The Reader-Mind Proofread
Interrogate every page through the questions a careful reader will ask
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 95%
The Reader-Mind Proofread uses an independent reviewer to simulate the questions and reactions of a careful reader. Roberts describes his publisher Steuart Proffitt as repeatedly putting himself into the reader's mind, then interrogating details the author has passed over: the width of a river, whether Napoleon carried Herodotus to Egypt, whether a joke works, or whether a sentence's syntax and rhythm sit correctly. The reviewer also notices ambiguity and contradiction and challenges passages the writer may admire too much. The mechanism is distance plus specificity. The author supplies subject knowledge and a complete draft; the reviewer supplies an objective eye, logical scrutiny, linguistic sensitivity, and concrete questions. The resulting revision closes context gaps and improves clarity before the reader encounters them.
Origin
Roberts explains how publisher Steuart Proffitt questions and criticizes his manuscripts page by page. Extracted from The Tim Ferriss Show.
Core principles
- 01Review from the reader's point of view
- 02Question details the writer has taken for granted
- 03Test logic, syntax, rhythm, and ambiguity
- 04Use an objective eye to challenge cherished passages
How to run it
- 1
Adopt the reader's position
Approach the manuscript without relying on the author's unstated knowledge.
Pro tip Pause wherever a first-time reader might ask for orientation or evidence.
Watch out An expert reviewer can still miss gaps by assuming the same background knowledge as the author.
- 2
Interrogate missing details
Ask specific questions about physical facts, chronology, sources, and context that affect the scene or claim.
Pro tip Phrase each concern as a question the author can research and answer.
Watch out General comments such as “needs detail” do not identify the actual gap.
- 3
Test logic and clarity
Mark contradictions, ambiguity, and reasoning that does not follow cleanly.
Pro tip Use a reviewer skilled at detecting language that permits more than one interpretation.
- 4
Listen to the sentences
Check syntax, rhythm, accidental rhyme, and wording that does not sound right.
Pro tip Read difficult sentences aloud to expose awkward movement.
Watch out Correct facts do not rescue prose that the reader cannot comfortably follow.
- 5
Challenge the darlings
Question jokes and brilliant-seeming passages with an objective eye.
Pro tip Ask directly whether the effect works for anyone besides the author.
Watch out The writer's delight in a passage is not evidence that the passage succeeds.
- 6
Return actionable questions
Give the author page-level questions, criticisms, and remarks that can drive revision.
Pro tip Match the specificity of the question to the specificity of the required fix.
In the wild
Proffitt asked Roberts how wide the River Po was in 1796 and whether Napoleon took Herodotus to Egypt. The questions exposed details a reader might wonder about but the immersed author had not resolved on the page.
→ Roberts had concrete research questions to answer before publication.
In the margin of Roberts's Napoleon manuscript, Proffitt asked whether a joke was actually funny. Roberts found the question crushing and continued to defend the joke, illustrating the value of an editor willing to challenge an author's favorite line.
→ The passage received an objective test rather than automatic protection from the author.
Common mistakes
Reviewing from the author's mind
A reviewer who shares the author's assumptions will not expose the context missing for a first-time reader.
Giving vague criticism
Specific questions lead to research or revision; broad dissatisfaction does not.
Protecting clever passages
The lines an author loves most still need an independent test of whether they work.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for substantial nonfiction manuscripts that need an independent, exacting editorial challenge.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal when the reviewer lacks subject commitment or will only offer general reactions.
From the transcript
“he is always trying to put himself into the mind of the reader and wondering what the reader would be thinking”
“syntax so anything that doesn't sound right in a sentence he will point out”
“I will send him 100 pages and he'll send me back a 100 pages of of questions and criticisms and and remarks”
From the episode
#773: Andrew Roberts on The Habits of Churchill, Lessons from Napoleon, and The Holy Fire Inside Great Leaders
Andrew Roberts