On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 17:37:39 +0100, "Arfa Daily"
wrote:
Unfortunately, I think that the skill levels of many editors, don't match
those which you seem to possess.
During a Unix book edit and ordeal, I was rather amazed to discover
that I was being paid more as tech editor than any of the authors
involved in the production. The result was predictable. The authors
produced garbage and I was expected to clean up the mess. Even worse,
the authors were paid by the page, which provided the incentive to
produce voluminous garbage and excess verbiage.
I think that many believe that just because
an article has been passed to them for 'editing', it must then be altered
and generally 'messed about' in order to justify the fact that it *has* been
passed to them, and that they have earned their fee.
Correct. By definition, everything I touch is improved by my
involvement.
I have had articles
that I've written, totally mauled by an insensitive hand.
I haven't done that to any articles. However, I have done the same to
science fiction business plans and project proposals. The only
difference between those and articles is the amount of money involved.
Words and phrases
that I've chosen very carefully have been changed or removed, resulting in
(sometimes) a complete reversal of the intention of a whole paragraph, let
alone a sentence, indicating that the editor had no understanding of the
subject material, nor the people who were its targeted readers.
Yep. I was once interviewed by a local newspaper reporter on some
technical subject. When the article appeared, I didn't recognize any
of my quotes, statements, or allegations. It was as if someone else
had been interviewed. I correctly deduced that this was normal.
For many years afterwards, there were various attempts to interview me
on similar technical topics. Instead of honestly stating my opinion,
I changed to irreverent humor, arcane analogies, and bizarre
statements, all calculated to drive the editor(s) insane. I may have
been successful because the local newspaper sold out and left town.
I have also had grammatically correct structures changed into ones that are
not, and correct spellings changed for wrong ones.
Incorrect spelling is a great way to distract the reader from the
topic. Spelling errors are instantly perceived by the reader, while
logic error, political agendas, and editorial bias take much more
effort.
By the same token, I
became very close to the editor of one magazine that I wrote for, and he
told me that my copy was a pleasure for him to work with, because the only
'editing' that he ever had to do to it, was an occasional slight precis-ing
of a paragraph to make the article fit the space available. This was always
done very carefully and sensitively so as to impact on the content as little
as possible.
Editors lie. I know because I'm an occasional editor. I suspect that
your editor wanted something from you and found flattery to be
effective.
I think that one of the main problems with the publishing industry in this
regard, is that these days editors tend to be self-employed contractors who
find themselves editing a great deal of very varied subject material, so
have to employ the same basic 'one size fits all' techniques to those works,
and that's where it can go wrong. In days gone by, an editor was an employee
of the magazine, and usually had a deep understanding of both the subject
matter and the people who would be reading it.
Not really. I was never asked to edit something with which I was
unfamiliar. On the business plan reviews, it was always on a subject
with which I was totally familiar. The one review where I fell flat
on my face was a rush job on an unfamiliar product area. In the book
reviews, the publisher actively searched for experts in the field to
do the reviews. Lack of familiarity might be a problem in popular
magazines and newspapers, but for technical articles in technical
publications, the tech editors are usually quite familiar with the
technology. The style/grammar/spelling/fit editors may have been
non-technical, but they are not suppose to change the meaning or
technical content.
As a slight aside, you mention that some people write as they speak. Some of
the best technical publications that I have read, have been written in this
style. One that springs to mind was a booklet on repairing Bally pinball
tables, written by one of Bally's in house service team. It was written
exactly as one engineer would talk to another, and was both amusing and
practical. A perfect joy to read.
"As one engineer would talk to another.."? Was the booklet all in
acronyms?
I suspect that you haven't read many depositions or stenographic
records of court proceedings. People do not speak in anywhere near as
precise a manner as they write. The resultant transcripts are often
redundant, fragmented, and ambiguous. There are authors that can
write in a "home style" manner, intended to sound like a personal
discussion. The idea is to put the reader at ease and present the
topic from a non-threatening position, rather than from an
academically correct lofty position. It consists of adding prefixed
and suffixed phrases to each paragraph or section that sound like
conversation. Books written by those with considerable customer
contact experience tend to write like that. If there's room, such a
"home style" is usually left after the various edits. If the
publication needs space, it's the first to be removed. I once ghost
wrote an article for a radio magazine. When the article appeared, a
paragraph of radio lingo had been added to the front and rear. To
make room, two important paragraphs were excised. I was not thrilled.
--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558