McGraw-Hill's Proofreading Handbook

by Laura Killen Anderson

Expert advice to perfect your proofreading skills McGraw-Hill’s Proofreading Handbook helps ensure that your documents are letter-perfect, every time. Veteran editor and proofreader Laura Anderson arms you with all the tools of the proofreader’s trade and walks you step-by-step through the entire proofreading process.

Genres: Writing, Reference, Nonfiction, Professional Development, Language

164 pages, Paperback

First published October 10, 2005

Reviews

[Danielle · Rating 3 out of 5]

Originally published in 1990, this 2005 edition is still quite dated. For those who work on hard copy, the extensive list of proofreader's marks with examples is helpful. If you are looking for an introduction to proofreading and understanding typesetting specifications, this is a useful text.

[WiLoveBooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good to have as a resource. A little outdated.

[Kerry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Proofreading isn't nearly as boring as this book makes it out to be. Sure, you have to stifle the urge to be juvenile when you catch a missing "l" in the word "public" (professionalism goes far, even if you are just a beginner) but the work itself is rewarding and fun for those with the right temperament. This book lacks enthusiasm, maintaining a dry monotone throughout--not a good attitude for a how-to guide. Those who proofread and edit for a living know that all you have to do is Google your grammar or style question to find knowledgeable and interesting discussion about language, punctuation, and techniques. Learning about the process does not have to bore you to insanity. If you're interested in proofreading, I suggest going elsewhere--take an online class, read the countless blogs about editing and proofreading, or find a book with verve.

So much proofreading is done online/digitally/remotely, that much of this book feels outdated. The information is good to know, especially if you want to work as an in-house proofreader for a company--and if you have the luxury of using hard-copy proofs to look at. However, most proofreaders working through the internet will be mainly responsible for finding and fixing errors, and an important skill to have is Word's "track changes" feature--arguably more important than proofreading marks. The word processing program in use will make font consistency, justification, and other considerations a matter of a click of a button, and the client or others readying the document for publication will be responsible for those changes.

[Melody · Rating 3 out of 5]

McGraw-Hill identifies proofreader who/what, types/techniques, skills + attitude (mindset), author's/editor’s voice, query + markup how/what/where, and formatting.

Proofreading Handbook reads like an instruction manual that dips a toe into copyediting. This said, it focuses primarily on *nonfiction* editing, not to say there isn’t opportunity to learn. It’s a good read in the sense that it spotlights the proofreading craft and how to work for a company or freelance. I say this with care, but it’s not appropriate for all for editors in the fiction realm.

[Sieglinde · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick and useful guide that includes a handy section on proofreading marks, a glossary of terms, and highlights some of the lingo one may come across if working in a proofreading or editorial role. Some parts are a bit dated now—technology moves on—and there are proofreading jobs out there that have no requirement for some parts yet do require copyediting—this I know from personal experience—but if you work in the area or are hoping to work in the area, it's definitely a reference tool to have in one's personal library.

[Dola Singh · Rating 3 out of 5]

Found the book quite informative even though the tone was dry and preachy. Would be useful for someone who works on hard copies

[Kathy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not a bad book to use as a resource. It was very informative. But not up to date. Still very interesting to read.

[Nick Angiers · Rating 5 out of 5]

Best book ever! Not a single typo.

[April Rust · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty outdated but had some applicable ideas still.

[Alyce Hunt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm extremely interested in proofreading, which is why I decided to pick up this handbook. However, it's not the most appealing to a starter - it could be better suited to someone who has already taken proofreading courses and is more gripped by the subject, because for someone who is only considering it, I got bored of the subject quickly. It's filled with interesting lists and practice diagrams of what you should be doing while you're proofreading, but it's more a book that you should have with you on a job, because it's something that you could refer to throughout your work, rather than read before and memorise.
Furthermore, if you're English, I'm sure there are better guides that this one, because there obviously is a lot of differences between the English and American spelling of a lot of words, and with those being used throughout it automatically made me apprehensive.

[Holly · Rating 2 out of 5]

The list of standard proofreading marks is the most comprehensive I've found and it offers clear examples and explanations. But this new (2006) edition hasn't been updated enough from the first 1990 edition. Like climbing into a time machine and reappearing in a 1982 corporate office setting with my 6-inch transparent ruler and magnifying glass.

[Anne · Rating 3 out of 5]

It was good, but I was looking more for something to help me proofread better at work. I'm a legal assistant. I didn't need all the copy editor type stuff. Just help in finding mistakes easier and correct punctuation and things like that.

It would be great for someone who wants to proofread books for a living. I just proofread letters and pleadings and briefs.

[Kazia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Was helpful. A tad bit outdated now that it's the 2017 (almost 2018). The book had apparently been designed or what not on Quark. I'm not sure if any publisher uses that program over Adobe InDesign...

[Natalie]

More didacticism while awaiting my next class.

[Zuzana · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very useful for anyone halfway serious about proofreading.

[Diane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent review for my proofreading skills. several sections of new material that was very helpful for copy editing and especially proofreading.

[Derick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great amount of typographical data.