Re: Nitpicking
Posted by Nit Picker on April 22, 2001
In Reply to: Re: Nitpicking posted by R. Berg on April 22, 2001
: : : Since we couldn't be in a more appropriate environment - words, language and meaning -- I'd like to pick up on your humorous closing line. (Which doesn't mean you are expected to respond at all, of course).
: : : Quite simply (to me), a profession is such (pro-ficio = do for, produce for) when you get paid for what you do. Not, however, just BECAUSE you get paid, but because that action entitles the person hiring you to demand standards from you. Which standards -- guess what -- just happen to make the product of your labor "professional," when met, "amateurish," when not.
: : : I guess the dispute, however, lingers on for reasons different than the above. I can just imagine how non-editors (in the publishing world) would consider the job not as "noble" as, per say, the merely creative one of the author.
: : : Which would only leave them to explain why ANYTHING that gets published ANYWHERE does need a good editing job before it can walk (I had the personal experience with even a three-paragraph letter, eventually published by the NYT, which I had munched on for hours, but that (/which?) only became "alive" after the editor had had it, and for I guess no more than three minutes).
: : : The above, in fact, does speak volumes about the absolute impossibility for an author -- a "professional," if I'm not mistaken - to "duplicate" himself and become coldly critical of his own work when that time comes.
: : : And, if you need to duplicate a professional...
: : : Ciao, and thanks again for the courtesy.
: : Having not understood much of the above I can see that an editor, even a pretty poor one, could bring clarity in a matter of seconds simply by adhering to common international norms of spelling, punctuation and the appropriate use of uppercase letters. But then, what do I, a humble nit picker, know of such things.
: In the world of other mammals, what we call nitpicking is known as mutual grooming. It seems only fair that everyone's fur should be equally available for inspection. Please allow me: Yes, some improvements can be made in seconds, such as relieving a text of consecutive duplicate words. And the norms of punctuation and so forth aren't so international as all that, but British and American usage do agree in ending a question with a question mark.
What about a rhetorical question with an imbedded stutter? Now there's a cunundrum.
PS I've removed the second 'know' since it stirred confusion in your mind.
- Re: Nitpicking R. Berg 04/23/01
(1)
|