Stegman
1
Erin Stegman
ENGL 467
Dr. Amy Rupiper Taggart
7 December 2013
Power Plays, Collaboration, and Copy Editing: Interdependence and Conflict Interaction
in the Copy Editing Process
When one hears the term “copy editor,” he or she may immediately connect the term to
an editor who only reads and edits novels. However, the publishing industry encompasses a giant
range of written content, from peer-reviewed journals to the text on a cereal box. Although the
medium or content will vary across different practices, one dynamic will always be the same: an
author (or a group of authors) writes every piece of writing, and an editor copyedits that text. All
consumers encounter the products of copyediting and authorship in daily life, though they might
not understand the complex process and strategies that go on behind the scenes. In book
publishing, the copy editor and author have a mutual goal: to finish a polished product that a
target audience will read without encountering structural or textual problems that affect overall
readability and understanding of the text. Unfortunately, this process is rarely complete without
its fair share of conflicts and disagreements. These disagreements range from rigidity over
grammar to hidden, silent changes made without the other’s consent. Several questions regarding
tensions emerge when authors and copy editors collaborate, negotiate, and in some cases, resist
one another in the process of creating a text. It is my hope to explain the tactics and ways in
which authors and copy editors work through conflict to complete the product that consumers
buy and read.
Stegman
2
Going into the research portion of this project I had three research questions:
1. What are the most common conflicts occurring in the copy editing process?
2. Which power plays or conflict strategies are being implemented within these
interdependent interactions?
3. Can collaboration theories be used to reduce or improve the frictions in these
relationships?
Literature Review
Although there is not a substantial amount of information published covering my specific
research questions, there is a conversation being held concerning the rhetoric of collaborative
writing and co-authorship. I sought out sources that explore the concept of authorship, and
examined how this idea has transformed over time. One such book that explores the concept of
singular authorship is Lunsford and Ede’s book Singular Texts/Plural Authors. Among other
discussions in this book, these authors explain how the idea of authorship has evolved through
history. They explain that the modern idea of authorship, wherein a single author or group of
authors write, revise, and own an idea or piece of writing, is fairly recent idea and a “cultural
construct” (Lunsford and Ede 77). With the help of the printing revolution and modern copyright
laws, the promise of a profit led authors to the modern definition of authorship and the
connotations that come to one’s mind (79-81). When it comes to collaborative writing, Lunsford
and Ede include author Michael Carpenter’s definition of “writing over.” This term refers to the
“revising, compiling, redacting, abridging, and expanding [of a text] […]influenc[ing] the
likelihood that a person will be cited as an author,” noting that “the rewriter who adds new
textual material or provides a supplement is usually considered the author” (95). The same is not
Stegman
3
true, however, for the copy editor. Although the copy editor uses expertise to revise, compile,
redact, and expand, and aids in writing an entirely new text, he or she is not given the title of
“co-author.”
Author M. Thomas Inge agrees with Lunsford and Ede in saying that “all discourse is
socially constructed” (Inge 623). However, Inge also argues that editors and authors function as
collaborators in the publishing process. He writes:
There has seldom been a time when someone did not stand between author and
audience in the role of mediator, reviser, or collaborator (625) […] The publishing
process is not the same as a collaboration between two or more authors in the
writing of a book, but it is a collaboration that involves many people [including
the teams that acquire, edit, and market the manuscript] with various degrees of
influence on the finished text. (629)
Inge goes on to explain that several well-known and loved authors, such as Theodore Dreiser and
F. Scott Fitzgerald, could not have created such successful texts without the practical and expert
knowledge that their editors brought to the authors’ raw manuscripts. Inge includes an excerpt
from a letter that Fitzgerald wrote to his editor, Maxwell Perkins, after The Great Gatsby was
published and praised for the intricate written structure: “Max, it amuses me when praise comes
in on the ‘structure’ of the book—because it was you who fixed up the structure, not me” (Inge
626). This relationship between the author and editor is part of a larger, more calculated process
that has continued to shift as time progresses.
In Singular Texts/Plural Authors, Lunsford and Ede explain the hierarchal perspective of
collaboration, where “collaboration is carefully, and often rigidly, structured, driven by highly
specific goals, and carried out by people playing clearly defined and delimited roles […]
Stegman
4
productivity and efficiency are of the essence” (Lunsford and Ede 133). The hierarchal mode of
collaboration can be used to describe the publishing industry’s current outlook on authorship.
The hierarchy itself is represented by the publishing process as a whole; Lunsford and Ede’s
description of those in lower positions answering to those higher up directly relates to the
hierarchy of editors within a publishing house. Where the copyeditor does much of the smaller
work, the senior editors are the ones who set the timelines, tasks, and the rules that the author
and copy editor will follow. Additionally, the “productivity and efficiency” described by
Lunsford and Ede can be exemplified by the hurried, task-oriented nature of the copy editing
process.
Similar to the hierarchal organization of collaboration is the description of George
Herbert Mead’s Collaborative Perspective on Rhetorical Invention as described in Karen
LeFevre’s book Invention as a Social Act. According to LeFevre, the collaborative perspective
involves inventing “by interacting with people who allow developing ideas to resonate and who
indirectly or directly support inventors. Listeners and readers receive and thus complete the act
of invention. [The l]ocus of evaluation may be one person influenced by judgments of others, or
a pair or group of people who invent together” (LeFevre 52-53). From this perspective, we are
able to see the copy editor as a stimulus for creative invention for the author; although the copy
editor will usually receive a completed version of the author’s invented manuscript, it is the
opportunity for the copy editor to suggest changes or revisions that will spark new invention
from the author. In this way, the copy editor acts as the influencer who aids in “developing ideas
and […] directly support[s] inventors” (52-53).
From these sources we see where concepts of authorship and collaboration have
transformed in the past, but other authors agree that editing is a type of co-authorship. One such
Stegman
book, entitled Collaborative Writing in Composition Studies, claims that this collaboration
cannot work without a level of respect given by both parties. In speaking about idea generation
and productive collaboration, authors Fontaine and Hunter argue that, “if dialogue and
conversation is [sic] going to be creative and productive, resulting in the action of ideageneration, the persons involved must respect one another and the process of
dialogue/collaboration” (Fontaine and Hunter 46). This respect, however, is often hindered by
the idea of “textual ownership,” or wanting to control the language and meaning that one’s text
will convey to readers (66). Fontaine and Hunter explain that, in collaborative writing, textual
ownership allows co-collaborators to clash and dismiss the writing that others would like to see
published. This same idea is evident in the copy editing process. Later in this paper I will
describe specific conflicts that copy editors experience because of the rigidity that some authors
will exhibit when the copy editor suggests revisions to the original text. These authors
demonstrate that textual ownership during the copy editing stage is capable of obstructing a
smooth segue into the next stage of publishing.
A final view on collaborative writing comes from those in the academic world who see
copy editors as co-writers. For example, in her dissertation entitled From Conflict to Concord:
Copyeditors, Composition, and Technology, Kelly Chrisman Jacques argues:
Copyeditors are integral tools within authors’ final stages of the revision process;
furthermore copyeditors are influential not only on the text, but on the way that
authors revise. Thus, copyeditors should not only be identified as readers of
authors’ manuscripts, but, because they take an active role in editing and/or
revising the text, […] they should also be recognized as writers themselves.
(Jacques 2)
5
Stegman
6
Jacques is very adamant in saying that copy editors are extremely important in contributing to
the meaning of the text as a whole, but very rarely get the recognition that they deserve as “cowriters.”
In addition to views on collaborative writing and co-authorship, I focused on conflict
theory and the way it is shaped by interdependence between parties to better understand the
tactics used by authors and copy editors to see a desired outcome play out. According to Working
Through Conflict, “Conflict is the interaction of interdependent people who perceive
incompatibility and the possibility of interference from others as a result of this incompatibility”
(Folger et al 4). The book goes onto say that “The most important feature of conflict is that it is a
type of human interaction. Conflicts are constituted and sustained by the behaviors of the parties
involved and their reactions to one another…” (Folger et al 4). Copy editors and authors are very
interdependent throughout the copy editing stage, as each party brings an area of expertise and
previous knowledge into the collaboration.
One very important aspect of conflict theory is Richard Walton’s Model of Effective
Conflict Management. This theory involves two phases of conflict management: differentiation
and integration. Folger et al state,
In differentiation, parties raise the conflict issues and spend sufficient time and
energy clarifying positions, pursuing the reasons behind those positions, and
acknowledging their differences. At the point where further escalation seems
fruitless, an integration phase begins. Parties begin to acknowledge common
ground, explore possible options, and move toward some solution…If integration
is not completely successful, the conflict may cycle back through a new
differentiation phase. (Folger et al 14)
Stegman
7
Throughout the differentiation stage, parties can engage in escalation, rigidity, or avoidance
tactics before the integration stage can be attained (14-17). Walton’s model will be used in the
“conflicts defined” section of the paper to discuss where parties are in terms of moving toward
the integration stage and how either party is using these strategies to implement power plays or
manipulation conflict strategies.
Finally, Working Through Conflict defines four properties of conflict interaction that aid
in “understanding the development and consequences of conflicts.” The first property states
“Conflict is constituted and sustained by moves and countermoves during interaction.” For my
research project, the e-mail correspondence serves as the moves and countermoves between
authors and book teams. What one party says directly affects how the other will respond, and
therefore moves the conflict or collaborative efforts forward. The second property states,
“Patterns of behavior in conflict tend to perpetuate themselves.” In the copy editing stage of
publishing, working closely with an author allows the copy editor to learn patterns of behavior
for future reference and for correct context when new conflicts arise. The third property is
concerned with relationship maintenance, stating, “Conflict interaction is influenced by and in
turn affects relationships.” If either the copy editor or author is more concerned about the
relationship than the conflict at hand, either party may be hesitant to bring up issues if they do
not want to offend the other. Finally, the fourth property states, “Conflict interaction is
influenced by the context in which it occurs.” In short, context surrounding any conflict is the
most important determiner in how parties will act and react. If there is history between the author
and the publisher or if the climate of the interaction is heavy-laden, conflict interaction will be
affected for the better or for the worse (Folger et al 22-32).
Stegman
8
Methods
Although I have always been interested in the conversations surrounding the roles of
copy editors in book publishing, it was not until I read The Subversive Copy Editor by Carol
Fisher Saller, a first-hand account of the types of issues and conflicts that a copy editor will deal
with on a daily basis. As a seasoned senior editor and former copy editor at The University of
Chicago Press, Fisher Saller provides many examples of the conflicts she partook in during her
time as a copy editor. While reading The Subversive Copy Editor I wondered how conflict theory
fit into the conflicts that Fisher Saller identified from her own experience in copy editing at
University of Chicago press. This is where my research questions began to develop. From here, I
decided to organize the conflicts she described into three categories: Conflict Initiated by Author,
Conflict Initiated by Copy Editor, and Conflict Initiated by a Third Party. I then made an
organized chart that identifies six subcategories within the three overarching categories. These
categories and subcategories will be employed in the following analysis and discussion of the
categories and is included in the Appendix.
Within these subcategories, I used conflict theories in Folger et al.’s Working Through
Conflict to define what kinds of power plays and conflict strategies are being employed within
each of these conflicts. The definitions and explanations of power dynamics, conflict
communication, and conflict strategies provide a context for why and how the author and copy
editor move through this enormously important step in the publishing process.
At this stage in my project development, I decided that a more tangible piece of evidence
was missing; this is where the book team e-mails came into play. One advantage I have in
researching this topic is that I have access to ongoing copy editing and book team/author
correspondence through the publishing practicum course at Minnesota State University
Stegman
9
Moorhead. In partaking in this course, I have first-hand experience in implementing the Chicago
Manual of Style to the manuscript, keeping an in-house style sheet, and partaking in e-mail
correspondence with my book team’s author. With the help from my project mentor, Dr. Amy
Rupiper Taggart, and Dr. Suzzanne Kelley, Senior Editor at New Rivers Press and instructor for
the practicum course, I drew up two separate informed consent forms: one for the book team
members and one for each book team’s respective author. Unfortunately, my own author
declined to have her e-mails included in this study, but I was able to obtain ongoing
communication between the rest of the student copy editors and book authors at New Rivers
Press.
The fist step in getting these e-mails was to contact Dr. Kelley through e-mail to obtain
permission to contact the authors I did not previously have access to. With her go-ahead, I sent
her a working draft of the book team informed consent form. She then replied with a list of the
authors, the titles of their manuscripts, and an e-mail with which to contact them. In order for me
to anonymously include these e-mails in my project, each author had to send back an
electronically signed consent form. Similarly, I spoke with the other copy editors during a class
period in the middle of the semester to obtain similar permission to anonymously include their
previous and current e-mail correspondence with the authors of the texts they are currently copy
editing and revising.
Reading The Subversive Copy Editor also made me wonder if there was a way to make
this process more enjoyable, or, at the very least, less abrasive for both the copy editor and the
author involved in the project. This question led me to do research into the concepts of
collaborative writing and co-authorship that I outlined in the literature review. Later in this paper
I will explain the research I found that offers suggestions to make the relationship better for the
Stegman 10
two parties. Some of these conflict resolving strategies will come from Joanna Wolfe and her
book entitled Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups, but analysis will also be included
from Working Through Conflict and The Subversive Copy Editor. Preceding my conclusion,
overarching suggestions will be discussed to help create a more enjoyable relationship and to
move the copy editing stage past the conflicts that seem to plague it.
Defining Conflicts
The following section is composed of the conflicts discussed by Fisher Saller in The
Subversive Copy Editor. Her conflicts are organized under the three categories mentioned above:
Conflict Initiated by the Copy Editor, Conflict Initiated by the Author, and Conflict Initiated by
Third Parties. Within these three categories I broke the examples of conflicts into more specific
groups with several examples of the conflicts occurring in actual copy editor/author
relationships. Finally, the conflict examples will be discussed in terms of conflict theories from
Working Through Conflict.
Although they are still present in many copy editor/author relationships, some of the
areas of conflict identified by the chart in the Appendix did not present themselves in the e-mails
I received from New Rivers Press authors and book teams. I anticipated seeing these conflicts
occurring, however, book teams and authors in this setting were extremely amicable and willing
to adhere to rules and guidelines set forth in the Chicago Manual of Style and within each
respective author’s contracts. These examples of conflict include:
1. Ignorance of the author’s research topic or of their wishes
2. Making a complaint to the senior editor because the author is unhappy or explodes in
anger
Stegman 11
3. disagreements over contracts, rights, royalties, or marketing tactics
4. unaligned production schedules
Conflict Initiated by The Copy Editor.
Inattention to the Other’s Wishes or Voice
The first section of conflicts Fisher Saller described are those caused by the author’s
inattention to the author’s wishes or overall voice within the manuscript. This conflict
subcategory involves making power plays based on the copy editor’s position as employee of the
publishing house and can ruin the chances for civil collaboration in the future because of either
party’s ego issues (Fisher Saller 46-47). This type of conflict can happen in several different
ways. The first occurs when the copy editor uses his or her power as a representative of the
publishing house to make any type of change against the author’s wishes (33). Second, the copy
editor can cause conflict by sending the manuscript back to the author because it does not meet
house requirements (Fisher Saller 66). This move can cause the author to feel threatened by the
copy editor because of the time and energy the author takes to write a polished copy of the
manuscript. If the work is not up to the standards that the publishing company requires it to be in,
it is well within the copy editor’s rights to send the manuscript back for major changes.
According to Fisher Saller, the copy editor has the final say on some issues (52). It is up to the
individual group of collaborators to work out a compromise that works best for them, and, if all
else fails, it is okay to bring in a senior editor to work out these problems.
Another way a copy editor can initiate this type of conflict is to pay little attention to the
author’s voice and change it to match the copy editor’s preferences (Fisher Saller 35). During my
own experience as a student copy editor at New Rivers Press, my book team encountered the
Stegman 12
overuse, and, at times, incorrect use of em dashes in the manuscript. In many cases we suggested
deleting em dashes, but, in order to preserve the author’s style preferences, we even added a few.
In this way, we tried to establish the author’s voice throughout the manuscript in a certain way
and revised our editing strategies to reflect this voice. Unfortunately for me (but fortunately for
the book teams and authors), I did not receive any e-mail examples where the copy editors
exerted their power as representatives of New Rivers Press to change a style or wish of the
author in the manuscript. However, according to Fisher Saller, this conflict is much more
common in the production process than my individual research shows.
Making Changes Without the Author’s Consent
The second way the copy editor can cause conflict is to make a change to the manuscript
without the author’s final permission. Copy editors engaging in this type of conflict are allowing
the author to mistrust them and to bring about larger conflicts in the future. While editing the
manuscript, many publishing houses employ the “track changes” function of Microsoft Word.
This facet of the program showcases changes made in the manuscript file with eye-catching red
lines, notes on the sidebar, and various other optional indicators, allowing both parties to display
the changes they make in the document. The copy editor can make “silent changes,” or hidden
alterations to the manuscript, by turning off the track changes function and editing without the
obvious tracked changes that alert the other party of modifications. Another form of silent
changes can take place if the copy editor sends the manuscript to the typesetter without first
speaking with the author before making certain edits (Fisher Saller 52).
Once again, I did not encounter any e-mails that discussed changes made without the
track changes function. That is not to say, however, that silent changes did not occur. In many
Stegman 13
cases, copy editors will turn off the track changes function when making small, necessary edits,
such as turning double spacing between sentences to single spaces. The amount of red correcting
lines would be overwhelming for the author, so this edit must occur without the track changes
on. In my own book team’s case, we made silent edits in the manuscript, but only ones that
corrected incorrect quotation mark use, incorrect indentation, and margin errors. Overall, these
changes are very minimal and aid the typesetter and designer when they begin designing the
interior of the book in the next stage.
Disagreements Over the Style or Grammar
When hired at a publishing house, a copy editor must be able to demonstrate that he or
she understands the correct use of grammar and the basics of Chicago Manual of Style. This
ensures that the copy editor will spot discrepancies and incorrect grammar or punctuation while
editing. That being said, conflict can occur if the copy editor becomes overly rigid about the
mechanics and style within the manuscript, even when the author requests different or disagrees
with the copy editor (Fisher Saller 21). The copy editor may also know the specific rule being
“broken” by the author and painstakingly apply it, meeting outright resistance from the author
(39).
One book team/author e-mail can be used to exemplify this conflict. In this specific email, the book team has a question regarding the lack of capitalization in the author’s poetry:
BT: In Small Buried Things (the poem), are the proper nouns deliberately left in lower case? This extends
to all sections of the poem, Chill Factor, Frack, Quake, and Lament. In Frack, there is a capital, in the 6th
stanza of the poem, second line "a Sidney woman," is this supposed to be capitalized or lowercase as
well? [...] Mother, In Pictures is another case of the deliberately lower case proper nouns?
AU: “Yes, it's hard to explain why a poet makes a choice like that. Except I could tell you that
capitalization is a form of punctuation in and of itself, so I think with this poem, it's written largely in
fragments. So when I started revising the poem it seemed best to eliminate as much of the punctuation as
possible to let the fragments do their work. You'll also notice that in some of the poem that are written
Stegman 14
more in this fragmentary style, with flashes of phrases but no real sentence structure, I might use the
caesura (of five spaces) which allows me to jump to another idea or create a pause, something like you
might get with a period of a comma, so that the reader can make sense of the next phrase that appears on
the line. Here's an example of that five space caesura from "Mother, in Pictures": "the blustery sky his
crying red eyes". So, all of those are deliberate, and I'm hoping they are all five spaces. I went through
the manuscript and checked them, but if you see one that looks irregular, let me know.”
From this e-mail we see that the author does not wish to capitalize the proper nouns within her
poetry, against the traditional rules of grammar and the Chicago Manual of Style. She justifies
her breaking of this rule by telling the book team that, because she is a poet, she is allowed to
change the rules. While most copy editors would probably push back on this rule in a fiction,
nonfiction, textbook, or manual manuscript, poetry often requires different treatments in how
copy editing occurs. I do not know whether or not they figured this capitalization situation out,
but I can assume that the book team respected the author’s wishes and kept the proper nouns
lower cased. While the copy editor may be young or especially inflexible toward the grammar or
style rules, their actions may cause conflict if they are causing the author to feel incompetent or
ignored.
Poor Communication From the Copy Editor’s Desk
The final type of conflict initiated by the copy editor that I identified from Fisher Saller’s
book is when the copy editor does not practice good communication. This conflict category
occurs when the copy editor is ambiguous about the tasks he or she wants the author to do
(Fisher Saller 30). Poor communication habits create an undesirable relationship between the two
parties, but can be easily avoided. Below is an example of an extremely ambiguous book team email sent to the author.
Brandon,
>>
>> Here is our edited manuscript, we just had a couple more questions now that
>> we're "done." Take your time checking through it, and our questions and let
>> us know if there's anything else we need to do. We'd ideally like it back by
>> Nov 22nd, but if something arises let me know please. Here are our
>> questions:
Stegman 15
>>
>> Page 21 spacing error
>>
>> Page 49 is this the correct capitalization? I don’t know if you mean
>> capitalize Coal or each word. I did each word.
>>
>> Page 61 is the comma intended? I think that it is- please ask Brandon
>>
>> Page 68 please change the margins to normal for this page, I don’t know how.
>>
>> e.g.- the way this page is justified to the left.
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Hannah
While there are specific pages listed for the author to consider changes made, there is no more
specificity involved than “is the comma intended?” or “spacing error.” This unclear e-mail may
cause the author unnecessary stress in trying to distinguish which comma or space on the page is
tripping up the book team.
Ambiguousness by the copy editor can be resolved by sending a preliminary e-mail that
outlines the tasks, duties, and deadlines that the author must meet and accomplish before the
manuscript can move onto the next stage in the production process. I have included another email example here to demonstrate what a good introductory e-mail may look like:
It's great to meet you as well Rachel.
>>
>> I am one of a group of four undergraduate and graduate students who are editing and enjoying The
Patron Saint of Lost Comfort Lake. With me in the editing team is Sarah Chamma, Nayt Rundquist, Telia
Rattliff-Cross.
>>
>> We have read and thoroughly enjoy your manuscript, especially the vivid sensory descriptions and the
way you connect visual metaphors with the psychological torment of Jane. The nightmare scenes
especially stick out to me. They give me chills, even when I'm searching through them for missing
commas.
>>
>> Our team is in the second phase of the editing process, looking closely for any grammar issues or
inconsistencies. We will have the edited manuscript back to you by October 31, if not earlier. We are
using the "track-changes" function on Microsoft Word so that you will be able to see any changes that we
make. You will then be able to accept or reject any of our changes. If you could have it back to us within
two weeks, it will give us time to finalize the manuscript and send it to the graphic designers.
>>
Stegman 16
>> If we are to get it back to you by the 31st, we have to know if you are going to make any changes to
the ending. If I understand correctly, Al Davis was in contact with you about altering the ending to make
the haunting more ambiguous. We are wondering on the status of those revisions so we don't take time
scrutinizing pages that will be altered or removed.
>>
>> Thank you for entrusting us with your child. We are doing our best to take care of it. Feel free to
contact me any time with questions or concerns.
>>
>> Ben
This correspondence introduces the team, establishes a good first impression of the team, ensures
that the team has read the manuscript and is taking good care of the author’s “child.” A simple
communication action such as this e-mail creates a good frame for continuous contact between
the two interdependent parties and allows for future e-mails detailing the good or bad as they
occur during the copy editing process.
In her book Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups, Joanna Wolfe offers a
checklist to give feedback to the author during the rough draft stage of revision. Her steps
include “Begin[ning] with praise,” “Identify[ing]/fix[ing] oversights,” “Suggest[ing]/add[ing]
new material,” “Not[ing]/revis[ing] misleading or inaccurate information,”
“Suggest[ing]/implement[ing] alternative organizations,” and “Identify[ing]/resolv[ing]
inconsistencies in content and argument” (Wolfe 67). This checklist is extremely useful for the
copy editor drafting a initial e-mail to the author. The example included above very closely
follows this checklist and is a successful introductory e-mail.
Although many publishing houses have copy editors on staff to do the tasks needed to
complete this stage, many other smaller-scale publishing presses hire freelance copy editors to
complete this stage out-of-house. Freelance editors are sometimes unable to communicate with
the author directly, causing frustration and conflict to emerge. This conflict can only be resolved
by the publishing house allowing the freelancer to contact the author directly or to require the
copy editor to keep extremely detailed notes and style sheets to reference should the author be
Stegman 17
unhappy about certain edits. However, without some kind of three-way communication between
the senior editor, freelance copy editor, and author on project, this area of conflict cannot be
resolved.
Conflict Discussion
Each of the conflicts outlined above can be discussed in terms of Folger, Poole, and
Stutman’s explanation of the relational view of power. According to chapter five of Working
Through Conflict, this use of power give the copy editor “the ability to influence or control
events” (140). Whether the copy editor is using his or her power in the relationship to get his or
her way on the style, is using ignorance to copy edit without doing adequate research, or making
changes to the manuscript without the author’s consent, the copy editor is using relational power
to exert a significant amount of influence over the manuscript. Folger et al argue that relational
power only has weight when used in the group in conflict. However, this power has two
conditions that must play out in the copy editor’s favor. First, the copy editor must use resources
(such as position in the publishing house or publishing expertise) and the author must endorse
the use of the power moves. This resource only works if it has some amount of significance in
the context of the conflict. Second, the “control [possessed by the copy editor] is exerted through
interaction. One party makes a control bid based on real or potential use of resources, and the
other party accepts or rejects it” (141). If the author does not give into the power plays made by
the copy editor or comes back with higher stakes, the copy editor’s power can be lost or
weakened; this happens because the use of power only functions if the author endorses it and
does not exists outside of the group of interdependent parties. Reversely, a “well-executed
move” by the copy editor only strengthens and reinforces the power and resource utilized. In the
Stegman 18
copy editor-initiated conflicts discussed above, parties are initiating the escalation and rigidity
within the differentiation stage of Walton’s model. Through a discussion of differing viewpoints
and an acknowledgement that neither party will give in, the author and copy editor can move
toward synchronized integration. The process of integration will be discussed in more detail in
the final section of this paper, where suggestions will be made to better the copy editor/author
relationship.
Conflict Initiated by the Author
Inattention to the Copy Editor’s and Publishing House’s Wishes or Style Guides
The copy editor is not always the initiator of conflict throughout the copy editing process.
When it comes to the author becoming rigid and inflexible about certain aspects of the
manuscript, the first type of conflict occurs. According to Fisher Saller, the author can become
difficult, not wanting any stylistic changes made to their manuscript (43). Like most other
conflicts outlined in the copy editor’s section, this unyielding attitude displayed by the author
leads to mistrust and difficulty in collaboration. While the author may be an expert in his or her
subject area, they must understand that the copy editor is an expert in house style rules, and, in
order to keep the institution’s reputation intact, their job is to edit the manuscript with this
reputation in mind. It is never within the author’s rights to lower the level of professionalism of
the publishing house. Included below is an example of an author ignoring the Chicago Manual of
Style’s treatment of spacing between sentences:
BT: We only have a few questions for you, so rather than send you a manuscript back labeled with them,
I'm just going to ask them here because they are rather small and few.
BT: This one does refer to the style overall. There are consistently double spaces after periods throughout
the collection, is this deliberate? I do know this is how typing used to be taught (I even remember learning
that,) so I wanted to know if it was deliberate, or just an accidental habit and we should fix it.
Stegman 19
AU: “Yes, in the olden-times we did put two spaces after periods, so that's the way all the poems are
formatted. I think the convention--going from one space after a period to two spaces after a period--is in
flux right now, with some writers (probably older) using the two spaces and some writers (probably
younger) using the one space. So I think it's fine to keep it with two spaces.”
Although the Chicago Manual of Style indicates that double spacing between sentences is old hat
and should be avoided, the author responds with the justification that, because older writers are
transitioning between old and new technologies, she should be able to keep two spaces between
each of her sentences. It is up to the book team to push back and negotiate this author’s
inexperience in style.
Making Changes to the Manuscript While the Copy Editor is Editing the First Draft
Much like the second copy editor-initiated conflict discussed above, the author can create
conflict if he or she makes changes to the manuscript without the copy editor knowing. Fisher
Saller explains that tensions may arise if the author wants to continue writing, making changes,
adding chapters, or adding sections while the manuscript is in the copyediting stage (Fisher
Saller 56), or if the author makes changes to the shared e-file while after the copy editing stage
has begun (57). Not only do these additions make the copy editor’s work redundant, it ensures
that the copy editor will have to go back into the manuscript and reassess the edits he or she
previously made. Fisher Saller suggests that, should the author realize that he or she would like
another chapter added to the manuscript, they should notify the copy editor immediately so that
no further edits are made until the manuscript is complete. Silent changes to the e-file create
inconsistent work or citation styles, and the copy editor may not get a chance to go back in once
edits are made. Should the copy editor notice these changes to the manuscript, it only creates
more work for the copy editor and slows down the overall copy editing process. I encountered an
Stegman 20
e-mail wherein the author is anticipating changes to the end of the manuscript and tries to
address them before the book team has to backtrack too much:
AU: Been thinking about it. How about you get me your track changes version and I'll work from that.
The changes I plan are simple. Deleting a few sentences about the missing body - he can be called away
from the lake for a domestic, changing the photo at the end back to the baptismal picture. I don't see
myself omitting whole pages or even paragraphs, so I don't think you're editing work will be wasted. I'll
track changes too. I think that will work. Combing two documents with changes always seems to create
more problems than it solves. And I can be prompt in getting things back to you guys.
>> Rachel
This e-mail is a good example of how the author should treat additions to the manuscript. In
notifying the book team immediately, she is ensuring that they do not need to go back in and reedit too much of the manuscript after she has altered the text. While she could have been more
specific about which paragraphs she is planning on changing, she is making a good effort to calm
the justified fears of the book team.
Disagreements Over the Publisher’s Style or Chicago Manual of Style
Grammatical Rules
Conflict subcategory three in the copy editor-initiated conflict section discussed the ways
that copy editors can become inflexible over the rules of grammar and style, however, the author
can become just as rigid over the same areas of edits. In some cases, the author formats the
manuscript in a way that is unconventional and will not budge on it (Fisher Saller 70). This could
be over a matter of citations, overall style, or a grammatical facet that a copy editor would want
to change to conform to in-house or Chicago Manual of Style rules. As stated previously, this
rigidity causes conflict when either party is unwilling to negotiate and slows the overall
production of the book.
There may be two reasons why authors behave in this way concerning the formatting of
their manuscript. First, this may be the first manuscript the author is publishing and they may be
Stegman 21
ignorant of the rules and the format the manuscript must be in before being published; this
ignorance will be discussed in the next subcategory. Another reason the author may be acting
difficult is because he or she has been burned by bad editing before (Fisher Saller 44) in a
previous copy editing process. This could lead the author to mistrust any of the edits being made
in his or her manuscript, as their manuscript was treated wrongly in another copy editing
experience. However, the author may simply just disagree with some edits and request to have
the edits removed or altered in some way. One such e-mail from an author is included below:
Hi Mike,
Attached is the manuscript. I went through it a couple times & "approved" almost all the edits. There were
a few I disagreed with & put in comments at those points. Here are some general questions:
-- regarding the italicizing of thoughts: sometimes the thoughts are in present tense (i.e., they are direct
thoughts of the characters; for example, on the bottom of p. 130), in which case italicizing makes sense.
But sometimes they are in past tense (i.e., they are a kind of summing up of the character's thoughts by
the narrator; for example on p. 136). In the latter case, it doesn't make sense to italicize. I've gone through
& tried to point out where it doesn't make sense to italicize. In some cases I actually un-italicized, but not
all.
--to further complicate things, sometimes you guys italicized thoughts, sometimes you didn't. I also made
notes where that happens.
--sometimes you guys capitalize the first word after a colon (p. 130), & sometimes not (p. 136). Not sure
if there's a reason for that, or just an oversight.
--there are times you change double quote marks to single quote marks (p. 73, again top of p. 77), which
looks wrong to me. I asked my wife, who has been a copy editor at Readers Digest, & for whom the
Chicago Manual is the Holy Bible, & she can't understand it either. It looks like a British affectation.
Furthermore, elsewhere you kept the double quote marks in similar situations.
--the info about the carp apparently comes from Wikipedia, or some online source that then made its way
to Wikipedia. Since it's being read in an article--neither the characters (nor the narrator) are originating
the info--is there a problem? Or should we reword it? Maybe add, "According to Wikipedia..."? Your call.
--I'm inclined to move "The Carp" farther away from "Talk." The protagonists are similar, & the
descriptions of their wives are especially alike. Even moving "The Carp" one story away (after "The
Overlook") might work. Let me know what you think.
--here & there I added a word or two, or cut a word, just because something sounded wrong to me. If I
read through this again no doubt I'd make even more minor changes (maybe even major ones). These
edits are in red, so you can see them. In one case I changed a last name.
Stegman 22
I'm attaching my edit (Floating Lady.Belden 11.24.2013.docx), & also the edit you sent me.
OK, let me know what you guys think about all this. Overall, the edits were on-the-money, & I only
objected to the ones that really irked me. The bottom line is that the stories are much improved, so thank
you for your hard work.
Now it's time for a margarootie. Have a great Thanksgiving.
Best,
Chris
This author is pushing back on some of the editing choices made by this particular book team.
He explains why he does not agree with these edits and notes that he “only objected to the ones
that really irked” him. His response will require some negotiating and another, more thorough
search through the Chicago Manual of Style from the book team in order to sort out these issues.
Author Ignorance
Ignorance on the author’s behalf plays a large role in conflicts that can grow between
authors and copy editors. In this conflict subcategory, the author may be ignorant of house
rules/Chicago manual of style rules (Fisher Saller 36), or may be unaware of the ways in which
to prepare the manuscript to be published (53). This uninformed treatment of the manuscript efile causes the copy editor to have to wade through the manuscript and clean it up, adding time
and unnecessary stress for the copy editor, when he or she already has a time constraint for the
initial edits that need to be completed. One New Rivers Press author included song lyrics in her
manuscript and the book team pointed out the problem to her in the following e-mail excerpt:
Hello Rachel,
[…]
-You use the lyrics for Patsy Cline's "Walking After Midnight" on page 148-149. If you use more than
roughly 15 percent of a song's lyrics, you need to have the copyright….
In pointing out the song lyrics and the correct, legal treatment of these lyrics, the book team
ensures that the author will protect the press from any potential legal action taken against them.
Stegman 23
This incorporation of song lyrics demonstrates that the author is unfamiliar with the correct way
to go about obtaining permission for such information. The good news, however, is that the book
team caught this error before any undesirable outcomes could take place.
A second conflict that an author could instigate is in asking to skip over the copy editing
process because he or she hired a freelance editor out of pocket (Fisher Saller 53). A request of
this nature may cause the copy editor to feel threatened, as the author might not respect the time
that the copy editor puts into fact checking and fixing the manuscript. This request could also
lead to other conflict in the future concerning communication, mistrust, or rigidity for the reason
that the author feels the manuscript has already undergone the necessary edits.
Poor Communication From the Author
Much like the poor communication that may begin at the hands of the copy editor,
authors have the potential to create an uninformed relationship in this stage. Whether the author
is unwilling to listen or negotiate (Fisher Saller 27) or he or she is not respectful of the calendar
or production schedule laid out by the publishing house (57), this poor communication practice
leads to conflict in the copy editing process. One extreme example of poor correspondence
practices did occur during my time at New Rivers Press. One of the authors did not respond to
his respective book team until less than one month before the end of the semester. This caused a
huge strain on the book team, as they were unaware of how to proceed editing the manuscript.
Without an author’s consent or disapproval, the copy editing process comes to a standstill, the
production schedule cannot move forward, and the author looks as if he does not care about the
outcome of his manuscript.
Stegman 24
Conflict Discussion
As described at the end of the copy editor-initiated conflict section, author-initiated
conflict is also a product of the relational view of power. According to Working Through
Conflict, “Power establishes the set of actions that individuals may use and sets limits on the
effectiveness of other parties’ moves. Each move reveals to others how willing a party is to use
power and what kinds of power that party has. The response to the move reveals whether the use
of power will go unchallenged” (Folger, Poole, and Stutman 139). The author e-mails included
above each display a power play made based on a resource that the author possesses, whether
that is time, control over when the book team will receive feedback, or a copy editing wife with
knowledge of Chicago rules. As discussed in the previous section, all perceived power is
possessed by the group, each resource-based power play is either endorsed or refuted by the copy
editor, and the future moves will be negotiated during the conflict interaction.
Perhaps the copy editor has already made a power move in previous interaction. These copy
editor power moves then triggered the author’s countermoves, and the interaction will go back
and forth in this pattern until the process is completed. It looks as if the book teams and authors
are not having heated discussions, and these conflcits will most likely work themselves out in a
cordial manner before any escalation occurs.
Conflict Initiated by Third Parties
Other Common Conflicts
The Subversive Copy Editor also mentions several other common conflicts that occur
because of a third party such as the senior editor on the project, the instance of the copy editor
Stegman 25
being hired out-of-house, or because of overarching house style rules. These conflicts begin
because of an outside source but still affect the copy editor/author relationship as a whole.
One such conflict can be caused because of. Authors may feel that the book is not being
represented in a way they would like to see it marketed, and the copy editor might take the brunt
of this angst. Anger toward the copy editor over these issues is not justified because decisions of
these matters are not part of the copy editor’s duties. Author anger of this nature is a direct result
of mistrust and loss of faith in the publishing tactics, but it should be taken up with a senior
editor instead.
A second third party-initiated conflict may develop because the publishing house decides
to hire a freelance editor that works on special projects. This hiring may be because the in-house
copy editor has other projects underway or because the publishing press may be too small to
have a full-time copy editor on staff. A publishing press with this type of copy editing process
may see conflict occurring because freelancers are not able to communicate directly with the
authors (Fisher Saller 25). Some publishing presses prefer that the copy editor make edits and
leave detailed notes and provide a style sheet but have no other say in the production of the book.
This may lead to edits that the author is not in agreement with, and the senior editor may not
have the ability to give the author or copy editor on task adequate feedback (25). There may be
many reasons why the senior editor may not want the copy editor to directly communicate with
the author, but this triangle of communication sometimes leads to conflict and poor
communication practices.
New Rivers Press encountered a similar example of this type of conflict, however, the
author and copy editor’s roles were reversed. During the beginning of the semester, one of the
authors opted out of all responsibilities in the copy editing of his book. He elected to have the
Stegman 26
instructor of the course act as the surrogate author in this process, only wanting to see how the
manuscript turned out in the end. This is an extremely rare situation in the publishing world.
Luckily for the book team, they had Dr. Kelley to take up the author’s role, ensuring that
someone was in place to respond to the edits and queries they had during the copy editing
process.
Conflict Discussion
Once again, the issues raised in the third party-initiated conflict category reflects a trigger
that sets off differentiation. The difference between this category and the author- and copy
editor-initiated conflicts is that, although the conflict may not be instigated by one of the two, it
still directly affects both parties and the work they hope to see completed. Properties one, three,
and four of Working Through Conflict’s properties of conflict interaction are present in these
conflicts: these include 1.) Conflict is constituted and sustained by moves and countermoves
during interaction; 3.) Conflict interaction is influenced by and in turn affects relationships; and
4.) Conflict interaction is influenced by the context in which it occurs (Folger et al 22). First and
foremost, moves and countermoves by the author, copy editor (whether in-house or freelnace),
and third-party initiator will sustain or determine the way the conflict will play out. Second, the
interaction from the three interdependent parties will affect the relationships formed in the copy
editing stage. Third, like most conflicts, context is huge. The climate, language used, and conflict
styles enacted will affect the way that any of the three parties involved will move through
differentiation.
Before successful integration can occur, the interdependent author and copy editor as
well as the party or situation that began the conflict in the first place must complete a
Stegman 27
differentiation session. If a senior editor does not allow the freelance editor to contact the author,
he or she needs to work out the conflict first with the copy editor to see where he or she is
coming from, and then allow open feedback to be sent to both the author and copy editor.
Without a release of all information pertinent to the conflict at hand, an attempt at integration
and conflict resolution is futile. The differentiation cycle will begin once again, either from the
same conflict at a later stage or from a different conflict that brings up past conflicts that were
never fully resolved.
Ways to Successfully Collaborate in the Copy Editing Process
Although differentiation is essential for interdependent parties to move past
disagreements, integration is the key to move past the copy editing stage and toward the next
steps in the manuscript’s production process. Working Through Conflict argues, “It is important
for parties to synchronize their transition to the integration stage. If one party is ready to work on
the problem, but the other still wants to fight, the first might give up on cooperation and restart
escalating conflict” (Folger et al 19). To successfully move toward integration, four conditions
must first be met first, parties must be sure to completely surface all disagreements that are
imbedded in the conflict at hand. A second condition involves a realization from both parties that
the other is not willing to give up completely or to give into the other’s point of view. Third,
parties must first experience the negative side of the conflict so that they are motivated to work
toward integration. Finally, the parties must both participate in “active listening,” where parties
act and react respectfully to the other’s arguments (Folger et al 18-19). Without these steps
parties may not complete a satisfactory integration and thus leave the copy editing stage with a
feeling of disappointment.
Stegman 28
Literature in the collaborative writing field exists in addressing ways to make coauthorship more successful and less straining for all parties involved. As discussed in the
literature review, society’s view of the editor’s role as “co-author” has changed somewhat to
include both the author and copy editor in changing the overall meaning of the text under
revision. While the books I read specifically address collaborative writers on the same level in
co-authoring a text, I am using the same strategies to suggest changes and modifications in the
behaviors of copy editor and authors working through the production stage.
One such book is titled Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. In chapter five of
Team Writing, author Virginia Wolfe discusses constructive conflict and its positive role in
collaborative writing. Including steps to help move through conflict and to surface all sides of the
issues, this chapter offers good advice to “co-writers” facing conflict. Wolfe makes specific
claims that stress the importance of working through conflict in a productive way. She argues
that “constructive conflict,” or the “healthy, respectful debate of ideas and competing solutions
to a problem. [It is] essential for anticipating problems and working through pros and cons of
different approaches to find the best possible solution” (Wolfe 52). Constructive conflict is
needed in collaboration because it brings up issues that the two working together can resolve.
This argument directly relates to the differentiation process outline in Working Through Conflict.
Without raising issues, clarifying points of view, and talking through disagreements, successful
integration cannot occur. Wolfe states, “If your goal is to have the best product possible, you
should welcome constructive conflict because it exposes flaws that, when addressed, will lead to
an improved product” (52). Without the integration stage, the copy editor and author have a
potential to come to a stalemate in the process or to bring up past issues that were never fully
Stegman 29
resolved. There is also potential for the manuscript to reach a point where constructive conflict
no longer yields new, improved revisions to the overall effectiveness of the text.
Wolfe also identifies five strategies to create a constructive infrastructure for the team,
including “Clarifying roles and responsibilities up front in a task schedule,” “Include revision in
the task schedule and allow for plenty of time to implement revisions,” “Lay some ground rules
for conversation,” “Putting aside time for revision,” “Decide in advance how impasses
(stalemates) will be handled,” and “Establishing team priorities” (Wolfe 56). Wolfe includes
these useful steps to move through stalemates that halt collaboration and steps to work toward
resolving constructive conflict between two parties. Each point sets the stage for successful
collaboration between the author and copy editor. In “Clarifying roles and responsibilities up
front in a task schedule,” the copy editor and publishing house establish the duties expected from
each author as well as ensure that a schedule can be followed and referred to during the
publishing process. In addition, the publishing press and copy editor should make sure to
“Include revision in the task schedule and allow for plenty of time to implement revisions,” as
the author is most often busy with various other tasks and needs time to efficiently think through
the suggested changes in the e-file. Wolfe’s “Lay some ground rules for conversation” stage can
also be helpful if the copy editor and author do not have successful communication practices (5556). Bad communication may be the byproduct of freelance editing, but there are ways to
improve this facet of the copy editing stage. I suggest allowing the freelancer to speak directly
with the author through e-mail exchanges, much like the system that New Rivers Press has put
into place. In this model of communication, Dr. Suzzanne Kelley is copied in each e-mail
message, ensuring that the conversation is timely and appropriate to move the process along.
Stegman 30
While she very seldom jumps in with alterations to the conversations happening, she still has the
ability to oversee the communication and approve the edits.
Wolfe’s last two steps, “Decide in advance how impasses (stalemates) will be handled”
and “Establishing team priorities,” are two important facets to the author/copy editor relationship
(Wolfe 56). “Team priorities” may be implicit knowledge between the author and copy editor;
these priorities are to publish a complete, virtually error-free book in the time schedule planned
out at the beginning of the process. It may be beneficial to both parties to make this implicit
knowledge explicit on the contract, ensuring that both parties are working toward a mutual,
agreed-upon goal. Second, if conflicts are anticipated (and my research points to this fact),
Wolfe’s strategies are wonderful examples to follow to move past stalemates. She suggests that
“the group finds consensus,” or differentiation takes place between the author and copy editor;
“the supervisor decides,” or bringing in a senior editor to make final edits; or “the client (or
target audience) decides” (56). Allowing the copy editor and author to differentiate allows the
“group to find consensus” and guarantees that both parties have a chance to negotiate and voice
opinions. Letting the “supervisor” or senior editor have the final decision-making power over
certain edits warrants a manuscript that follows the Chicago Manual of Style and in-house rules,
as well as safeguards against future complaints made on the author’s behalf. Finally, letting the
“target audience” decide on certain edits entails doing research into similar works and how well
they have worked in the market. Conforming the text under revision to reflect successful,
desirable works already being purchased allows both parties to feel good about the edits,
knowing that the readers will approve of certain edits as well.
Conclusion
Stegman 31
While copy editor/ author relationships do not always have to be messy, it is more
common than one may believe. Both author and copy editor have one goal in mind: to create a
well-received, successful text that readers will enjoy and learn from in a virtually error-free
manner. Throughout my research process, I found that New Rivers Press authors and book teams
do not wish to encounter conflicts and will therefore work through any issues that arise to
creatively and professionally solve problems and concerns in a collaborative way. This is a
fantastic model for other publishing presses to follow. Along with The Subversive Copy Editor,
books Working Through Conflict and Team Writing offer successful strategies and processes
that, if followed closely, could aid participants in the copy editing stage. A less abrasive and
more collaborative relationship could, perhaps, lead to a smoother and more enjoyable
author/copy differentiation stage and a smoother transition into the integration stage and each
conflict’s resolution.
Stegman 32
Works Cited
Folger, Joseph P., Marshall Scott Poole, and Randall K. Stutman. “Communication and
Conflict.” Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and
Organizations. 6th Ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 13-36. Print.
----. “Conflict Interaction.” Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and
Organizations. 6th Ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 73-102. Print.
----. “Introduction.” Working Through Conflict: Strategies for Relationships, Groups, and
Organizations. 6th Ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 1-11. Print.
----. “Power: The Architecture of Conflict.” Working Through Conflict: Strategies for
Relationships, Groups, and Organizations. 6th Ed. Boston: Pearson, 2009. 136-173.
Print.
Fontaine, Sheryl L. and Susan M. Hunter. “Let’s Talk: What Is the Role of Conversation in
Collaboration?” Collaborative Writing in Composition Studies. Boston: Cengage, 2005.
39-51. Print.
----. “Losing My Identity: How Do I ‘Co’ mingle in ‘Co’ authorship?” Collaborative Writing in
Composition Studies. Boston: Cengage, 2005. 65-75. Print.
Inge, Thomas M. “Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship.” Modern Language Association.
116.3 (2001): 623-630. Print. 28 October 2013.
Jacques, Kelly Chrisman. From Conflict to Concord: Copyeditors, Composition, and Technology.
Diss. University of Kansas, 2010. Lawrence, 2010. Print.
LeFevre, Karen Burke. “A Continuum of Social Perspectives on Invention.” Invention as a
Social Act. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1986. 48-93. Print.
Stegman 33
Lunsford, Andrea and Lisa Ede. “New Beginnings.” Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives
on Collaborative Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. 130141. Print.
----. “The Concept of Authorship.” Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative
Writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1992. Print.
Saller, Carol Fisher. The Subversive Copy Editor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Nook file.
Wolfe, Joanna. “Constructive Conflict.” Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 51-58. Print.
----. “Revising with Others.” Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2010. 59-79. Print.
----. “Troubleshooting Team Problems.” Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2010. 104-121. Print.
Stegman 34
Appendix
Conflict Initiated by the Author
Conflict Initiated by Copy Editor
Inattention to the
other’s wishes or
voice
Making changes Disagreements over
without the other’s
the style or
consent (silent
grammar
changes)
Ignorance
Poor
communication
from one party
1. Using power to make 1. Silent changes in the
changes against the
track changes function
author’s wishes
2. Sending the
2. Paying little attention manuscript to the
to the author’s voice
typesetter without
and changing it to
speaking with the
match the copy editor’s author about making
wishes
certain edits
1. Copy editor may
impose consistency
rules against the
author’s wishes
1. Copy editor does
not do adequate
research into the
manuscript’s subject
area
1. Freelance editors
are sometimes unable
to communicate with
the author directly
2. Know a rule and
painstakingly apply it
only to meet author’s
resistance
2 Being ambiguous
2. Sometimes the
about author’s tasks
copy editor goofs and
has to start over or
make huge changes
3. Sending the
manuscript back
because it does not meet
house requirements
3. Flouting the rules of
grammar to make the
author feel incompetent
1. Difficult and want no 1. Wants to continue
1. Formats the
1. ignorant of house 1. Author is unwilling
stylistic changes made writing or making
manuscript in a way that rules/Chicago manual to listen or negotiate
changes, adding
is unconventional and of style rules
2. Go over the copy
chapters, or sections
will not budge on it
2. Not respectful of
editor’s head and make while the manuscript is
2. ignorant of how to the calendar or
a complaint to a senior in the copyediting stage 2. Being difficult
prepare the
production schedule
editor
because they’ve been manuscript to be
2. Change the e-file
burned by bad editing published
3. Exploding in anger once the manuscript has before
over edits made and
begun edits
3. May ask to skip the
makes threats
copy editing
process/hired a
freelance editor out of
pocket
4. Make a mess of the
manuscript and the
copy editor has to fix
it
Other
Stegman 35
Conflict Initiated by a Third Party
1. Disagreements
over contracts,
rights, royalties, or
marketing tactics
2. House rules
trumping author’s
wishes unless
exceptions are made
3. Freelancers are
not able to
communicate
directly with the
authors
4. The senior editors
do not give adequate
feedback to the copy
editors
5. Schedules of the
publisher and author
do not match up do
to other factors