Overall, I found it difficult to separate microediting from macroediting. I can understand separating them for the purpose of class discussion, but in my (albeit limited) experience, micro and macro editing tend to happen at the same time. You might read through once just looking for grammar while letting macro questions simmer in the back of your mind, but I’m not sure it’s possible to totally separate them. For example, when I was working with Rachel I tried to focus only on grammar, style, etc., but found myself thinking here and there “I wonder if she could include more on this” or “she could probably do away with this.” Similarly, while working with Lisa this week, I tried to limit myself to thinking about big-picture questions but could not stop myself looking for little grammatical errors. I felt overall that trying to separate these types of editing into two completely different exercises was not tremendously helpful.

The macroediting chapter of Bell is a good resource and something I’ll continue to use, particularly in editing for structural elements. I also liked the worksheet for this exercise. It focused attention on different elements while calling for our own ideas about each. I enjoyed applying them to Libby’s profile story – hope it was a little helpful!

Overall, I enjoyed the process of maroediting more than the micro. It’s not that I don’t get into fine tuning … pretty much can’t tear myself away, but I felt like I could be more helpful in looking at the bigger elements. Now to apply it to my own work …

Macroediting Daisy’s paper was an interesting experience. I found it a little less helpful than microediting, because the whole time I wanted to read for grammar and punctuation. I felt that this process helped critique the overall flow of her profile story, rather than nit-picky details. It was a good way to point out flaws that needed to be fixed that I would not necessarily have seen had we not done this exercise.