4 ms·

As things are described, he writes paragraphs about his assumptions about the editor's reasoning for crossing out a nonsense phrase and fails to consider that t

As things are described, he writes paragraphs about his assumptions about the editor's reasoning for crossing out a nonsense phrase and fails to consider that the editor was not critiquing his artistic notions but rather just crossing off something that both of them agreed was bad. There's no particular evidence that the editor would not be amenable to simply rewriting the passage to make sense. It was bad writing and the editor removed it. The fact that he felt shame doesn't make his assumptions any more valid.

coldtea 4y ago
>fails to consider that the editor was not critiquing his artistic notions but rather just crossing off something that both of them agreed was bad That's because the editors they worked with, and others he discussed such things, had a pattern to cross off specific things (regardless of whether both author and editor agreed they were bad), and those "crossing offs" revealed not just an editorial hand, but also an underlying ethics/ideology behind what they chose to focus on... >It was bad writing and the editor removed it. The fact that he felt shame doesn't make his assumptions any more valid. Way to miss the whole argument. It's not even like he didn't spell it out...
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  > That's because the editors they worked with, and others he discussed such things, had a pattern to cross off specific things (regardless of whether both author and editor agreed they were bad), and those "crossing offs" revealed not just an editorial hand, but also an underlying ethics/ideology behind what they chose to focus on... That's obviously not exclusively true. Otherwise the sole purpose of the editor would be pure ideological shifts. That would be dumb. Ergo I conclude most of the edits are just competent editor edits. > Way to miss the whole argument. And I'm saying the author seems like a sensitive soul that has jumped the gun far too quickly. His argument is incorrect.
  - coldtea 4y ago
    >That's obviously not exclusively true. Otherwise the sole purpose of the editor would be pure ideological shifts. That wasn't the argument I've made. I didn't say every edit suggestion was based on ideological shifts. I said that (actually, merely summed up the author's experience) they discovered a tendency for editors to also (keyword: also) make suggestions that not only result in ideological shifts, but have an ideology/ethics and not "how best to serve the text" or aesthetics as the underlying drive. And some those corrections can even coincide with a "better expression" edit. To make the claim perfectly clear: (1) editors make mainly "better expression" edits (2) they also make a certain class of ideology/ethics edits. Some of them they make them explicitly with ideology in mind (e.g. they find situation X, that is acceptable to a French sensibility as yucky because of their culture), and other times unconsciously as mere not understanding the point of the text (but again, not because it doesn't have one, but because of conceptions rooted in their culture about what is included, not some "universal" needs of the text). (3) they make enough of the latter that the writer can see a pattern - also shared/expressed by other writers of the same culture as him (different to the editor's culture) (4) many people reading about those, can't even understand that the latter kind of edits are of that kind, not only because the change might be suble subtle and they can't understand what's at stake, but also because they share the same ethics/ideology (in short: culture) with the editor.
    - spywaregorilla 4y ago
      I don't really care about your argument here. Mine is very simple. If you write a crap sentence a good editor will flag that sentence for being crap. Maybe the editor cared about ideology. Maybe they did not. But if they didn't flag that sentence they would be a bad editor. Because it was a bad sentence. For us to assume that there is additional reasoning behind it would be pure conjecture. It's not a convincing piece of evidence to point out that an editor removed a nonsense statement as evidence that the editor has ideological motivations. It's not proof that they don't have ideological motivations. It's just an irrelevant edit of a bad phrase. This feels like the classic Community scene in which Chang is trying to pitch "Bear Down for Midterms" as the school's slogan, and everyone says "What does that mean?" to which he tries to defend by asking if their issues with it are a race thing. The author's thesis can be correct even if his evidence and persuasive reasoning are bad.

coldtea 4y ago

>fails to consider that the editor was not critiquing his artistic notions but rather just crossing off something that both of them agreed was bad That's because the editors they worked with, and others he discussed such things, had a pattern to cross off specific things (regardless of whether both author and editor agreed they were bad), and those "crossing offs" revealed not just an editorial hand, but also an underlying ethics/ideology behind what they chose to focus on... >It was bad writing and the editor removed it. The fact that he felt shame doesn't make his assumptions any more valid. Way to miss the whole argument. It's not even like he didn't spell it out...

spywaregorilla 4y ago
> That's because the editors they worked with, and others he discussed such things, had a pattern to cross off specific things (regardless of whether both author and editor agreed they were bad), and those "crossing offs" revealed not just an editorial hand, but also an underlying ethics/ideology behind what they chose to focus on... That's obviously not exclusively true. Otherwise the sole purpose of the editor would be pure ideological shifts. That would be dumb. Ergo I conclude most of the edits are just competent editor edits. > Way to miss the whole argument. And I'm saying the author seems like a sensitive soul that has jumped the gun far too quickly. His argument is incorrect.
- coldtea 4y ago
  >That's obviously not exclusively true. Otherwise the sole purpose of the editor would be pure ideological shifts. That wasn't the argument I've made. I didn't say every edit suggestion was based on ideological shifts. I said that (actually, merely summed up the author's experience) they discovered a tendency for editors to also (keyword: also) make suggestions that not only result in ideological shifts, but have an ideology/ethics and not "how best to serve the text" or aesthetics as the underlying drive. And some those corrections can even coincide with a "better expression" edit. To make the claim perfectly clear: (1) editors make mainly "better expression" edits (2) they also make a certain class of ideology/ethics edits. Some of them they make them explicitly with ideology in mind (e.g. they find situation X, that is acceptable to a French sensibility as yucky because of their culture), and other times unconsciously as mere not understanding the point of the text (but again, not because it doesn't have one, but because of conceptions rooted in their culture about what is included, not some "universal" needs of the text). (3) they make enough of the latter that the writer can see a pattern - also shared/expressed by other writers of the same culture as him (different to the editor's culture) (4) many people reading about those, can't even understand that the latter kind of edits are of that kind, not only because the change might be suble subtle and they can't understand what's at stake, but also because they share the same ethics/ideology (in short: culture) with the editor.
  - spywaregorilla 4y ago
    I don't really care about your argument here. Mine is very simple. If you write a crap sentence a good editor will flag that sentence for being crap. Maybe the editor cared about ideology. Maybe they did not. But if they didn't flag that sentence they would be a bad editor. Because it was a bad sentence. For us to assume that there is additional reasoning behind it would be pure conjecture. It's not a convincing piece of evidence to point out that an editor removed a nonsense statement as evidence that the editor has ideological motivations. It's not proof that they don't have ideological motivations. It's just an irrelevant edit of a bad phrase. This feels like the classic Community scene in which Chang is trying to pitch "Bear Down for Midterms" as the school's slogan, and everyone says "What does that mean?" to which he tries to defend by asking if their issues with it are a race thing. The author's thesis can be correct even if his evidence and persuasive reasoning are bad.