To point common usage and conform to a certain style.

Did I miss that this was non-fiction? Sorry.

I think most fiction writers want their stories to conform to basic rules of style and grammar, and it's the copy editor's job to edit the manuscript for those things, as well as punctuation, typos, spelling mistakes, and consistency. I've been copy editing books for going on fifteen years now, and you see all kinds of mistakes or things that have been overlooked, and most authors are happy to have you catch them.

I was simply pointing out that the copy editor in Barb's case was making sure she wanted Dr. used the way it was. It's entirely up to Barb to either leave it or change it back. Why would usage rules change when Barb is writing a contemporary story set in the U.S., simply because it's fiction?

Why would usage rules change when Barb is writing a contemporary story set in the U.S., simply because it's fiction?

Because the usage of Dr. for non-medical doctors is a socially defined thing, and a competent author doesn't randomly choose the titles that a character uses. A physicist being described as Dr. John Doe, as opposed to John Doe, Ph.D., says a great deal about the character.

It strikes me as a bit overly-obsessive, such as saying "The character in the dining room scene used a dinner fork instead of a salad fork on the Caesar salad. You do know that's incorrect, right?"

Either way, the copy editor is only pointing it out. This is not some huge breach of etiquette on the copy editor's part. Copy editors are hired to make sure that an author's manuscript is as good as it can be before it goes to print. And authors can then make the final call, so what's the big deal?

so what's the big deal?

Indeed.

a competent author doesn't randomly choose

Ah well, there's the problem. Not all are competent. Or care enough to differentiate, or even to be consistent.

Amy's absolutely right, Connie-- CE is simply doing her job. What I found interesting about this particular instance is how she chose to point it out, because she's been very good about phrasing things as questions, i.e. writing in the margin "AU: are you certain this is the word you want?" or something to that effect.

With this particular case, she actually wrote something definitive:

"AU: he's referred to as Dr. throughout but it's never explained why. He's not an MD. Is it because he's got a Ph.D. in education? Normally, Ph.D.s don't use the title Dr."

Which pinged me slightly because it seemed to be implying I was wrong. Which is me probably just overreacting because as I said in Natter, copyedits have a way of making one feel monumentally stupid. In this case, however, neither of us is wrong-- it's just my MS and I have good reason for using it in that manner and it's not technically incorrect, so I just noted it and moved on.

Here, at JPL, everyone is referred to as Dr. on all the stuff I need to look at. Individuals prefer one or the other, but on all the document templates, it's Dr.

Congratulations, Allyson!!!