Re: Reading a draft "for content only"

Subject: Re: Reading a draft "for content only"
From: "Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- STARBASECORP -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:33:32 -0800

Herman Holtz writes:

> I would be uneasy to rely on anyone else to reveiw my copy. Too often, I
> have gotten a manuscript back from the publisher's contract editor (more
> and more, they are contract editors) with unacceptable changes and
> shocking grammatical innovations. (Why can't they learn to move "only"
> close to the word it modifies, for example?)

One of the things I've always had to fight for is final say on
my own work. It's so true that some well meaning changes can
be absolutely devastating to a book! And the culprits are not
always contract personnel or non-documentation staff.

In a prior life, I've had staff editors make changes like...

We don't use the word "below", so we'll change all directions
from "follow the instructions below to..." to "follow the
following instructions to..." AAAAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!

These same editors thought I was an absolute dolt for putting
single quotes around one word that the user had to type --
that wasn't corporate style. So they took 'em out. Never
dawned on them that the single quotes were part of what the
user had to type!!!

Maybe it's experiences like those that have made me far more
tolerant of non-professional advice ;-) It's the difference
between well-meaning and visciously consistent, I guess.

Sue Gallagher
StarBase Corp, Irvine CA
sgallagher -at- starbasecorp -dot- com


Previous by Author: Re: Reading a draft "for content only"
Next by Author: Re: She/He/It?
Previous by Thread: Re: Reading a draft "for content only"
Next by Thread: Re: Reading a draft "for content only"


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads