Life Before and After

Abstract

Abstract ‘Good’ editorial practice – in this case, post-developmental copy-editing work – is typically measured by an editor’s ‘positive invisibility’ (J. Hargrave, Teaching Publishing and Editorial Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2022). Traditionally, editing has been considered a ‘role [that] tends to be pushed into the margins’, taking place ‘behind the scenes’ and existing ‘everywhere and, therefore, nowhere’ (S. Greenberg, ‘When the Editor Disappears, Does Editing Disappear?’, Convergence, 2010, p. 8); a hidden, mysterious business transparent only to those who practise it. Editorial practice is hence often (mis)judged by physical invisibility on the page: that is, an absence of error. An editor’s value is predicated on their positive invisibility, an outcome of which can be their marginalization. With the distinction between work and home life essentially eradicated in the COVID-19 gig economy of 2020–2021, central questions posed for this context were simply: ‘How did editors cope with the work-to-home transition?’, ‘Did editors become more invisible and/or marginalized during COVID-19?’, and, ‘If so, what was the nature of this invisibility and/or marginalization?’ Editors were contacted in 2020 and 2022 to describe their editorial practice and its potential (in)visibility before, during, and after the 2020–2021 pandemic lockdowns. Their responses exposed their at times polarized experiences and work – life challenges, and ongoing systemic problems in industry.