My editing pet peeve - what's yours?

Yup. That dog'll hunt.

 

I still remember my first day on the job here. I got a story e-mailed to me by our freelance sports writer. When I read through it, I thought there was something wrong with me. I found nothing that needed correction. Nothing.

Later on, I came to learn the guy consistently provides clean copy. I think I've moved a paragraph of his twice in the nearly two years I've been at my shop.

When I had a guy in for a tryout for a full-time reporting gig, the guy came up to me with one of this freelancer's stories and says, "am I missing something? I could find nothing wrong with his story." I smirked, remembering my first day and told him, "no, that's how he writes. He's that good."

The thing that still gets me wondering is when a new student writer who has limited writing experience and zero clips sends me clean copy. Believe it or not, THAT has happened to me a few times.

 

As a writer, all I ask is that if an editor talks to me if he/she thinks a major change is necessary or the story needs a major addition. That's why the ME and city editor used to drive me nuts. I'm far from a perfect writer, and I need all the help I can get. I just want something with my byline on it to reflect what I actually wrote.

 

I understand where you're going, Smash, and I'm going to face some disagreement with my reservation here.

Don't make your byline into some mystic thing. Your copy is no longer your property when it goes into the slot bin. I would always do what you say because it's the right thing to do. But the byline thing doesn't faze me. Your copy is not on the page as Smash Williams material. It's on the page as Daily Bugle material.

 

Yeah, Shottie, you're going to get some disagreement.

Name on the copy matters. Even if I didn't believe that institutionally -- I do, because I think good writers carry credibility with their names -- it's just human nature, and should be, that a writer's going to care what appears under his or her name for all to see.

And if he/she doesn't care, that's a much bigger problem, in my opinion.

 

I knew it wouldn't be universally agreed with. That's OK.

One of the best lessons I ever got was when I told my slot man to take my byline off a story when I was 21. He did, and under the SE's direction, he didn't have my byline on the rest of my stories for the week, either. Did not adversely affect the newspaper, as I recall.

 

I'm with SF.

I'd much rather work with a writer who was protective of his/her work and would grumble but wanted to do any rewriting that was ordered than one who shrugs and says do whatever you want.

 

You're talking matter of extent, Ace. I'm merely marking my extent.

 

This is true to some extent. But when a copy editor introduces an error into a story, for example, folks don't e-mail the copy editor to call him an idiot. They call me.

We have a policy at our shop that, if a copy guy is going to change anything in the lede -- anything at all -- he must call the writer. I'd like to see that extended to other major changes, as well.

I'm not opposed to being edited, and God bless a good copy editor who can help make your stuff better, but time permitting I'd rather be consulted if there's going to be a major facelift -- if for no other reason than to make sure everything is still factual.

 

Well, I know quite a few folks on both sides of that coin and you can keep all the ones who really don't seem to care much what appears under their bylines.

I'll take the troublemakers every day.

 

Major changes to my copy without notice is a pet peeve of mine, especially with features, but I know shit happens and deskers and editors don't always have time to call. The more time I spend on something, the more I want to know if there are changes. It might be our section, but it is my name under the story. Smaller grammatical things I don't care about, but if you are reworking a lede or rewriting a few graphs, i should know before I read it in print the next morning.

 

Yup. That's where we'll differ.