[Bups-dis] How do you proof read?

[Duncan Crowe]

I guess it's a matter of 'horses for courses'. It depends on 1) the 
nature of the things to be proof read and 2) the person proof reading it 
(and, I suppose, 3) the time in which you have to proof read it, but 
we'll ignore that).

I'll assume we're talking about longer pieces which are of some importance.

I have to disagree with Ron entirely. It may be the case that it works 
for him, but I've reached the stage now when it's nigh on impossible for 
me to write sensibly by hand. I'm just not used to doing it, so my 
'instincts' about the length of sentences, paragraphs and so on go to 
pot entirely. I've consequently an ongoing passive-aggressive campaign 
against the fact exams tend to have to be written by hand, but that's 
another story.

I also have to disagree in part with the people who have advised 'leave 
it then read it'. The trouble for me seems to be that reading it 
involves more or less the same processes as writing it, and I find I can 
miss what seem to be quite obvious gaps in coherence even if they've had 
a day or two to fester. I has something to do with gap-filling via 
'well, I know what I mean' which, while it's alright for grammar isn't 
any good for the coherence of the argument itself.

As strange as it sounds I found reading it aloud really helps. I found 
this out largely as a result of a supervisor who decided (and it seems 
fair enough) a good way to punish me for late submissions was to read 
the essay out during the supervision (which is apparently what they did 
in the old days before word processors allowed submissions to be a 
guaranteed standard of legibility). The result was to make glaringly 
obvious aspects which sometimes escape proof reading; changes of 
emphasis. shifts in terminology, subtle gaps in unformalized arguments.

As far as longer pieces go (and I don't think this is by any means an 
original observation) it helps to write them in a modular fashion. If 
you know what the 'input' is (in terms of where you argument is going) 
and what the 'output' is - what conclusion you need to motivate the next 
step in the argument you have what is essentially a self contained 
section. It sounds pretty strange, but if you are writing them in this 
form not only do you not need to proof read the whole thing at once, but 
it might help to proof read them out of order. Certainly jumbling things 
up at least once allows you to (better) ensure an overall constancy of 
the terminology and the 'feel' of the piece.

I'm tempted to add my support to what Andrew said, in so far as my 
second drafts are never drafts so much as 100% rewrites, but I'm not 
sure I'd go so far as to /delete/ the original, as I invariably find the 
second draft feels a lot less flowing and a lot more constipated. As a 
result it often feels like I've given a deeper treatment of the 
arguments I wish to make in the first draft, even if I haven't expressed 
them particularly coherently so I like to keep it around as a reference.
"...probably not the way for ordinary tutorials."

Agreed. I tend not to proof-read supervision essays (apologies to Nick!)

Best to all,
Duncan.


Andrew Bacon wrote:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS at bups.org
> -
>
> It depends why you are proof reading it; if it is for spelling mistakes and
> grammar I tend to just to read through it - usually the standard spell/grammar
> checker is good enough for this. 
>
> If I'm proof reading it to brush up the content, one very effective way to do
> this is to read it, then delete the whole essay (or large chunks of it) and
> rewrite it from scratch. After the essay has been written you have a better idea
> of the structure and what you are going to say, so when you write it for the
> second time it is much more concise, and structured, and you will know how each
> section fits in with the rest of your argument.
>
> I admit this is a pretty hardcore way to go about writing essay - probably not
> the way for ordinary tutorials. However, when I was writing my thesis, and
> dissertations it turned out to be very good method!
>
> Best,
>
> Andrew
>   


>   
>> This is easy
>>
>> 1) Write it in longhand.
>> 2) Revise it in longhand.
>> 3) Type it up. At this point you proof read as a matter of course.
>> 4) Hand it in.
>>
>> I've been doing Open University Assignments this way for an embarrassing
>>     
> number of years.
>   
>> Ron King.
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> -
>> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
>>     
> at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml
>   
>
>