What it takes to be a sub

What does it take to be a sub (Americans who are mystified, I’m talking about copy editors here, not sandwiches or submarines)? Some people drift into it, some people train for it. Whatever the entry route, you need to have an appreciation for language, a knowledge of the law, an understanding of production and design, the ability to write, a pedantic need to check facts and an eye for spotting mistakes at least.

Not any more though.

Back in my day, you didn’t get to be a sub unless you showed at least some of those talents. I had to get myself some qualifications in the basics, spend a year proof-reading, 30 hours per week, and spend another year learning Quark, Photoshop and Illustrator before I got to start rewriting other people’s work. Even then, it was under supervision from an editor who gave me lots of helpful advice (thanks, Rachel Cooper if you’re reading this!).

Nowadays, it seems like anyone can be a sub. Just set them in front of a word processor, tell them to rewrite the article for space, etc, and let them at it. It’s a trend I’ve noticed in smaller publishing houses and those strapped for cash or employees. You might argue that’s what freelance subs are for: you don’t have to pay the sub for the whole month and in the age of broadband, a sub can be almost anywhere and still work on a magazine – it’s something I’ve done myself for several firms. But it’s an argument that has little power at these companies: better the employee you know and already pay than an outsider who may be more skilled but who you’d have to find a budget for (subs: hanging participles – are they acceptable in blogs? And should it be ‘who’ or ‘whom’ in such instances? Discuss.).

The result is a bunch of people with the word ‘sub’ in their job title (which may only appear in the flannel panels at the front of the magazines, incidentally. Their real job titles are usually something else.) but who don’t actually have the skills and who will never receive the training to get those skills. Quark abilities are usually meagre at best; proofreading talents are non-existent; legal knowledge consists of whatever they’ve picked up off the tele; techie skills may be good but an understanding of RGB versus CMYK is usually absent and few have the patience to check those kinds of things anyway; none of them have any appreciation for the rhythms of language or even grammar; and often none of them even have the capability to write new copy if necessary – I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve seen certain subs say “Can you make the following changes for me?”, rather than just doing the changes themselves.

Take this month’s issue of iCreate. ‘Your Questions Answered’ – erm, my section – was full of subbing errors. Here’s a sample of the typos I spotted that weren’t in my original copy.

  • “and is will delete data”
  • “Mac is for Macs only” – should have been .Mac;
  • “syncing with both machines using PalmSource” – PalmSource is the name of a company
  • “It’s a well worth investment”
  • “but they are relatively heavy going, unfortunately you’ll need to be fairly au fait”
  • “While it doesn’t cure all known ills, but 10.4.3”
  • “If you find your printer switches back Default”

There’s also one headline that doesn’t match the story, a picture stretched out of all recognition and a couple of amendments to update the answers (time flies in the computing world) weren’t included. Not bad for just four pages.

Now, for some reason, the public is under the general delusion that journalists’ articles go straight into print without any changes. Even the excellent State of Play, a serial much-revered by journalists for its accurate portrayal of life at a newspaper, made this boo-boo by showing a journalist composing the headline for his own article on the finished page. Admittedly, it was realistic in showing that said journalist knew f-all about layouts since the headline was centred and didn’t balance in the slightest.

So, if you write a piece and it ends up littered with mistakes thanks to one of this new breed of ‘subs’, it tends to reflect poorly on you, rather than the publisher or the editor.

I’d just like to take this opportunity, therefore, to say ‘mea non culpa’ and lay the blame firmly elsewhere. I’m told the ‘sub’ in question will never work on the magazine again. But ask yourself, how did this person get to be a sub in the first place? It doesn’t take much thought to come up with some disturbing answers.

One Reply to “What it takes to be a sub”

Comments are closed.