| The short answer is 'yes'. You really can't look at | | | | symbols are used but they have changed over |
| pursuing a potentially lucrative proofreading career | | | | time, resulting in a 'house style'. For example, the |
| without having a working knowledge of these | | | | traditional deletion symbol might have been |
| arcane little squiggles. However, there will often be | | | | replaced with a simple 'x' or maybe even the |
| times when you hardly use them at all or, if you | | | | abbreviated 'del'. In these situations, you'll find that |
| do use them, it will either be very sparingly or in | | | | the less frequently used proofreaders marks |
| some altered form. | | | | have probably been shed entirely, in which case |
| Okay, so let's take a look at these proofreaders' | | | | you will probably have to write out in full the |
| marks. You'll find a link to a very helpful video | | | | instructions you wish to be carried out. For |
| presentation at the end of this article. It tells you | | | | example, the symbol requesting the insertion of |
| what each symbol looks like, what it means and | | | | superscripted matter might have been long-since |
| how and when to use it. | | | | abandoned; in which case, you'll simply have to |
| But why do we need these symbols, at all? Well, | | | | write "add superscripted '2'" in the margin, or |
| when you're marking up a proof, there's not very | | | | something similar. |
| much room for you to make your comments. | | | | Some businesses (particularly those outside of the |
| You'll probably have a few millimetres between | | | | publishing field) may not rely on traditional |
| each line and (if you're lucky) an inch of margin | | | | proofreading techniques at all. Instead they may |
| surrounding the actual text. Proofreading symbols | | | | use electronic methods. The likes of Microsoft |
| allow you to make very specific remarks and | | | | Word and Adobe Acrobat include the ability to |
| instructions quickly, using a minimum of space. | | | | make comments electronically. This is quick, easy |
| Without them, you'd be forced to write whole | | | | and, understandably, an attractive route for any |
| sentences and you would rapidly run out of room, | | | | modern business to take. A word of warning, |
| or the proof would become so crammed with | | | | however. Don't be tempted to proofread directly |
| scrawl as to be impossible to decipher. | | | | from the screen. The results can be disastrous. |
| Now, if you're looking to carve out a proofreading | | | | Print out any proofs first, then proofread them in |
| career for yourself in a traditional publishing | | | | the traditional manner. Once you've done this, you |
| environment, you will have to learn all the | | | | can transcribe your remarks into the software's |
| proofreading marks shown in the video | | | | comments feature. |
| presentation and probably quite a few more | | | | To summarise, then. Do you need to know |
| besides. Book publishers, magazine publishers and | | | | proofreading symbols to become a proofreader? |
| newspapers tend to be places steeped in tradition. | | | | Yes. Will you always be called upon to use |
| The use of proofreading symbols will be second | | | | proofreader's marks? If you're working a |
| nature to anyone involved in the preparation of | | | | traditional publishing environment, yes; otherwise, |
| proofs prior to going to press. There's no getting | | | | no. |
| around it. | | | | Best of luck with all your proofreading |
| Outside of these traditional publishing | | | | endeavours. |
| environments, however, things get a little fuzzier. | | | | You'll find the proofreading symbols video |
| You may find in some places, proofreading | | | | presentation here. |