Trigger-Happy

 

Photo by Let Ideas Compete

Long ago and far away, I worked for a copy chief who introduced me to the editorial concept of gratuitous meddling. I would like to be able to say that she was a wise and patient master imparting wisdom to the neophyte. But in fact she was a gratuitous meddler herself and was loathed by the copyediting pool. “Gratuitous meddling” was a favorite phrase of my workmates, who used it frequently in their ridicule.

I latched onto the phrase then, and decades later it still springs to mind when I read complaints from writer victims.  A copyeditor will change “in no wise” to “in no way.” Or “most important” to “most importantly.” Or “stanched” to “staunched.” She’ll break an endnote of three citations into three separate notes and change two hundred instances of Sophokles to Sophocles in a text written by a distinguished professor of Greek literature.

Can the mere possession of a red pencil make someone so trigger-happy she loses all restraint?

H. G. Wells famously quipped that “no passion in the world is equal to the passion to alter someone else’s draft,” and there’s something in that. Once the tracking is turned on, you’re itching to leave some tracks. Competent prose can be downright irritating when you’re young and energetic and on a mission to whip the literary world into shape. Come on, come on, you think—surely I know something this writer doesn’t! Sure you do. But it isn’t that. Or that. Or that.

You sit with a dictionary and search engine close at hand. Then why oh why aren’t they your weapons of choice? If I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a hundred times:

First, do no harm.

Look it up.

And when in doubt, keep your hands in the air.

 

Comments

[StanCarey]

"Gratuitous meddling" is a good phrase. I wholly agree with the idea that editors should first "do no harm": it's the typographic oath!

Humility and experience lead an editor inevitably to a position of minimal interference (unless otherwise stipulated). Sometimes keeping my hands in the air isn't enough, though, and I have to sit on them.

Coincidentally, I was chatting earlier today about how red pens may prime us to be more critical. I wrote about this phenomenon here: http://stancarey.wordpress.com/2010/06/22/the-red-pen-effect/

[_steve_hall]

I loved this line: "Once the tracking is turned on, you’re itching to leave some tracks." And immediately thought of the line you used at the end of the article: "Do no harm."

I believe if we can keep that latter thought uppermost, the itch won't be as intense.

Thanks for the reminder that "gratuitous [almost anything]" is not a good thing.

[Charles Purdy]

Thanks for a good reminder. Long ago and far away, I worked with a wise and patient copy chief who would not accept changes that couldn't be explained succinctly and well. (He refused to accept "it just reads better" edits, as writers will!)

[LisaLOwens]

Great reminder! I've had many discussions about the strong impulse to change copy, even when there's nothing "wrong" with it. (Charles, I love your colleague's policy!) I think a big part of that impulse stems from the desire to feel you've put your stamp on a work, that you've "done something" tangible.

I write and edit, so I've seen that play out from both angles. But it's so important to place the editorial process ahead of your itch to show *your* work. Editors of all types are there to offer checkpoints to ensure that the writing is in its best shape. Letting good work (and the author's voice) stand is just as important as making corrections.

[daveblake]

Henri Rousseau was so excited (according to historian Yann Le Pichon) by what he saw at the 1907 Cezanne retrospective that he ran from painting to painting, and then exclaimed to his companion, "You know, I could finish them all!'

[Ironmom2011.blogspot.com]

Yes! It took me too long to learn this. The key is remembering that it's not YOUR name on the byline.