I am an editor or about the basics of applied hermeneutics
From Knyshutok: The writer looked sadly at the blinking cursor of Word, filling the blank sheet with banalities in a strained manner — nothing had been written. The reader glanced over the page of the book, unsuccessfully trying to cling to something - it was not read. So the thoughtful reader followed the thought of the author.
Business is similar to the process of creating a literary work just as much as the idea of conjugating creative and formal principles is close to it. There are only 33 letters, there are established rules for their addition to words, but this makes the creation of the Iliad not cease to be a non-trivial task. Because fable: Aesop's language or Editor and article
In the three times nanotechnology era of web 2.0, we are by definition both readers and writers. An office employee in any position, if not Tolstoy, then at least Barkov. For example, even if the essence of a rational proposal can be told in two words, in the smallest desk, in order to convey this idea to the authorities, it will be necessary to spoil a few sheets of premium white paper in the printer. Your boss will stand in the editorial position, trying to wade through the jungle of words to the original meaning ... or not trying.) How lucky. In the position of the writer will be you.
The editor is the same reader, who has the right to punish and pardon, ruthlessly delete and categorically insert :), make decisions. But the finished text has a form, it as if provokes the editor to succumb to the temptation and not to notice stylistic errors, curves of turns and inappropriate words. The text has already been formed, and any editing introduces an element of disharmony. It is easy to see that there are only two alternative solutions - to make a “gag” or trust the author.
')
In the first case, we will get a schoolboy who is trying to “translate” a friend a lecture on the Large Andron Collider. It’s good if the original message is translated into a modern, understandable language with a lot of “special” vocabulary. With this approach, the article ruthlessly corrects, in order to please the idea of the editor, new meanings arise, accents disappear, set by the author and not fitting into the new concept.
The second situation is even worse - we are not even dealing with a schoolboy - with an amateur. Article, draft, sentence read paragraph by paragraph, from top to bottom. What is strange, you ask? And the fact that the editor, not having found the necessary thought, for example, in the first paragraph, appends it there, but after finding this thought, but in the third one, he simply removes it. As a result, the meaning remains, the author's logic is lost. The editor does not want to understand, he rules "by himself," in the way that, in his opinion, is necessary.
What is left over? Editorial work is also creative, but “differently” creative. The editor must understand the idea of the author, and if this requires reading the text twice, three times, he must do it, and only then make corrections. The thought is captured, the editor became a reader, caught the logic, was born "co-communication". Then you can reject the article, hack the sentence, say that no one needs it. But only then, after reading ...
Of course, writing accessible texts is an art, like giving presentations, making rational proposals, and a priori successful start-up business plans. This needs to be learned, and we may still speculate about this. But there are cases when the curve presentation of a good idea does not allow to consider it from all sides, to reveal its value, unfortunately. It’s very easy to lose bits of sensible ideas in the abyss of verbiage, but the blame lies not only on the author of the idea, but also on those who make the decision.
To understand what does not suit you in the manual is the first step towards not repeating mistakes. Learning to be an editor for yourself is half way to becoming a good editor for others. Otherwise, the ideas of your subordinates will also end up in the trash can.
Business is similar to the process of creating a literary work just as much as the idea of conjugating creative and formal principles is close to it. There are only 33 letters, there are established rules for their addition to words, but this makes the creation of the Iliad not cease to be a non-trivial task. Because fable: Aesop's language or Editor and article
In the three times nanotechnology era of web 2.0, we are by definition both readers and writers. An office employee in any position, if not Tolstoy, then at least Barkov. For example, even if the essence of a rational proposal can be told in two words, in the smallest desk, in order to convey this idea to the authorities, it will be necessary to spoil a few sheets of premium white paper in the printer. Your boss will stand in the editorial position, trying to wade through the jungle of words to the original meaning ... or not trying.) How lucky. In the position of the writer will be you.
The editor is the same reader, who has the right to punish and pardon, ruthlessly delete and categorically insert :), make decisions. But the finished text has a form, it as if provokes the editor to succumb to the temptation and not to notice stylistic errors, curves of turns and inappropriate words. The text has already been formed, and any editing introduces an element of disharmony. It is easy to see that there are only two alternative solutions - to make a “gag” or trust the author.
')
In the first case, we will get a schoolboy who is trying to “translate” a friend a lecture on the Large Andron Collider. It’s good if the original message is translated into a modern, understandable language with a lot of “special” vocabulary. With this approach, the article ruthlessly corrects, in order to please the idea of the editor, new meanings arise, accents disappear, set by the author and not fitting into the new concept.
The second situation is even worse - we are not even dealing with a schoolboy - with an amateur. Article, draft, sentence read paragraph by paragraph, from top to bottom. What is strange, you ask? And the fact that the editor, not having found the necessary thought, for example, in the first paragraph, appends it there, but after finding this thought, but in the third one, he simply removes it. As a result, the meaning remains, the author's logic is lost. The editor does not want to understand, he rules "by himself," in the way that, in his opinion, is necessary.
What is left over? Editorial work is also creative, but “differently” creative. The editor must understand the idea of the author, and if this requires reading the text twice, three times, he must do it, and only then make corrections. The thought is captured, the editor became a reader, caught the logic, was born "co-communication". Then you can reject the article, hack the sentence, say that no one needs it. But only then, after reading ...
Of course, writing accessible texts is an art, like giving presentations, making rational proposals, and a priori successful start-up business plans. This needs to be learned, and we may still speculate about this. But there are cases when the curve presentation of a good idea does not allow to consider it from all sides, to reveal its value, unfortunately. It’s very easy to lose bits of sensible ideas in the abyss of verbiage, but the blame lies not only on the author of the idea, but also on those who make the decision.
To understand what does not suit you in the manual is the first step towards not repeating mistakes. Learning to be an editor for yourself is half way to becoming a good editor for others. Otherwise, the ideas of your subordinates will also end up in the trash can.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/39386/
All Articles