Publishing biz insider: Don’t trust line editors under 50
“Never give your manuscript to an editor/line editor who is under 50—the younger ones don’t know the difference between it’s and its, not to mention lie and lay.” - TeleBlog reader in the publishing industry.
The TeleRead take: Could this be one reason why e-book QC is so bad? The youth of the editors—and the allegedly related illiteracy? I’ve love to hear from both sides.
And speaking of literacy—and cause-effect: Check out Bill McCoy’s blog item on literacy, an MSNBC column and some musings on whether technology is eroding our ability to read. As far as I can determine, the people in the vidstore photo are not e-book line editors, but you never know.
(Photo by Ian Broyles, via Flickr. CC license.)
September 30th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Not having the perspective of age, I can’t really say whether things are getting worse, but I must admit that I’ve found the grammatical state of my peers’ writing rather depressing. The University of Chicago puts a lot of emphasis on the essay portion of its application, but the writing I saw in my first-year humanities class (i.e., from the students who were admitted) left a lot to be desired. Even a friend of mine, who recently got an MA, has never gotten the hang of it’s vs. its, or who vs. whom.
Even if you accept the quote from Michael Rogers that “[t]he nation’s leaders must be able to read; for those who follow, the ability should be strictly optional,” even the people being groomed to be the nation’s leaders aren’t doing so well from the writing side of things.
September 30th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
The progressive loss of the distinction between “who” and “whom” is both tragic and inevitable. But this is only a modern manifestation of an insidiously pervasive verbal decay. Indeed, the literacy of the English speaking people completely collapsed when the pronouns “thou”, “thee”, “thine” and “thy” were dropped from the main dialects. The crude vulgarization of expression in our native tongue must be stopped. Wouldst thou help me to resuscitate these delightful words? (Yes, this is intended to be humorous.)
September 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
QUINN: Thanks for your candid observations.. Yes, I’d agree with the reader: Things are worse. Of course, my position is that everyone needs a copy editor—I commit my share of atrocities. I am a rotten proofer.
EVERYONE–especially those outside the U.S.: Quinn is at one of America’s best schools. Imagine what writing is like at Podunk University. Is this mess one more sign of America’s decline in the world? Writing can’t be separated from thinking, and vice versa; and the it/it’s issue is just one symptom of far more troubling problems.
GARSON: Oh, well. The fewer the options, the less chance people will go astray.
David
September 30th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Garson,
I’ve never been a fan of the hard-core prescriptivist grammar types. Myself, I never use “whom”. The problem with this guy was that he insisted on using it– presumably to make his writing look more sophisticated– but he never figured out how to use it right. I find the use of “whom” (in American English, anyway) rather pompous, but finding it used wrong is downright grating.
September 30th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
The MSNBC column by Michael Rogers states that “Today’s young people are not able to read and understand long stretches of text simply because in most cases they won’t ever need to do so.†The intense aversion toward long texts is certainly not new. I have always enjoyed the following quote from 1781, “Another damned thick, square book! Always scribble, scribble, eh, Mr. Gibbon?†said by Prince William Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh, upon receiving the second volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire from the author.