My editing pet peeve - what's yours?

yes, and any fuck who can type their name turns in perfect copy.

 

Ah, yes, that's exactly what I said in my post. :

You and I have no problems, Tom, but forget writing; that was quite a severe reading comprehension problem.

I said I want people who care what appears under their byline. That would include people who are smart enough to understand, and appreciate it, when what they originally typed was improved.

And yes, my experience has often been the better the writer, the more that help is appreciated.

 

actually, sf, i should have sent that last post back to you for a rewrite.

your post prompted ace to write this: "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," and me to write "yes, and any fuck who can type their name turns in perfect copy."

you sure as to shit didn't make your point very well.

 

This may have been posted already, but if a then/than, its/it's or any of the other common screw ups I would make, I would have no problem with it. Lord knows that type of shit is/was not my strength.

Maybe once a year a lede would be touched. If it was, I would, without question, want to know.

If a fact was changed, of course I would want to know.

What I used to take more shit over, and I almost never took shit over what was inside the story, was the fucking headline.

I cannot remember how many times I had to explain a headline to a coach, player or parent because it read so much stronger than the point the story was trying to make.

 

Almost without exception, the troublemakers have gone onto bigger and better things -- many of them the biggest and bestest things.

The agreeable sort? Not so much.

 

I had my lead changed this week. I got a phone call. I appreciated the phone call. I did not complain - it actually made it stronger. To me, that's how it should work.

I will also say that for everyone who complains about a writer routinely making the same mistakes, please make sure that the writer is well aware of that mistake. I don't know that anyone in my shop has ever pointed out an error that a writer makes routinely; in fact, I'm almost positive that they just accept it as part of the nightly editing routine and move on.

 

I've found that it's kind of hit-or-miss whether a writer fixes a routinely made mistake or not. Sometimes it's just ingrained in them to do it that way, sometimes they strongly disagree that it should be changed, sometimes they're just oblivious even after they've been told, and so on.

So yeah, in a lot of instances, I just accept those edits as something to watch out for when that writer turns in a story.

 

There are a great many writers who believe sentence fragments are a style tool. If they feel that way, it's tough to get across that it's wrong.

 

I've got two different guys who want to use the phrase "begs the question," when what they really mean is "raises the question."

 

I agree with you. There are probably a lot of habits that are tough to break - we saw that with the issue of having two spaces after a period. If it comes to the "2-for-4 shooting" type of problem, however, I would hope that could be fixed.

 

Of course, I'm the type of guy who thinks that the hyphens should be used in all instances. It's how I grew up reading it, and I can't shake the idea that it looks better to me.

Same goes for RBIs (which I like) vs. RBI (which is correct.) Not to start that age-old debate ...