Back in the days of working on paper, editors had to keep an eye out for all kinds of errors and problems--all at the same time. The human brain, which is wired to think about *one* thing at a time, often missed things, and editors were forced to comb through a manuscript over and over again. They also needed to keep style sheets (still a useful practice) to recall earlier decisions. Changing one's mind could have disastrous consequences; it often meant having to re-read the manuscript, unmaking previous decisions and implementing new ones.
If you're still working the same way on the computer, it's time to change. Researcher David Meyer from the University of Michigan explains why multitasking is so inefficient:
"People in a work setting who are banging away on word processors at the same time they have to answer phones and talk to their co-workers or bosses--they're doing switches all the time. . . . In effect, you've got writer's block briefly as you go from one task to another. You've got to (a) want to switch tasks, you've got to (b) make the switch, and then you've got to (c) get warmed back up on what you're doing."
You'll find more information about the university's study on multitasking here:
http://www.applesforhealth.com/HealthyBusiness/multihealth3.html
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/05/multitasking.study/
http://www.umich.edu/%7Ebcalab/multitasking.html
In the classic book Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, economist Adam Smith explained basically the same principle, but with the organization rather than the individual in mind. In fact, the first chapter in his book is titled "Of the Division of Labour." You can read the chapter here:
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b1-c1.htm
Smith illustrated his ideas with the example of manufacturing pins:
"A workman not educated to this business . . . could scarce, perhaps, with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day, and certainly could not make twenty. But in the way in which this business is now carried on, . . . it is divided into a number of branches. . . . One man draws out the wire, another straights it, a third cuts it, a fourth points it, a fifth grinds it at the top for receiving, the head; to make the head requires two or three distinct operations; to put it on is a peculiar business, to whiten the pins is another; it is even a trade by itself to put them into the paper; and the important business of making a pin is, in this manner, divided into about eighteen distinct operations. . . . I have seen a small manufactory of this kind where ten men only were employed, and where some of them consequently performed two or three distinct operations. . . . They could, when they exerted themselves, make among them about twelve pounds of pins in a day. There are in a pound upwards of four thousand pins of a middling size. Those ten persons, therefore, could make among them upwards of forty-eight thousand pins in a day. . . . But if they had all wrought separately and independently, . . . they certainly could not each of them have made twenty, perhaps not one pin in a day; that is, certainly, not the two hundred and fortieth, perhaps not the four thousand eight hundredth part of what they are at present capable of performing, in consequence of a proper division and combination of their different operations."
The principle can also be applied to editing, especially on the computer. Rather than trying to find and fix all problems at once, try going after one kind of problem at a time. For example, rather than putting all commas and periods inside quotation marks as you come to them, why not use Microsoft Word's Find and Replace feature to fix them all in one fell swoop? Once you've done that, you won't have to look for them or even think about them again, and you can be confident that you didn't overlook any. Then, go on to another kind of problem and fix that.
One approach to working in this way is to fix every instance of a certain problem the first time you encounter it. For example, if you're reading along and see "supersede" misspelled as "supercede," don't just fix the word and move on. Instead, use Word's Find and Replace feature to "Replace All." When you come to another problem, fix it in the same way. As you do this, you'll find that your manuscript is cleaner and cleaner the farther into it you read, because many of the errors you would have had to fix manually have already been fixed electronically. This, by the way, feels really good.
Another approach is to keep a list of errors and problems you commonly see and fix them all before you even touch anything else. My FileCleaner and MegaReplacer programs are ideal for this kind of work:
http://www.editorium.com/14845.htm
http://www.editorium.com/14843.htm
Whatever your approach, try looking for ways to focus on one thing at a time. Divide and conquer! Doing so will make your work easier, better, and more efficient.
You'll find other good articles on this topic here:
http://headrush.typepad.com/creating_passionate_users/2005/03/your_brain_on_m.html
http://www.lifetimefitness.com/magazine/index.cfm?strWebAction=article_detail&intArticleId=372
http://www.rentquick.com/news06.html
___________________________________________
_________________________________________
RESOURCES
Editorium Update reader Paul Sensecall's reference-checking software, ReferenceChecker, is a sophisticated reference-checking program for name+date-style (Harvard and APA) references in Word files. The program's site includes a download section where you can obtain a free, fully functional 30-day trial version:
http://www.goodcitations.com
Paul notes that the software is generating lots of interest among various editing societies. Maybe you'll find it interesting too. And useful! Why not try it today?
Thanks, Paul!
