Your citation of John McPhee is an excellent one, William. Now, that guy has never been careless. I take encouragement from the fact that he is still appearing in THE NEW YORKER even though he's even older than I am.
In a message dated 1/15/13 5:00:04 PM, [email protected] writes: > ________________________________ > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tue, January 15, 2013 3:40:44 PM > Subject: Re: Art is money > > Did I say that (see below)? I understand Cheerskep's point, that he had > to be > the editor-gatekeeper to protect us from being diseased by sloppy writing; > however, my point was that as editor he could stop what he alone > determined was > bad writing from being published while the art critic usually makes > judgments > after the work is 'published' or exhibited. Thus the art critic needs to > explain a judgment whereas the editor does not. I think this can instill > a > particular hubris in the editor whereas the critic is mostly the subject > of > others' hubris. > > Incidentally, John McPhee's article in the current (Jan.14) New Yorker > about his > modes of structuring his writing processes is very interesting. > > wc > > > > > > > William is right when he says later in his post that, as an editor, I must > have seen numerous careless, "quick-typed" novels and stories. And every > time I did I felt it was affront to serious practitioners of the "art".
