The substance of the preceding paragraph applies also to “fol. lit.” matter, especially bills, laws, and court work.
When an entire “take” or proof seems to have been set uniformly, a reader should never make important changes in indentions of tables or make like corrections which will cause a great deal of work without consulting the foreman, the copy preparer, or the man at the proof table.
The reader should endeavor to verify, by the reference books in the office, all proper names, whether they are of people or places, or whatever they may be; every date; every quotation from standard works; every foreign word or phrase, and the ordinary nomenclature of science. When this can not be done and he has a reasonable doubt, he should request the author to verify it. But when the reader does discover errors of this class or when he detects inconsistent and erroneous statements, obviously made by the writer through lapse of the memory or slip of the pen, it is his duty to correct. He does so at his peril, however. He must know, not suspect, that they are errors, and be prepared, if called upon, to vindicate the soundness of his correction by recognized authority. If he does not know, he should query.
When a reader is unable to decide positively as to the correctness of a date, phrase, name, quotation, etc., or if he does not feel at liberty to make the desired change because of instructions to “follow” or “follow literally,” or because he is reading a bill or law, he should query. This should not always be done by a simple question mark (for that is sometimes so confusing to the author that he feels like raising a query of his own as to its meaning), but by writing the suggested amendment or explaining the reason for the query in full.
In work of particular value—historic or scientific publications, books that may be used for reference, etc.—the reader should be on the lookout for faulty construction of sentences, bad metaphors, inconsistent statements, the misuse of words, and defects of similar character. These he should query. The proofs of this class of work always go out, and the author will probably welcome reasonable suggestions; but the reader must not worry himself or the author about the extreme niceties of grammar or suggest pedantic emendations. Discrimination should be made and the author’s style not confounded with his lapses.
Readers will carefully note the instructions to compositors as to spacing, division of words, etc., and never hesitate to mark when work is imperfect.
Second readers are enjoined to keep in full sympathy with first readers and copy preparers. They must always consult with the latter before making important changes in proof, and they should feel free to respectfully call the attention of a first reader to errors in style or blunders of any kind that may have been frequently overlooked by him. The marks of the copy preparer must be given consideration by all. He has probably handled the entire work and is in a position to know more about its peculiarities than the man who reads but a small portion.
GALLEY-PROOF REVISING.
The importance of revising proofs well can not be overestimated. While a reviser is not expected to read proof, it is not enough for him to slavishly follow the marks found on the proof sheet which has been to the composing room for correction. His aim should be to discover new errors, if possible, make the matter uniform in all essential points, and correct inconsistencies, due perhaps to a difference of opinion among the readers. At the same time he should see that all corrections have been properly made in the type, that words or lines have not been transposed by the compositor in making the corrections, and that the rules governing spacing, division of words, and good printing generally have been observed. Compositors have no excuse for the neglect of even spacing, either when setting the type or when making corrections, and the reader or reviser who passes bad spacing will be held in fault.