on writing
A recent conversation with a colleague went something like this:
Him: "When I edit your work, I'm making it better, not just making stylistic changes." Me: "But I don't agree you are making it better. You fill it with these affectations I would never write. You do things like bury the subjects of sentences behind long introductory phrases." Him: "You may be talking about good writing in other fields. This is legal writing." Is this just a generational problem? In my mind, good writing transcends the professional field. Why do some professions or genres of writing become so firmly entrenched in certain styles and affectations that people who have been using them for years become convinced that their writing is "good" just because the rhetorical style matches the rhetorical style that has been used before? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Editing is a rare talent. A good editor won't infuse personal preferences into the writer's work. Nor will he make stylistic changes. A good editor should be reading for mechanics, coherence, and continuity.
So to answer your question: No, I don't think this is a generational difference in identifying good writing. I think this guy simply has a fundamental misunderstanding of what proofreading is. |
I think I can relate to how MacArthur must have felt as he got the first reports that his entire Air Force had been destroyed by the Japanese surprise attack, and that retreat and defeat was essentially unescapable.
This was after reading the first chapter of SU's book and thinking about his editor. Thhuuubbbbbbtttttt!!!!!!! |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.