop, every single change this would-be editor penned was incorrect. The person had inserted more errors into the novel!

It occurs to me, then, that among all my talk of correct grammar and usage, perhaps I also should note a few occasions when making corrections is not the best idea. Some are trickier to navigate than others.

In quoted material.
Although it may be tempting to subtly fix someone's minor errors when quoting him, it is not appropriate. Quotation marks imply that whatever is within them appears exactly as it was given by the source.

There is a small amount of leeway to this rule.
- When an interview that was conducted orally is put into print, it may be edited to normalize spelling. For example, if a person's accent makes the word "toiling" sound more like "tollen," the word will still appear with standard spelling in the transcript.
- Those who transcribe oral interviews will insert punctuation marks, and deciding where a sentence begins and ends can sometimes be subjective. Two transcribers may punctuate the same quote differently. For example, one may separate two independent clauses with a semicolon while the other may separate them with a period and subsequent initial capital. If the quote's meaning is preserved either way, both options are acceptable.
- Finally, quotes may be shortened by the careful use of ellipsis (...) only if doing so will not create a misleading meaning or critical omission.
In a written interview, the source should be contacted for clarification and permission before any changes are made. Changes that are not authorized must not be made. The user of the material may note instances that stray from standard spelling or grammar with the marker [sic] to specify that the nonstandard usage is not an error by the quoter but what was given by the quotee. Here's an example:

A reporter for an American journal interviews a British inventor via e-mail. There is little editorial leeway since the interview was written, not oral. But American and British spelling vary slightly, so a quote the reporter lifts from this material may look something like this:
Though he is well regarded by his peers for his innovative thinking, Jones himself believes he is "an organisational [sic] nightmare."

In this case, the [sic] flags the word organisational as nonstandard to American spelling. Because it is standard for British spelling, however, it would be inappropriate and presumptious to "correct" the difference. Using [sic] preserves both the original material and the norm of the journal in which it is reprinted.

Adding or rearranging words or correcting grammar, on the other hand, are never appropriate changes to make to quotations, whether spoken or written, without the source's express permission.
When corrections could make the boss look bad.
It's one thing to call an error, particularly a minor one, to the Big Cheese's attention privately, before his presentation begins. It's quite another to point out that error when the audience is assembled and ready to commit. And if the error is the type of minor fluke that no one is likely to notice in the next hundred presentations anyway, it's not worth jeopardizing a career to correct immediately.
When doing so will make you appear condescending.
Back during my teaching days, I was one of the unfortunate souls left to squirm awkwardly in the stony silence that followed when a guidance couselor corrected a parent's grammar during a parent-teacher conference. Needless to say, that did not make for good school-family relations. When making a correction serves no long-term purpose and is likely to embarrass someone else, just let it go.

Oh, and did I mention it's NOT OK to write corrections in borrowed books such as those taken from the library? If the errors are so egregious that they distract from a casual reading or create misleading factual claims, do something more productive than marking up the book. Alert the library staff to your concerns and suggest an alternate title. Find out whether the book's publisher has released an errata report, and if so, recommend the library purchase it. Contact the book's publisher and lodge a formal complaint. Write a query letter to find an outlet for the critical review you wish to write. But please, for the sake of all the book's future readers, don't make corrections directly in the book.