In response to Colin Hinz's note, I think the MMD is pretty well
edited. I do have occasional reservations about things that happen to
my submissions, but overall it seems to work out well enough.
By definition, an editor edits! If he doesn't, he's simply a collator.
The real question is how much to edit. For the Player Piano Group
bulletin I follow an editing policy which isn't too different from
Robbie and Jody's. I may go a little further in correcting grammer and
spelling, but a printed journal requires this while it's not
'netiquette' to pick up such details in emails.
As to the success of the editing, well, we're all human (aren't we?)
and mistakes and misunderstandings happen! There have been one or two
occasions in the MMD where I have felt the thread of an argument has
been broken or distorted by an introduced paragraph break. Comments
recently suggest this happens to others who compose their arguments
with care. I've tried to learn and use the MMD house style so little
editing's needed. (How am I doing, Robbie?)
[ Just fine. Keep going! :) ]
If writers must consider their readers, so must editors consider their
writers. I am sure Robbie and Jody welcome feedback on inappropriate
edits, to remain aware of the response to their editing. The editor's
decision remains final and won't always be acceptable -- it's like the
definition of a gentleman as someone who "never causes offence _by
accident_"!
The little comments that Robbie adds are a real joy at times, and give
a unifying effect to the whole thing which I personally value.
As to MMD content, I quite like the occasional erudite digressions.
The things to avoid are lengthy and repetitious submissions which
attempt to bludgeon the opposition into submission. We're spared most
of these already, from what I gather, even if the editors gather
opprobrium for doing so!
Julian Dyer
[ We received several fine letters adding insight to the discussion
[ of Argumenta ad hominem. I'll summarize the matter and present
[ my thoughts this weekend. -- Robbie
|