Ahhh, the start of another posting week. So refreshing to see Judy start it all off with a post about........(drum roll)...none other than BARRY! I know people will be on the edge of their seats, eagerly waiting each pearly drop of wisdom from her. Wisdom about......(drum roll) BARRY!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > Oh, heck, I might as well use my first post this week to > respond to this one of Barry's as well; there are more > yucks in it than I realized at first. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > "All editors are failed authors." - Samuel Johnson > > > > "Every editor should have a pimp for a brother, so he can > > have someone to look up to." - H.L. Mencken > > > > You may have gotten the impression from what I wrote earlier > > that I have somewhat of a 'tude about editors. That is only > > partially true. > > > > I do have respect for some editors I have met, I have none > > for those who got into the business because they were closet > > control freaks who wanted to hide their lack of creativity > > by being able to "correct" creative people. > > First, note again that Barry has no idea *whatsoever* > what kind of editing I do, or how good I am at it, or > why I "got into the business." (And yes, the above is > intended to refer to me.) > > Not long ago he demanded to know: > > "Why would a person claim on an Internet forum that > they know the 'truth' about what someone they've never > met is 'really' thinking and what his 'real' motives > are? Why would *anyone* say something that ludicrous?" > > Barry Wright, maintaining his claim to the title of > Master of Projection. > > Then there's his notion of hiding one's lack of > creativity by being able to correct creative people. > Sounds good until you try to figure out what it could > possibly mean. > > Obviously, the definition of "creativity" would be > important. Some have a very narrow definition, involving > the ability to produce original works of art (visual, > literary, musical, etc.). > > That's fine as far as it goes, but if one uses that > definition, it's difficult to see how a person could > "hide" their lack of creativity. How does one "hide" > the fact that they haven't produced any original works > of art? > > If that's not the definition Barry is using, what is it > that the editor is "hiding" the lack of? And how does > "correcting" somebody else's creative work "hide" it? > > Just on its own terms, this makes no sense. > > What's really going on here is that Barry intensely > resents being CORRECTED. He believes, being what he > thinks of as a "creative person," that he needs no > CORRECTION. > > In fact, of course, this is just as much the > perspective of the control freak as is Barry's > cartoon version of editing being no more than > CORRECTION. So there's more projection for you. > > In my experience, the better and more creative the > writer, the more they *appreciate* correction when > they get things wrong or don't express themselves > as clearly as they might. It's only the hacks who > resent it. (I've had the good fortune to have worked > with only a very few hacks.) > > But here comes the really funny part: > > > What makes me worth my not inconsiderable fees as a tech > > writer > > (How creative!) > > is that I care enough about what I do that my stuff > > doesn't need editing. In the company I've contracted to for > > the last six years, we didn't have the staff for full-time > > editors, so we tech writers were expected to do it on our > > own, or resort to "peer-editing." > > > > Now that the company has been acquired by IBM, it's theo- > > retically a different story. They have a whole team of > > editors, whose job it is to "pass muster" on any manual > > before it is released. I now hold the distinction of being > > the only tech writer from ILOG whose manuals can be > > released without editorial approval. > > > > This is because when ILOG was acquired they took a repre- > > sentative manual from each writer and sent it through the > > editorial process. In mine, they found only one thing to > > complain about -- I had not followed their convention of > > showing Windows drive letters in lowercase. That is, they > > wanted me to write pathnames as c:\ILOG\ODME\Developer\... > > and I wrote them C:\ILOG\ODME\Developer\... > > > > When they brought this to my attention, I pointed out that > > their convention violated all industry standards, *and* > > Microsoft's own Style Guide. As a result, IBM changed its > > standard. > > > > A small victory for writers over editors, but a satisfying one. :-) > > Actually, what Barry was doing in insisting on the > standard industry style convention was...wait for it!... > *editing*. Adhering to style is an editorial function. > This was an editorial dispute about which style to use, > not a battle between writer and editor. > > In any case, while technical writing requires a lot of > skill to do well, and even (I would assert) some degree > of creativity, it doesn't exactly qualify as an original > work of art. That Barry requires no editorial correction > of his technical writing says nothing whatsoever about > whether a good editor could help him improve his original > creative work. > > I hope he does eventually get around to finishing his > novel, and I hope he finds a publisher for it. If he does, > I'll have a lot of fun imagining being a fly on the wall > as he deals with the editors responsible for getting it > in shape to print. >
