My comments one screen down, please... [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 1/23/2003 1:40:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > I once worked with an advertising director who was like this. She was > > responsible for writing house ads, but as a writer she was beyond bad--she > > was _awful_. She couldn't punctuate, her word choice was approximate at > > best, she had no sense for subtlety. But her very awfulness made her > > impossible to work with. She would never run her work past the copyeditor or > > me; she would actually _withhold_ her work from review because she was > > annoyed when people made changes to what she'd written. When called on it, > > her response was usually that _she_ knew what she meant, and therefore "the > > readers will know what I mean." This even extended to spelling mistakes! > > She'd spell inevitable "inevitible" and then defend herself by saying, "So > > what? Look at it. You can't tell that that's 'inevitable'? Anybody can tell > > what that's supposed to be." Protests that edited magazines were actually > > supposed to be _correct_ (and that this was what the editorial department > > spent most of the workdays doing) were lost on her. She just couldn't see > > why it mattered.
[...] > Mike, sorry. I probably get going on this subject as much as you do -- in the >opposite direction. Having hung around writers, I think those in love with the >written word have a hard time understanding there are others who aren't. And some who >are rather indifferent to it. Just as some don't care for B&W photography, some don't >care for color photography, some don't care for photography, some don't care for art, >and some don't care for numbers. Should those people jump through hoops to please >those who do care? I don't think so. > > Admittedly someone being published in a magazine should be willing to be proof read. >But I read your story quite different from the interpretation you put on it. I think >that woman knew quite well that she was a bad writer, she was just defensive. Tired >of being corrected all the time, and probably tired of being corrected by the *same* >people all the time. (Been there, done that.) So she ended up hiding her work to >avoid constant correction -- to avoid feeling "put down" and to avoid feeling bad >about herself. Pure human nature. I have yet to meet a person who likes being >corrected all the time. Sometimes yes, all the time, or fairly frequently, no. And >some can't even handle being corrected infrequently. < * * * My comments? Too damned bad! She should have been asked (or forced) to find other work. In her position, such a churlish refusal to do the job professionally - and correctly - is unforgivable. If I were her boss, she'd be on the street. One time I fired a young woman who applied for and received work as a secretary in my engineering department. (I was not privy to the hiring selections at that time.) She couldn't spell, couldn't type accurately and wouldn't learn. After several chances, she refused to look words up in the engineering dictionary I bought specifically for her, and all letters leaving the department to outside contacts had to be intercepted and retyped. 100% of them... There is a certain minimum skill level for each job that either has to be learned or else those skills must be present when the employee takes on any given job. To kiss off criticism as not worth youyr time, and refuse to learn is inexcusable. It makes them not worth MY time. If you refuse to learn, you're out of here! That's the way it's got to be, or pretty soon the patients will run Bedlam! keith whaley > Not everyone is going to love the written word. Some of us just view it as a means >to an end. That's just a fact of life. > > Again, apologies for losing my temper. > > Doe aka Marnie Even if it wasn't that evident.
