1

Scott Wilkins

Editors: Scientists or Artists?

As a visual arts major, Ive heard, researched, and written enough about art theory and

concepts. Like most things in life, it sounds fun until you actually dive in. The states of mind

one endures while studying art theory usually range from lulling to maniacal with almost

nothing in between. What is art? is perhaps one of the most important and yet one of the

dumbest questions mankind has imagined. Painting, drawing, sculpture, video, music,

drama, words, nature, architecture, photography, your backpack, that stain on your shirt

you still cant get outits all art. And yet, perhaps its not (thats why defining art is so

dumb); yet if it is, you dont want to miss out (thats why its so important).

But what about editing? Yes, editing. Have you ever given thought to that? Are those

squiggly red (or blue or black or graphite-colored) marks you make on paper artful? Dont

you sculpt a good manuscript into an elegant David-esque masterpiece?

Or perhaps you think of editing as gathering evidences, analyzing data, and

comparing notes against previous research to publish a precise, objective MS. Sounds

more like a science, right? Which is it? And what are you, as an editora word scientist or

a grammar artist?

Youre both of course! (I know you saw that coming.) You can edit the manuscript

and get the byline too. But rather than leaving it at that, Id like to be a little more precise

and propose a system: for experienced editors, the art and science of the craft coexist, yet

for beginners it germinates as a science, eventually transcending into a higher, artistic form.

As a science: The first thing you learn in editing is that theres a right and wrong,

and you better get it right! The Chicago Manual of Style is your Bible (or, if you prefer, your
 2

On the Origin of Species), your First Law that may be added unto by other authoritative

works such as the Associated Press Stylebook and the like. You study conservative,

traditional usage, and you dont question it because you want at least 90 percent on most of

your assignments. You obey the laws of grammar and usage like your body obeys the law of

gravity, and you dont get to be creative unless you dont mind failing.

Consistency is key, and as a good science experiment goes, you want the same

results over and over again. Like a good scientist, you master compounds, terminology, and

authoritative invoking. But youre far from being a Mythbuster: youre not blowing stuff

upnot yet anyway. I myself was quick to assume that role. I have often, and still do, come

home with a less-than-desirable grade on an assignment, throw my backpack angrily to the

floor, and burn the assignment to ashes (crumple it up) with my laser vision (hands).

Theyre such stupid rules! I yell. And Chicago says normally, so it doesnt have to

be like that all the time.

My wife, who is an editor (thank Grammar), has had to remind me multiple times of

reality: this is how school works, this is how editors learn, there are hard-and-fast rules to

editing, and its often not as subjective as we want to think it is.

Most sciences and philosophies house two or more schools of thought; grammar and

usage are no different. If youve ever wondered what happened to the Pharisees and

Sadducees, they evolved throughout the centuries and are now known as the

prescriptivists and descriptiviststhe two major divisions in the great synagogue of

editing.

One source of difficulty for people who care about written language, writes Amy

Einsohn, is that even the experts sometimes disagree (Einsohn 337).

 3

And disagree they do. Just like bickering scribes or debating scientists, usage experts

face internal strife in both the written and spoken registers. It would be difficult indeed to

skim through Garners Modern English Usage or Merriam-Websters Dictionary of English

Usage and not find a few snarky remarks about them stuck up prescriptivists or those

unequivocally boorish descriptivists. It wouldnt be a science without great debates!

I think I speak for all aspiring and full-time editors when I say thank goodness it

doesnt end there! I mean, if you like editing as a science, good for you, but without its

artfulness I fear wed find ourselves hiding in an office corner someday, muttering Id

prefer not to to ourselves.

The awkward transition: You get to edit a few creative pieces here and there, maybe

in a campus journal or as part of your internship. You start to learn that the normallys,

usuallys, and may bes in Chicago can actually be applied sometimes. You learn that

gasp!Chicago isnt always right or doesnt always have the best solution (rend your

garments, I dare you). Heck, you actually start to edit well and make good judgment calls.

This is the transition period when youre realizing there is a higher law.

We bewilder readers when we cant organize complex ideas coherently, writes

Joseph Williams. And they wont even read what weve written unless we motivate them

to (Williams 3).

In other words, without the science the words are incomprehensible, and without

the art the words undesirable. The title of Williamss book, Style: Lessons in Clarity and

Grace, hints at a simple yet powerful insight: clarity is the science of editing while grace is

the art.
 4

As an art: So lets talk art, shall we? When do we shake off our spirited yet misguided

adherence to the letter of the law and yield to the spirit of the letter? Its like trying to

decide where the sky begins. You find yourself grasping most of the important things in

Chicago. You have the basics down, as well as some nuances. You feel confident breaking

some minor laws because you understand why youre breaking them. Depending on what

you find yourself editing, youre suggesting more and more substantive edits. Youre not

just trying to make it sound logical, but alluring.

This conversion is like reading an obscure article on art theory, youre not sure

whats going on or how its happening, but youre pretty dang sure it is happening, and so

you go with it. You trust that somewhere deep inside your ego and your id, next to your

maternal or paternal issues, theres a sculptor or a painter waiting to spring out with

enthusiasm (and a little well-intended arrogance) to make the world of words a

grammatically cleaner and syntactically more elegant place.

Carol Fisher Saller has an interesting view on editors. Good copy editors are

liberally educated and culturally literate, she writes. They know a foreign language or two,

are reasonably numerate, and have traveled a bit. If you listen to music, read novels, raise

pets or children or vegetables, rehab your house, or attend Star Trek conventions, I believe

youll be a better worker for it (Saller 116).

If you didnt check off everything she mentioned, dont worryI didnt either. I

dont like traveling, I only know English, and Im not a nerd (sorry, Trekkies). But the point

is that you, as an editor, are an artistthat editing is a sort of word-science that blossoms

into a truly unique and fascinating craft. Perhaps you use more of the science if youre a
 5

technical writer or more of the art if youre a novelist, but dont doubt for a second that

editing is among the ranks of the great arts and sciences.

If youre considering editing, either as a career or a on-the-side skill, dont pass up

the opportunity to join the ranks of these science-artists, but know that these stages dont

happen quickly or in a perfectly consecutive order. If, like me, you like to think youre

already transitioning, be humble and keep up the hard work; well be artisans yet. If youre

a full-time, fully established editor, I hope my commentary was as concise and beautiful as

your editing no doubt is.

 6

Works Cited

Amy Einsohn, The Copyeditors Handbook, Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

Carol Fisher Saller, The Subversive Copyeditor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Joseph Williams, Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace, London: Pearson, 2013.