As many of you know, our proofreaders at Writer’s Relief are the best in the business (we only accept two percent of our applicants each year). And as a result our clients often wind up with quite a bit of red pen on their manuscripts (though we DO save them lots of time because WE prepare the master, the final document for submission).
Regardless of your political proclivities, we think that all writers who have ever been on the receiving end of an editor or proofreader’s red pen will appreciate this link to the Vanity Fair blog. Take a look at how one editor critiques and revises Sarah Palin’s resignation speech.
We're not content editors (like the Vanity Fair editors are), and we make no claims to encourage (or discourage) this kind of heavy-handed editing. But we did want to share this with you because it brings up interesting questions about the role of an editor.
What do you think? Too much editing? Or too little? Have a look at the Vanity Fair site:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2009/07/palin-speech-edit-200907.
I just don’t get it — if I or anyone chooses to say a few words in a farwell address, what does it matter to an editor at Vanity or any other publication — what I say or how I say it? It would be a boring world if we all spoke the way editors think we should speak, and remember we always allow a person more leeway in his choice of words when he speaks than we may when he writes his thought down. The bottom line is not what our Vanity editor thinks she should have said but did she say what she wanted to say!
As I heard it I understood it to be a sentiment and as I see it if Palin or Obama, or you want to indulge yourself in wordy or meaningless stuff when you speak don’t we allow for that; or do we allow for it only with those with whom we agree?then who is the editor to criticize it?
Palin’s "speech" to my knowledge was not submitted for publication — the media could have chosen to ignore it. Had our editor assigned it as a class project I would understand that. Instead she decides to put it on public record. Why? Perhaps, unknowingly, our editor is trying to tell us something about herself — is it that she feels intelectually superior,or is she merely jealous of the attention given to the governor?
As Fraud said: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
I feel, there was too much editing. Could hardly see the script for the red. But, that’s my opinion. I think at times we allow our opinions cloud those, opinions, of others.