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: Active Ownership (and the editorial role) From:Jean Weber <jhweber -at- WHITSUNDAY -dot- NET -dot- AU> Date:Thu, 8 Jul 1999 20:19:49 +1000
The ever-controversial Andrew Plato <intrepid_es -at- YAHOO -dot- COM> said, among
other things,
>>Editing is a passive process. Editors take pre-formatted information and
clean
it up for presentation. The job of an editor is to improve an existing
structure.<<
To which I reply: yes, sometimes we're passive improvers. But as Melissa
Morgan <mmorgan -at- INTREPID -dot- CDG-HARGRAY -dot- COM> and Chris Kowalchuk
<chris -at- BDK -dot- NET> have pointed out, many editors do a lot more than "improve
an existing structure." In fact, if you asked most of the writers whose
work I've edited if I'm a "passive improver," I suspect they'd burst into
screams of laughter at the idea. I'm only passive when that's what the
client demands (and isn't willing to pay for anything more).
I've met far too many of the sort of writers Andrew described as "editors"
amd Chris calls "rewriters." My only quibble is with calling them "editors"
and thus suggesting that all editing is like that. I rather like the term
"rewriters," as it covers both writers and editors who fill that passive role.
Chris even noted something I've been saying for years (and doing whenever a
client would let me): "A structural/content editor might (in fact, ought
to) be in charge of the overall writing team."
