2008/5/24 Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net>et>:
Ian Woollard wrote:
The problem is that a copyeditor makes a sentence
read well, but in
some cases, the sentence is simply the best sentence that anyone knows
how to write- it's awkward text, because it's a difficult concept. The
copyeditor just sweeps in and 'simplifies' it. Enough copyediting and
the article is no longer in anyway correct.
That view involves a healthy dose of jumping to conclusions. Style and
substance need to be viewed as complements, not opponents.
In many, even most cases, I agree. However there are some cases where
they *are* opponents. In those cases copyeditors tend to sweep through
and just damage the article.
Being a difficult concept is no excuse for bad
writing.
Being a difficult concept is no excuse for bad copyediting. There's a
difference between a difficult concept and bad writing a mile wide and
a mile deep. And copy editors usually don't know the difference.
The illness would just serve to reduce the time during
which the article
could be considered a BLP. :-)
Which part of them not having that illness, and thus being around and
able to sue, didn't you understand?
Ec
--
-Ian Woollard
We live in an imperfectly imperfect world. If we lived in a perfectly
imperfect world things would be a lot better.