OnlineBookClub.org

Among the three (3) choices, which do you like best and why?

I chose Book review because you get to read a book and explain as to why you liked or disliked the book. While proofreading could be quite hectic and same goes for editing. I personally think there are more cons than pros when it comes to proofreading and editing. You cannot proofread a book and enjoy correcting all the mistakes. Unless, it's the only thing you're doing it's fine but if you are a student or have some other job it could be tiring. Just my opinion. But it could be fun too if you are someone who really likes editing and proofreading.

I voted for editing. I do some fiction writing, and I love watching my work transform from something passing to something good in the self-editing process. Similarly, I love helping fellow writers and seeing their work change throughout the editing process. It's something where I can look at the initial product, look at the finished product, and think "amazing progress!"

There is a big difference between the three. A review is always based on a personal opinion, more or less qualified, while proofreading and editing (especially the second) require certain advanced language skills. Likewise, the review process is relatively short, the proofreading takes more time, and the editing even more. I doubt that someone who is not a professional by choice will vote for something other than a review...

I struggle liking editing and proofreading, especially since I feel like I have to really involve myself in the reading, nitpicking out everything. Book reviews are much nicer for me. While I still like to actively read, taking notes in the margins or on my kindle, it gives me the chance to involve myself in the reading and enjoy the book more.

I selected proofreading because in a casual situation I would choose it over the other two. I get nit-picky enough about grammar and story structure that I can be easily distracted from enjoying a book if there are a lot of errors to correct. On the other hand, while I really like editing, it is not exactly a relaxing activity- it is much more focused. If I am editing, I want to buckle down and concentrate on it.

Having done a little of all three, my first choice would be editing. Seeing a piece of writing or storyline which is rough, but has potential, and being able help shape it into it's final form can be very satisfying. Some people have the talent thinking up imaginitive storylines but have trouble executing them with good descriptive language and grammar. Other people have the talent for the writing side of things and attention to detail, but get stuck when trying to think up a storyline (me!) This talent lends itself towards good editing. Some people are very lucky and are talented with both, but even they will need an editor.

Proofreading happens after all the editing has been done and can be tedious as you have to work hard NOT to be sucked into the story, instead reading sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph looking for spelling or grammar errors. Even more tedious is proofreading after the book has been printed or put into the printing template. Then it also involves checking that all the page numbers, headers, footers, table of contents etc. match up. I don't mind a bit of tedium but only if I'm getting paid for it!

Book reviews can be fun to write too but I do find 400 words is quite a lot of space to fill without waffling or giving too much away. But then I may be a little out of practice!

I vote for book review because In book review you write what you've understood, how you find it and also your rating rather than proofreading and editing in which you mingt be in agreement of what you are editing or proofreading.

They're vastly different things, but reviewing is definitely more enjoyable

I enjoy book reviewing, because you dig into the meat of the story and characters. I also like proofreading, though. I've always had a pretty good handle on English grammar and spelling, and it drives me nuts when things are spelled poorly or are grammatically incorrect (Facebook will be the death of me). There's a satisfaction to be had in making a certain aspect of a novel perfect. The structure of a novel or the plot and character development are totally subjective, but spelling and grammar are almost completely objective (I'm looking at you, Oxford Comma debaters).

For you to have reviewed a book, you must have read it properly (not just proofreading) and somewhat checked for editing errors. So a book review practically encompasses all.

I'm new to book reviewing, so didn't feel like I could legitimately choose that option . . . yet! Ask me the same question in a year or so, and my answer might have changed. But for now, I'd have to say editing is my favorite of the three choices. A lot of my education and experience are in editing, and that's no accident. I think I've been a natural editor since Mr. Martin's English II Honors class.

The three aren't really comparable, but I'd choose book review because it's all my opinion and I can choose to interpret a book how I want. Editing and proofreading require a good grasp of language and knowledge of the intricacies of grammar. They're defined by rules whereas reviews can be as creative as you want.

Book reviews are for more enjoyable because I'm less focused on every little improvement that could be made. I feel more "in the flow" while simply reading and am able to absorb the story and view it through the eyes of a (non-book-reviewer) reader.

All three options need me to read the book in the first place. I'm a bit torn between editing and writing reviews. But I'll choose writing reviews because I can write something about my impression and interpretation of the book. And that also helps the writers because it's important for them to know what their audience thinks.