on writing

[RedHeadGal]

A recent conversation with a colleague went something like this:

Him: "When I edit your work, I'm making it better, not just making stylistic changes."

Me: "But I don't agree you are making it better. You fill it with these affectations I would never write. You do things like bury the subjects of sentences behind long introductory phrases."

Him: "You may be talking about good writing in other fields. This is legal writing."


Is this just a generational problem? In my mind, good writing transcends the professional field. Why do some professions or genres of writing become so firmly entrenched in certain styles and affectations that people who have been using them for years become convinced that their writing is "good" just because the rhetorical style matches the rhetorical style that has been used before?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

A recent conversation with a colleague went something like this:

Him: "When I edit your work, I'm making it better, not just making stylistic changes."

Me: "But I don't agree you are making it better. You fill it with these affectations I would never write. You do things like bury the subjects of sentences behind long introductory phrases."

Him: "You may be talking about good writing in other fields. This is legal writing."


Is this just a generational problem? In my mind, good writing transcends the professional field. Why do some professions or genres of writing become so firmly entrenched in certain styles and affectations that people who have been using them for years become convinced that their writing is "good" just because the rhetorical style matches the rhetorical style that has been used before?

Justice Cardozo would have been a good writer in any field, so your editor is a dufus. The only aspect of legal writing which tends to defy other good writing is the tendency to shy away from elegant variation, as ambiguity is usually a bad thing, but in artistic writing it is often desired.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by RedHeadGal

A recent conversation with a colleague went something like this:

Him: "When I edit your work, I'm making it better, not just making stylistic changes."

Me: "But I don't agree you are making it better. You fill it with these affectations I would never write. You do things like bury the subjects of sentences behind long introductory phrases."

Him: "You may be talking about good writing in other fields. This is legal writing."


Is this just a generational problem? In my mind, good writing transcends the professional field. Why do some professions or genres of writing become so firmly entrenched in certain styles and affectations that people who have been using them for years become convinced that their writing is "good" just because the rhetorical style matches the rhetorical style that has been used before?

I think all lawyers except for Archaea are insecure about what they charge and thus feel the need to "lawyer-up" their writing to impress their non-lawyer clients.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by landpoke

I think most lawyers are insecure about what they charge and thus feel the need to "lawyer-up" their writing to impress their non-lawyer clients.

I am quite secure but believe I undercharge.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I am quite secure but believe I undercharge.

By using "most" instead of "all" I believe I accounted for you.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by landpoke

By using "most" instead of "all" I believe I accounted for you.

I know but I wanted everybody else do know which one you accounted for.

[landpoke]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I know but I wanted everybody else do know which one you accounted for.

I edited my original post. You are, of course, correct and there's no point in beating around the bush simply to spare some other lawyer's feelings.

[BarbaraGordon]

Editing is a rare talent. A good editor won't infuse personal preferences into the writer's work. Nor will he make stylistic changes. A good editor should be reading for mechanics, coherence, and continuity.

So to answer your question: No, I don't think this is a generational difference in identifying good writing. I think this guy simply has a fundamental misunderstanding of what proofreading is.

[MikeWaters]

I think I can relate to how MacArthur must have felt as he got the first reports that his entire Air Force had been destroyed by the Japanese surprise attack, and that retreat and defeat was essentially unescapable.

This was after reading the first chapter of SU's book and thinking about his editor.

Thhuuubbbbbbtttttt!!!!!!!

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I think I can relate to how MacArthur must have felt as he got the first reports that his entire Air Force had been destroyed by the Japanese surprise attack, and that retreat and defeat was essentially unescapable.

This was after reading the first chapter of SU's book and thinking about his editor.

Thhuuubbbbbbtttttt!!!!!!!

Lest we think this is merely insult, I should point out for you ignoramuses of history, that MacArthur did return.