One of my most important takeaways from working for a publisher was the importance of thinking evergreen. When marketers talk about evergreen content, they’re talking about content that has enduring power and isn’t just connected to a trend or fad. But when I say to think evergreen as a writer, what I’m talking about is not immediately dating your manuscript.
One of the most obvious ways to ensure your manuscript is evergreen is being thoughtful with how you present dates.
For instance, which of these sentences is more evergreen?
1.) “Six years ago, I started my own business.”
2.) “In 2018, I started my own business.”
The second one is more evergreen because it doesn’t matter if the audience reads that sentence a minute after you wrote it or ten years later, they’ll always know exactly when you started your business. With the first sentence, readers may be pulled out of the reading experience to figure out if “six years ago” is still six years ago or perhaps ten years ago.
Another way to think evergreen is to be judicious in using cross-references within the manuscript. This takeaway was the biggest revelation for me when I worked at a publisher. I’d worked as a freelance editor before for several years, but this was my first experience in dealing with the actual printing and production of books as well.
Noting that your manuscript has a handy map on page 5 is a helpful signpost for readers in theory. However, what if the map gets pushed to page 6 when pages reflow during layout or additional content gets added to the frontmatter or what if the map gets moved up to page 3 because the feature that initially preceded the map has now been moved to the end?
Similarly, referencing an image below in your text can also be a helpful way to point readers to what you’re discussing. But what if the reflow that shifted the map also moved the image to above the text but you still say the image is below?
Or what if the reflow in pages that causes content to shift doesn’t happen during the initial layout but instead during a reprint after new material is added, long after you remember that the text gives a specific feature on a specific page or in a specific position on the page?
Or what if the location stays the same, but the title of the map or image gets revised in one place and not in the other?
Until I worked for a publisher, I had no idea how frequently these scenarios can and do happen. Because of these experiences, I often flag these types of references when I see them in manuscripts I am working on now. There are a few different ways to handle them. Sometimes, the cross-reference really is necessary, in which case, I make a point of noting this as something to keep an eye on during proofreading. Other times, the cross-reference isn’t necessary at all and can be safely deleted. In other scenarios, the cross-reference just needs to be reworded, so it can still signpost things for the reader but without the risk of becoming a typo if something shifts during the layout. For instance, tweaking a reference to the map on page 300 to instead say the map in Appendix C or in the backmatter.
When you’re writing, keep an eye out for ways to make your content evergreen. And if you’re having trouble with knowing how to do this, reach out to me! I can specifically look for these issues when I copyedit your manuscript.
