The most annoying writing convention in the world is, well, well.

I've adjusted my standards.

 

Thomas Jefferson got a hard line edit.
So shall you, chronicler of large men who play games with round balls or oblong spheroids.

 

It's either that or go slowly insane.

 

I think in the current climate, a copy editor is seen by Mr. Writerly Writer-Man as a discard.
Someone who wasn't good enough to hack a beat or write moonish doggerel about an 85-IQ imbecile.
Even when in many cases it is a vital quality-of-life decision for the editor and, well, a better job.

 

This is not a new phenomenon, oh musical one.

It has ever been so.

 

I think it's more pronounced now.
There just aren't enough jobs anymore.
They see the loss of editor positions as a winnowing, not as an industrial tragedy.
The writers whose schlongs get tongued here, I'd love to see their raw copy.

 

I'd pay a lot of money to see that.

 

Really? I guarantee most would accept that deal if asked discreetly and promised it wouldn't be posted anywhere. Go pay Chris Jones $200 for his back-page raw column (post-publication), then report back.

 

I doubt CJ's first graf

read like this:

Don Collins was standing in the sun-soaked room and thought about an 8-foot-by-3-foot plot of grass. He's 49 and his hair is slicked back with pomade, and taking the measure of things is the last thing he needs to do these days.

So what I'd love to see is a first draft of anything today's influentials turn in.

And by pay "a lot" I mean 15-20 bucks.

BTW, "The Things He Carried" turns 3 next week: http://www.esquire.com/features/things-that-carried-him

 

I wouldn't pay him a wooden nickel.
I would like to know about the editing process there.
Not muses and moons telling me what to write, but sheer process.

 

What about .5 Bitcoin?

 

A cursory google search would turn up Jones mentioning how much he values editors and talking in-depth about what the editing process is like. Best of all, it's free.

Or there's this:

bit.ly/Ju7Wzw