2008/5/24 Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
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