Whoa! Times resto critic goes ballistic!

Those of you who write carefully (!!) will really enjoy Giles Cohen's rocket to Times sub-editors for messing up a recent review:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/mediamonkey

It's full of angry, often profane, language and imagery, so if you're not a fan of such, don't go there...

Geo

Uh, I'd say that's beyond ballistic. Way beyond. And I wonder: did it occur to him that it might have been a slip of the finger that omitted the single letter he's so upset about? Without knowing the history, he seems awfully quick to assume evil intention. Still...quite a tirade.

It's full of angry, often profane, language and imagery,

& very, very English. Not so surprising, I've often been around such verbal tirades.

Yes, I'd say this fellow is upset.

They messed up his fellatio reference -- obviously, he's pissed (angry and drunk). And they threw off his scansion! Love the close: "All the best."

It's hilarious - he's not really serious. (I mean, maybe he is, but he's faux-ly amping up his anger in a very British way, mostly for the sake of a joke and to make a point.)

But I did read the edit and think, "Oh, they messed up his joke . . . " So maybe I'm somewhat sympthetic.

I don't think it was a slip of the keyboard that removed the indefinite article. It's a common form of British speaking, similar to the omission of the definite article, such as "Bollocks, I tripped and broke my foot. I'm going to hospital forthwith." [Instead of "the hospital."] See also: "Golly gee, I'm smarter than I thought. It looks like I'll be attending University this autumn after all."

Glad you posted this, Geo.

I'll admit I don't normally scroll much through LinkLTH, but I was glad I did the other day when gleam posted this story as well. Certainly worth a read. I thought it was hilarious.

I'm curious about how the e-mail--clearly meant for internal eyes only--got out.

Funny tirade, but even funnier if you take into account the misspellings, punctuation fouls, capitalization issues and grammatical errors in his e-mail. Not the same as flubbing the edit on a review for publication, but he's certainly not above abusing the English language.

I actually found it off-putting. As noted up thread, there was no consideration that the tiny error could have been accidental rather than deliberate interference. Nor did I get the sense that his toungue was in his cheek much. He just seemed really full of himself, though attempting to occasionally to ameliorate his tantrum with humor, or at least sarcasm. All in all, while sympathetic to anyone who's stuff gets published with mistakes in it (been there), I really wanted to pat him on the head and say, "Sorry about your bj joke, but it's a restaurant review, and you ain't MFK Fisher, so just take a deep breath, cash your check, and get on with your life." I'm sure if he's really just too dispirited to sit down and write the next one, as he threatens, they'll find a way to carry on without him.

Here's a response from subeditors who work for The Times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/ju ... publishing

Thanks for that. Now I have closure. Frankly, if I were scoring the match, I'd say no KO, but the sub-eds. win on points.

Ah, this brings back good memory (she says with sarcasm). As you might guess from my username, I was an editor once upon a time. (I still edit, but no longer hold that title. I also get paid for my writing.) And I had writer who used to launch into attacks like this. (Albeit without the cursing and Britishisms.) Our relationship probably wasn't helped by the fact that I once worked for him and he then worked for me...I don't think he ever got over it.

He'd call me up in tizzy and launch into a tirade about the edit someone made to his copy, and rant on and on and on about how it completely screwed up the entire article. He put blood and sweat and tears into this article. How dare we make such an edit!!! How dare we make any edit! As I sat there silently, I'd be thinking to myself, "If you care so much about your articles, maybe you should spell check them before sending them to us."

In all honesty, I could appreciate his point. Every writer who has ever had an editor has had disagreements with their editor. But at the same time, few writers will ever admit that their editor saved them from making either a stupid or horrible mistake. And editors catch those kinds of mistakes all of the time. Sometimes writers get a little too close to their articles, and fail to see the forest through the trees. You get so close to your precious prose (and the metre and the puns and the witty double entendres) that you fail to notice you've misspelled your main subject's name, or accused Company A of a crime that Company B was actually charged with, or some such mistake. That's when an editor saves you butt.

I must say that I'm actually quite docile under editing. My big fat butt has been saved a few times by an ink-stained editorial wretch, and (I'm only saying this among friends--if anyone tries to quote me, I'll deny it...), oncet or twicet I've thought that an editor actually has improved my prose. Really.

But, on the other hand, I've had requests for changes that were completely, totally, really awfully stupid. [E.g., referring to a case study c. 1842, an editor at McGraw-Hill had me change the gender on the person cleaning Goodyear's lab. As if. Anachronism much, eh?]

Hey, it's only prose, right?

Geo

Geo wrote:Hey, it's only prose, right?

Having spent much time on both sides of the blue pencil, I don't get het up over changes to my prose. If they're paying for it, they can do what they want with it. I don't know who first said that editors like the taste of your copy better after they've pissed in it, but I've found that to be true. It saves irritation not to read one's work too closely after it's committed to print.

I've gritted my teeth a few times when editors have replaced grammatically correct phrases with incorrect ones, but I'm usually moved to say something only when editors introduce errors of fact. The only real set-to I've ever had over my writing was once when, having assigned an opinion piece, the editor decided he preferred his opinions to mine, and tried to put them under my byline.

Although quite a few of my writers have done me the compliment of telling me that my editing improved their copy, I must admit that it never would have occurred to me to worry about disturbing the scansion in a restaurant review.

I'm glad to know that the state of journalism in the UK is much better shape than it is over here, where few writers dare to have hissy fits, for fear they'll be first to go in the inevitable downsizing.

D'acc, LAZ.

My worst case was when an editor introduced all sorts of new stuff I didn't know to be true in an entry for the new Dictionary of Scientific Biography. I told her that I no longer recognized the entry, hence retracted my name from it. She's going to publish it anyway, but under her name.

Geo

LAZ wrote:If they're paying for it, they can do what they want with it.

Generally, I'm in full agreement; but when my name is on it, I tend to get a little more sensitive.

Hi,

I have a friend who once was Ann Landers proofreader. When I write a press release, I usually send it over to him for a review. He loves words and really considers very carefully each and every one. I have learned a lot from his comments.

This book was given to me as a present last year. This book was sorely in need of editing and fact checking. The most obvious error was on the back of the book, they had a rave review quote from Steve Bolinsky. I know a Steve Dolinsky, but who is Bolinsky? Some of the comments in the book had a deja vu ring to them, because we recollected prose from posts here. The author also replied to criticisms of his earlier book in the prologue. I'm sure he has no good word to say about editors, though his book wouldn't be so unintentionally funny with one.

Regards,

I usually side with editors over writers. It's just been that in my experience (coming from a newspaper and magazine background), most of the times I've heard a writer bitching about an edit, I've actually preferred the edited version to the original. However, in this case, I can see why Giles is irritated, if not quite so absurdly pissed-off. (I can only assume that this is just the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back). They really did make a hash of the sentence. The rhythm is totally off with the removal of the indefinite article, the blowjob reference is lost (which I missed, anyway), and the meaning was slightly altered. A really pointless edit to save one letter.

LAZ wrote:I don't know who first said that editors like the taste of your copy better after they've pissed in it, but I've found that to be true.

Ain't that the truth! 70% of my job is writing - either letters, briefs or motions. Even after 10 years of having at it, a partner up the chain will occasionally change a "happy" to a "glad," if only to put his or her marks on my work product. Years of experience only make me chuckle at such edits. But it's the hurried comments on my briefs that aren't edits at all that rile me up -- comments such as "Say what?!," or "That doesn't make any goddamn sense! Fix it!" -- mostly because they come from people whose involvement in the case is tangential and they're misunderstanding the arguments anyway. Even then, I'll take the criticism for what it's worth, clean it up and say the same thing but in a different way. Usually does the trick.

Now, editing the work product of someone much greener than me, as I often do, that's where the headaches begin, and the pencil gets a lot of use. [First sign of impending middle age is when you complain about the education of "the kids these days." ]

aschie30 wrote:Here's a response from subeditors who work for The Times:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/ju ... publishing

I found the response very, very funny. It certainly put the irate writer in his place and clarified, in no uncertain terms, that he really needs every bit of help he can get from the subeditors.

Jyoti