Proof reading job: commenting on style?

[Eleanor111]

DH recently agreed, in principle, to proofread a new book for a European academic (ie not a native English speaker). DH is experienced in foreign & English language study and teaching but this is his first attempt at proofreading.

DH corrected a first chapter, dealing with grammar mistakes (in this he is very systematic and conscientious), but not focusing on style. In fact the style did not seem bad to him, although the subject is not one he has himself studied, so it is not easy to judge.

The lecturer has since written back, not criticizing the work in any way and expressing willingness to pay, but mentioning that DH had not made a great many comments. He says that he had not thought his own English so good, and had expected there to have been more mistakes! He adds that he may be being over-sensitive in this.

Do any proof-readers out there have any suggestions? Looks as though more chapters are coming DH's way but he's now uncertain how his work should proceed.

Well, a proof reader is different to an editor. I would think that he would not really need to be commenting particularly on style. My understanding of proof-reading is grammar/punctuation/spelling. And obvious sentence structure errors. I would think if it's not English as the native language then linguistic issues would be dealt with too.

Comments on style etc would be editing?

When I have done proof reading I have corrected spelling, grammar and generally asked if it makes sense. Needs to be correct English.

Wouldn't look at continuity or style. However, if this is an informal agreement he might be wanting a bit more input, your DH being a native speaker and the writer not. So your DH can ask him exactly what inout he wants.

Btw I am not a professional, trained proofreader, but it has come up as part of my jobs at various points in my career, being a native English speaker abroad.

I am a proofreader and I only check for spelling, consistency, punctuation and grammar, to be honest I don't take in much of the content I am reading, it is often a very boring subject and having done this job for 17 years my mind is trained to read with my eyes, when I read for pleasure I read with my eyes and ears if that makes sense. I do however, always ask what is expected of me before I take on a job, while making it clear I am not an editor.

Thanks to you all for your helpful comments.

DH duly sent off the annotated chapter to the writer, and was paid. He has now had a reply. Writer had forwarded the comments, with DH's corrections, to another academic - a native English speaker who specialises in that subject (which of course DH doesn't). Writer is worried that the academic claims still to have found "too many mistakes" after DH's corrections. Writer has sent it back to DH, with the academic's own comments, asking for DH's reaction.

DH says that most of the academic's comments are either debatable, or else involving the content - which of course the academic knows.

DH is tempted to take the view that he would do well to get out of this. He is skilled at error correction, but doesn't - as I've said - know the subject. The writer is bound to take the word of the academic before that of DH, so it is likely to end badly if DH carries on. No contract has been signed, so DH could just drop it. What do people think?

I think I'd be tempted to drop it - I've done that sort of proof-reading, and I was only checking for correct English. I did point out a couple of sentences I'd had to read a few times to make sense of, to advise that they should be rewritten in clearer sentences - I have also pointed out when I'm being excessively pedantic about style and that the point could be debated by wrong-headed people, but there was no checking of facts or actual content, because I didn't have the knowledge to be able to do that.