Spell Check. It can be a blessing and a curse. It is a useful tool, but it can also mislead. Many writers trust it like it is infallible, but you’d be surprised how many spelling errors an editor will catch in spite of the Spell Check function. Real-word misspellings are by far the most common misspellings, so even when you run Spell Check carefully, there’s a chance you can make a mistake. For example if you typed “pane” when you meant “pain” spell check would not catch it, and there are hundreds of words like pain and pane. That means if you typed a proper word, you can’t depend on Spell Check to catch a misspelling for you. For example, type the word “loins” instead of ” lions” and spell check would pass over it, but it would a reader would not. Depending on the context, it might confuse readers or even make them laugh so having a competent editor read the manuscript is worth the investment.
The following example sentences help illustrate my point even more clearly.
“Starring through the cage bars, the bares were angry,” he rote.
It should read: “Staring through the cage bars, the bears were angry,” he wrote.
Here’s another example:
Writing has lead me to affectively take changes, which compliments my life.
It should read: Writing has led me to effectively take changes, which complements my life.
I think you get the point. It is easy to trust spell check and be let down, which means your manuscript may be less than it could be.