TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Re: Titles vs. Duties From:d r <writeagain -at- JUNO -dot- COM> Date:Sat, 18 Jan 1997 11:40:12 EST
On Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:48:44 -0800 Bob Morrisette
<robert -dot- morrisette -at- EBAY -dot- SUN -dot- COM> writes:
>Self-editing is not real editing. I'm sure that every writer sends
>work to the editor thinking it is perfect. Yet an editor almost always
>something to change. If a group does not have an editor, they can at
>least do peer editing. Every writing group I have worked with has
>employed one or more editors. In most companies I know, editors earn
>the same or more than writers.
>writer -at- sabu -dot- EBay -dot- sun -dot- com
When I had a bunch of stringers under me and was editing all the time, I
would sub as writer for any articles not submitted by deadline. At first,
I thought that it wasn't "fair" (or whatever foolish thought I had at
the time <g>) to edit my own work so I gave it to a staff writer to edit.
Urgh! I ended up having to do more work. As an editor, you need to know
what you are looking for, how to direct the articles in the way that they
need to look for your publication. When I edit my own work, I put it down
for a day or so, so that I can have a fresh outlook on it and blue pencil
Unless I am misunderstanding when you do this, I don't consider it a help
at all. Only the Editor knows what is needed/wanted - that is why you
edited all the other submitted work.