VFJ editing policy is debated

Jean Katus writes to The Vital Force

Noel—

I know you’ve said that Justin wants you to keep writers’ articles exactly as they write them when you put them in the VFJ, and you have agreed to do so. I, too, feel it’s a good idea to stay with the writer’s style and intent. What I have to say is my own opinion and a suggestion that you can feel free to take or leave, to discuss with Justin or not, as you see fit. It’s probably my English teacher background coming out, though you may find that hard to believe in some of the writing I submit myself, some of which is a bit embarrassing when I see the glaring errors in black and white after it’s too late to do anything about it. At any rate, I feel rather strongly that when there are obvious grammatical errors or spelling errors in any given article, those things should be changed. Such small changes won’t affect the style or intent of the person writing the article. My sense is that when these types of errors appear, they reflect poorly on both the writer and on the VFJ itself. A case in point from the last issue (which, overall, was great—as I’ve already told you) is from my own column. In the part about the telephone answering service, you very likely noticed I had a dangling phrase at the end of the paragraph. I can’t believe I missed it myself the number of times I always go over articles I submit. The last line reads, “Besides the service, we still continue to use the an- swering machine when unavailable.” It sounds totally garbled and as though the answering machine is unavailable. Of course, what I’d meant to say was the machine would be used when I am unavailable. I appreciate the times when you point out ways certain things I say could be made clearer by particular re-wordings. I know it’s neither time nor cost efficient for you to perhaps have to contact nearly all your writers when you notice unclear wording, incorrect grammar, spelling errors to get their permission to make changes. And it would seem important to let them know what changes are being contemplated before actually making them. The VFJ is so professional-looking in all other ways that it seems to me such professionalism should also carry over in correct and clear expression.

I imagine the people whose names got misspelled have already pointed that out to you. Amy Tyksinski’s name got spelled two different ways in two different places, and Mark Moloney’s name was consistently misspelled. I know it’s not easy to always get name spellings correct, and maybe I’m overly sensitive to the matter because my names (both first and last, would you believe) often get misspelled.

You and I both know that when one is working under a deadline, it’s very difficult to pick up on all the errors. Proofing is a very tricky business. Yours is a harder job than mine in that respect because you have a definite timeline you have to follow in putting out the VFJ. I have more time in working with the books—and still errors crop up that I didn’t find. Anyway, the bottom line is that you’re doing an excellent job.

– Jean Katus

VFJ Editor Noel Altman responds

Hi Jean!

As far as your opinion on the editing (or lack thereof) in the VFJ, I will consider what you have said, but I’m pretty well decided that this is the method I will follow. I am sure you are not the only one who feels that way. It used to drive me crazy to see all kinds of errors in newspapers and other publications, but the difference is that they are supposed to be correcting them (since no other editing policy is ever stated, and editing is assumed and implied otherwise). Errors can be introduced when articles are retyped. With the scanner the VFJ now has, very little is being retyped. In any event, one of my edits is to go through every article in the layout and compare it to the original hard copy to make sure that I have not changed what a writer had, unless the meaning was unclear.

A couple of points I want to make clear. One, it was Justin who first suggested leaving the articles pretty much intact (unless the meaning is unclear) so spelling and grammatical errors, etc. would be left alone. I had never considered such an idea. I also was an English teacher (1 year) and an English major in college and when I edited my high school and college newspapers I certainly corrected everything in sight. As I look back on it, though, I know that I “overcorrected”. I look at usage of the English language on many different levels — that is, “perfect” English is NOT the only way that I think people should express themselves. What about all the great novels where a tremendous amount of slang, bad grammar, etc. is used?

What I mostly got out of my English language background was to look for the voice of the writer — both to allow my own voice to develop in my writing and to allow it to develop in my students, and to hear that in the novels I was studying. The VOICE, not the correct expression of all the grammatical rules, was my interest. I don’t even know all the correct grammatical rules, although generally my spelling is excellent and my written grammar is pretty good.

The mispellings of people’s names is entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for those errors. Unfortunately, I have made this mistake in both issues now, so I see that I need to add a special edit where I doublecheck every occurrence of every person’s name.

Although Justin made the original suggestion, he later said I should do what I want. I mulled over all these angles before I developed the policy, so it’s already been well thought out. I like this policy because a person can be who he or she is. If the person sees his or her own errors in print, perhaps he/she will then decide to correct them next time in advance, or get help correcting them in advance, or perhaps he/she will ask me to edit the next article (which I will be glad to do, if asked, as stated in my editing policy in the back of each issue). However, I will only correct really glaring problems, preferring to keep the person’s voice as preserved as possible. The point is: the responsibility falls on the shoulders of the writer. If a person never corrects his/her errors, that’s fine, too. That is where he or she is at.

I can’t tell you how aggravating it was for me as an English teacher to go through a LOT of effort correcting a student’s paper, only to have that student repeat that same mistake in every subsequent paper! Forget it! If a person isn’t ready to learn, he/she isn’t ready to learn. I’m not going to waste my time trying to force feed English lessons. This whole approach has been very freeing for me.

It is artificial, really, to mask over what someone else is. Let him/her stand on his/her own two feet. It is truer to the essence of T’ai Chi Chih, I feel, to have the editing policy that I do. Justin would not have suggested it in the first place if it didn’t have merit.

I understand your viewpoint COMPLETELY (having had it myself). I do not disagree with it. You are right. But I know that I, too, am right.

– Noel Altman

Justin Stone has the final say!

Dearest Noel,

Re your letter and Jean’s:

TV is one of the worst offenders in trashing the English language. I have a good friend, a bright man whom you know, who will say to me: “He was laying in the street,” to which I’ll answer “Then he’ll get arrested,” to which I might add “so he was lying there, was he?”

The newspaper prints a heading “Money to Loan”. You can’t “loan” money, Loan is not a verb. You might want to “lend” it.

People do not seem to value speaking correctly. “You know what I meant”, they’ll say. Perhaps we’re on our way back to “ugh” and a few gestures.

When I was learning Japanese, a young banker from Japan said to me: “Japanese is a beautiful language. If you’re going to speak it, speak it correctly.” I much admired this command of his.

I think it will be helpful to print Jean’s and your letter in the VF. You can also use mine if you wish. I’m sure your decision is the right one. . .

– Justin Stone