ATTN: Copyeditors and Grammar Fiends

That was my response too.

Can't help but feel that the guy who sent that email would have strengthened his position by knowing what century Alexander Pope was writing in.

good point. still. heat of the moment, and all that. (there was something else i spotted and thought "hmm, maybe not" about, but it's small beer in the general scheme of things.)

I know, it's just fun correcting the corrector.

Some islands actually do float.

tht guy is silly

I'd have my papers in txt spk tho, if I cd

^^any chance the hrld cd trail blaze this?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v136/primrosehill/noname.jpg

En-dashes are awesome.

itht guy is silly

why?

while he is correct in what he says (he is a grammar/quality nazi, they are often correct in what they say and often have that male obsession with being right), a lot of the errors he points out are still perfectly communicative. ie readers wd get the gist, which is all I want from newspaper copy; I'm not close reading it

the capitalisation and headline setting stuff is pretty poor and shd have been picked up by eye

I can see and empathise with the larger point that the small stuff is symptomatic of a larger decline in quality and that newspapers need to sweat these details, even tho the ship is sinking

pt of me tho thinks the ship is sinking, let's sink the ship; but then I'm a wapper

^^also I think everything is silly and don't care about anything bcs I am internet dumb, innit

ie readers wd get the gist, which is all I want from newspaper copy

you're an easy man to please, though ;)

I can see and empathise with the larger point that the small stuff is symptomatic of a larger decline in quality and that newspapers need to sweat these details, even tho the ship is sinking

yeh, this is absolutely it. newspapers have fucked themselves in a variety of interesting ways: although part of me says, fuck 'em, life's too short for me to dick around with this nonsense any more, the fact remains that, right now and for the forseeable future, they're going to be paying my bills. so i have a vested interest in keeping the ship above the waterline for as long as possible.

if traditional print-media sources are going to adapt and survive in any way, their USP has to be quality. what else can a professional newsroom offer the reader? sadly, few of us seem to give a flying fuck about that any more -- i guess that's why, despite the myriad quibbles one could have with this dude's e-mail, i absolutely fucking love him for it. (and i get the impression that, whoever he is, he'd love to be quibbled with.)

Some islands actually do float.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/93/269167734_a4c28150f5.jpg?v=0

xp accompanying article to that memo says that Daily and Sunday Expess have since decided to, er, sack more than half of their subs.

a place where they still care about editing...

http://images.businessweek.com/story/08/600/0707_mindworks.jpg

The Express titles are introducing a new Woodwing editorial system that Parrott said would allow the papers to "revolutionise the way pages are written and edited and therefore reduce costs".

It is understood that Woodwing will allow staff to write some of their stories directly on to pages, rather than send their stories to subeditors first.

when i was interviewed for a newspaper subbing job back in 1999 (or rather "page-editing" job, because, as i was repeatedly told, "we don't have subs here", even though the job was patently and obviously fucking sub-editing), this notion of "reporters writing directly into boxes" was touted to me by my interviewer as some astounding piece of futurism that would change the world as we knew it. he was rather aggrieved when i pointed out that it was nothing of the sort, and the capacity to do it had existed for several years by then.

if the express, in 2008, really believes it's some magical new direction, you've got to wonder: are they still using fucking linotype machines and blue pencils, or something?

whatever happened in the month between that memo being sent and the decision being made to axe half the subs can't have been pretty, and i have tremendous sympathy for anyone who's losing their job here (although maybe not as much sympathy as i have for anyone left behi ... no, i jest). but i also wonder, idly, about working practices in the newsroom (and not just that of the express); about the dangers of being too recalcitrant in the face of inky armageddon; and about those of my subbing brethren who don't seem to have seen the writing on the wall, which reads: "adapt or die".

actually, that may well turn out to be "adapt and die anyway", but i think that's true for newspapers in general, not just subs.

The Nigerian proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child" can be applied...

One comma has got to be wrong -- but can I take that one out, or must I add another after child?

Should there be one at all?

despite the myriad quibbles one could have with this dude's e-mail, i absolutely fucking love him for it.

That's funny. For some reason I imagined the writer being female. I looked back and it doesn't specify gender.

xp: I would prefer there to be none

Nigerian proverb should have no commas. If it were "A Nigerian proverb", commas would be needed, obviously. But here no way.

Express email very good. Clearly some padding, but still. I see "fewer than one in five voters" ALL THE TIME.

For some reason I imagined the writer being female.

Aye, a bloke wouldn't quibble over "battle tank".

That's funny. For some reason I imagined the writer being female. I looked back and it doesn't specify gender

good point. i obviously identify with them too much ;)

this should be easy. i'm no editor, but i've been asked to proofread a long document and i keep coming up against passages like this:

"To help keep young people in the province and to attract newcomers to the province there is a strong need to look at..."

ami i wrong in thinking there should e a comma after each "province" there? i feel like there should be, but sentence after sentence is like this...i do realize that the whole thing can be reworded so the the word province is there only once, among all sorts of other issues (passive voice, etc.).

Commas aren't required unless "and to attract newcomers to the province" is treated as a parenthetical thought.

thanks! "aren't required" -- is it a matter of preference? like, if the sentence just feels unwieldy and confusing would it be incorrect to insert commas (even if neither clause is meant to seem parenthetical)?

If you want to use commas to make it seem less unwieldy, I'd do so only after the second "province." In fact, that's probably a good idea, anyway.

thanks, that helps & makes sense. i'll return to my endless blocks of comma-less words.

How did I miss that Express thing???

that. is. fucking. BRILLIANT.

that's made my day; the fact that one executive, somewhere, still cares enough to send that e-mail out. perhaps all is not yet lost.

it's totally, totally different to coren; coren was one writer whining (albeit with some justification) about his precious copy; this is an exec doling out the beats because of what's happening to quality overall. fuck me, i would LOVE that to happen round our way.

absolutely superb.

― easy, lionel (grimly fiendish), Saturday, 11 October 2008 16:27 (4 days ago)

^^^this, really. several big lols and immediate forwarding to entire editorial team were the results.

(xposts) agree with jaymc - comma after second province is all that's needed, if any.

Thirded

Which raises point of discussion, actually. I'm crap with grammatical terminology and thus can't name them, but clauses like the beginnings of the following: In January, the candidate announced... or When questioned on the issue, a spokesman replied.... Was there a specific point where things like newspapers started dropping the comma on these? I keep noticing the NYT pushing the envelope on this -- they always leave it out on short, inconsequential ones like "last month," but I'm increasingly seeing it dropped on fairly long clauses like that, ones where it seems unbearable to me to leave it out.

Please also confirm that I'm not being fussy about this: surely it's just plain glaringly awfully wrong to frame a list like this --

We will serve apples, pears, plus bananas.

Awful, yes? Must finish original series with "and" before even thinking of using a "plus," yes?

i think you're right in terms of how we normally speak and write, but there's no real logical reason why the quote is wrong

It seems logically wrong to me because the initial series starts but never ends.

It would make sense to me to say that you're going to serve a complete list, plus an extra --
pears and apples + bananas

Whereas the form above reads to me like --
a list of thi-- + something else

but why can't you just use "plus" as a synonym for "and"? I realize it's "wrong" but is it wrong?

unit four plus two

what i'm asking is, outside of the mathematical arena, is there a difference in meaning between "plus" and "and"?

I dunno! I guess I automatically think of "plus" as only putting already-complete things together.

Also, in the thing I'm working on, it's used in the "cool bonus" sense (e.g., get cool stuff -- PLUS free shipping!), which seems to really call for finishing the original series.

xpost - yeah, I think there's a distinct difference between "plus" and "and," especially in terms of connotations / general usage today / etc. For instance, you would never say "Me plus Sarah are going to see a movie."

I dunno! I guess I automatically think of "plus" as only putting already-complete things together.

I share that instinct, but it only makes sense if we treat "plus" in these contexts as an analogue to "as well as," and I can't decide whether that should be the case or not.

Hahaha part of why I'm asking is that I always run into this with "as well as," as well! They're always like "we'll provide luxurious accommodations, prompt service, as well as high-quality treatment."

^^ to their credit, that usually gets changed if we call it out. Same thing with "plus" is less sure.

just to be clear, i agree that both of those uses are confusing and should just use "and" instead

We will serve apples, pears, plus bananas.

revolting

and: signifies either "in addition to" or "here is the final item in a list"

plus: signifies only "in addition to"

if i wasn't losing the will to live because of my motherfucking MSc, i'd engage more with this :(

I'm copping a lot of shit, for the second year running, for insisting on spelling Hallowe'en with an apostrophe. I can't find a national paper that disagrees with me, but still some of our writers are having a good go.

My feeling is, as a UK publication, we should no more bow to the apostrophe-free US spelling of this word than we ought to switch suddenly to "color" and "glamor".

The counter-argument, of course, is that the modern-day Hallowe'en celebration in the UK is based almost entirely on the US interpretation of the event, and so we should be using their spelling. Furthermore, the (US) movie spells it sans apostrophe, etc etc.

Uh.

personally, i think it's a bit of an affectation to use the apostrophe. however: the style guide for the paper i work for says to use an apostrophe, so there we go.

do you guys actually have a house-style guide, charlie? if so: shove it up these fuckers' arses.

if not, you should write one. then follow step one, above.

Go the whole hog and call it All Hallows' Even. You still get to be apostrophe punctilious as well. My preference, Halloween - because of the film and because I can't be arsed, and Hallowe'en looks pissy.

this is the smallest 'cello in the world playing "my heart bleeds for you"

over the 'phone

do you guys actually have a house-style guide, charlie? if so: shove it up these fuckers' arses.

yes. i wrote it, largely, and i take frequent pleasure in issuing rtfm-style edicts :-)

because of the film and because I can't be arsed, and Hallowe'en looks pissy

this is pretty much the full extent of the naysayers' arguments round these parts too!

thanks tracer, glad you feel the full exctent of my pain...

xpost to tracer:

devil's advocate:

where do you draw the line, though? "ach, most people dont use apostrophes in anything any more. so we wont either. i mean, you can understand this, cant you?"