When I think about writing and its processes I always like to do so from a creative perspective. It is what interests and excites me; in fact, it takes up my days in their entirety. However, I concede that, if one wants to become a pro, being aware of possible professional pitfalls is as important as getting down to the page itself. This is the reason why today I decided to pen a tale of caution regarding a certain type of ads that regularly scream at people from the pages of writing magazines and from most related websites. The purpose to do so is to shatter your romanticised dreams about a reality that just does not exist in the way it is imagined by most people.
Get Paid To Read! Become A Proofreader!
Ah my dear reader, wouldn't it be wonderful to read for a living? Imagine that! There you are, sitting by the pool in your back garden, a fresh manuscript in your lap, the glass of sangria on the side table and the red pen poised for attack. As time slips by, you tick each faultless page, slowly nodding to yourself in agreement as you reach the end of yet another gripping chapter. And did you not just start two minutes ago? Look, it's already time to ring for a curry! Well, Confucius did say that if you find a job you love, you will never have to work another day in your life.
Let me tell you something about the life of a proofreader which does not appear anywhere: it is a thankless, unbelievably boring task which pays pennies, and I mean pennies. When I am in the midst of checking yet another rambling page of writing I have absolutely no interest in reading, I try and tell myself that I am the last line of defence against mistakes, that my work is valuable and that, most importantly, I am developing a sense of self-worth because of it. These however are placebos I feed myself on a regular basis; in fact, I am addicted to them.
A proofreader ends up reading all sorts of stuff (because all sorts of stuff gets written and published, and I say this in the worst possible sense), but when the ads slyly suggest that it would be great to read for a living, they disregard one very important aspect of reading, that relation which subliminally associates reading with pleasure: we read what we love to read. When we stumble upon a book we don't like, no matter the reason, we are free to grimace, put it down and forget about it forever more because no editor, nor publisher, will give us a call a week or so later, demanding an annotated copy in return.
A proofreader cannot put the crap down and forget about it; a proofreader wades through it like a flea would swim through Golden Syrup. However, I do understand some individuals regard financially well-rewarded work as valuable, no matter our emotional responses to it. For those who fall in the camp of 'if it's well-paid, it's worth doing no matter how much I hate it', please read on.
Let's say that you're a really fast reader and that you can successfully proof 10 pages an hour. You'll be proofing about 3000 words. You company gets paid £ 6 per 1000 words, which means your job nets the company £ 18. You'll get in between 1/5 and 1/4 of that which means between £ 3.60 and £ 4.50 per hour. In the UK £ 4.50 is £ 1.33 less than the minimum wage for over 22 year-old workers. When I was younger and had a stint washing dishes in a Chinese restaurant, I got paid around about the same as a proofreader, except that was a cash-in-hand job. If you work as a freelance proofreader you are able (indeed as the ads claim), to set your own rates, but for any job where one does so, the rates aren't really dictated by how much you want to make, and even less so are they dictated by how much you think your extraordinary abilities should make you. The rates are dictated by the market. This means that if most proofreading companies out there charge £ 6 per 1000 words, I am free to charge £ 15, or anything above it, instead but with this snag: no-one will hire me.
When individuals or agencies seek proofreading services they like to use proofreading companies. These companies project a sense of safe business exchange: you have the manuscript, we have the proofreaders marking away at their little desks. In reality, they are none other than online agents for freelance proofreaders who eagerly put themselves on their books hoping that the jobs will start coming their way. The chances to get a proofreading assignment in such a way are extremely remote which explains why the websites of these supposed companies always welcome contact from freelance proofreaders and editors to work at short notice on various projects. This is not because the need for such specialists is so enormous that thousands of them are needed in order to meet demand; it is because new proofreaders realise soon enough that no work will be forthcoming, and that the one that is will be so poorly paid that it isn't worth doing. Thus they drop off the books and thus the agency needs more potential proofreaders so that they can scramble for one the moment an urgent quote request drops into the inbox.* I would love to tell you that the supposed ongoing rate recommended by the Society of Editors and Proofreaders (a minimum of £ 19.25 per hour, the last time I checked) is how much you'll definitely get but, in practice, a proofreader who consistently makes £ 10 per hour is considered on a very good rate.
If I needed a proofreader, I would not seek one via online companies. This is because I am extremely suspicious of the working ethics that allow a company to provide a sliding scale of instant online quotes starting with a guaranteed 12- or 24-hour turnaround of a 120,000-word manuscript. With prices such as £ 3500 and £ 2500 respectively, the emphasis lies entirely on speed of completion (and let us not forget that the proofreader will only receive 20% to 30% of that amount. I am not that comfortable with such exploitation). Yet writing, and proofreading with it, are precision jobs that cannot be successfully completed when engaged in a battle against urgency and precipitation. This does not mean that I feel entitled to charge twenty hours worth of proofing when I know that I will do the job in ten: it means that a commitment to excellence cannot be maintained by an automated approach to the task. For speed of delivery, a spell-checker will suffice, but of course according to it, fare, fair, fared, flare and flair are all acceptable words. Only a professional will know the difference but as good as the proofreader may be, 120,000 words cannot be assessed for quality while retaining precision in a mere 12-hour span.
Where does this picture of doom leaves you, writer and perhaps prospective proofreader who has already started a correspondence course? It leaves you in the land of the well-informed of course, where your own empowerment will yield more profitable results than chasing high financial rewards from a little job. You may as well move to the Equator and start selling Aran jumpers. What you should remember is that proofreading skills are vital to you as a writer, regardless of whether you land assignments or not. Agents, editors and publishers love writers who can turn in a manuscript that glows with professionalism. When the proofs for my book were announced as forthcoming by an email that read: 'Nice to be working with an author who cares', I enjoyed a moment of quiet, smirking pride, as my work felt to have already paid off in the most unexpected way.
I do not have a proofreading qualification and neither do most proofreaders and editors who are working in large publishing houses where a deep understanding of language is expected as a pre-requisite for the job. I successfully proofread for a publisher who is consistently happy with the results. Am I therefore trying to slam those who provide courses I regard as a bit pointless? No, I am not, as I think that to know more and more is infinitely better than to know little and superficially. However, some introspection can go a long way here: only you can be the judge of which path you need to take in order to proof, if not others' writings, at least your own.
*They operate in the same way as language companies that claim to provide tuition in all languages in any given geographical area (honestly, that is one of the most stupid things I've ever heard, as nobody can provide tuition in all languages that exist; do they even understand what they are saying?). I was once contacted by one of these in order to teach French in Chester for two hours a week at a rate of £ 7 per hour, travel expenses not included, while the company would cash £ 35 per hour. Rapid calculations yielded a personal £ 2.45 hourly loss. I turned the job now. Their website claimed to have available courses with multiple start dates while in reality they were fishing for a teacher at the exact moment a request for one had been received.
Comments