When I was a boy, I worked as an editor for an edgy literary/entertainment journal that was published by a friend of mine. I volunteered for the assignment. I was probably about 24 years old, but even then, I recognized the importance of well-proofed copy.

One thing that the internet has done is make it possible for anyone and everyone to be "published." It used to be that in order to be acknowledged as a writer, you needed to find someone who would print your words. And, because of the cost and effort involved in printing words, publishers were required by common sense to print the words of only those who were deemed worthy. In those days, most of what you read in print could be considered solid writing. Skilled editors picked up what the writer naturally missed.

Not everything was perfect, of course. In fact, the reason that I volunteered to edit my friend’s journal was because it pained me to read it. When I read it, I didn’t feel like I was reading a real journal, but rather something thrown together by someone not qualified to teach 3rd grade English. Even things as simple as an incorrectly placed comma or a lowercase word that should have been capitalized immediately made the entire journal seem amateurish and weak. Good writing has an invisible quality; bad writing stands out like a sore thumb. Furthermore, if the publishers couldn’t take the time to edit the copy, why should I spend the time wading through mistakes in order to read it?

Not that my friend wasn’t qualified, but the copy needed to be edited, and he didn’t have the time to do it. And, to be honest, there is little immediate satisfaction in good editing, because no one even realizes editing exists unless it’s not done. But printed pieces that aren’t edited read poorly. Editing isn’t a job that was invented to satisfy anal-retentive ex-English majors with a passion for squinting. Editing is necessary for the eye, for the mind. Poorly edited pieces make the reader guess at meanings and halt midsentence in order to find the flow. Educated readers can identify specifically why and where their reading mind trips up. Uneducated readers feel something is wrong and come away with a lack of understanding. In both cases, the result is essentially that the writing is ineffective. An opinion is lost, information garbled, or a theme simply missed, among other things.

In the history of literature, the relationships between editors and writers have been epic. Sometimes contentious and often rued, the work that these two parties have put into books and articles over the years has never been blasé. But while the individual egos and personalities have made these relationships variously positive or combative, they without fail contributed to the high quality of writing found in the pieces that made the page.

With the internet, "publishing" has taken on a new meaning. While it used to mean that you were "selected" to have a path to readers, now it simply means that you have quick, personal access to a path to readers. The selection process has been reduced from that of being chosen from a large group based on writing ability to that of your ability to maintain a credit card and fill out internet forms.

But just because writers are no longer screened before their words are inflicted on a potentially large population of readers, that doesn’t mean that the effect (or lack thereof) of the writing isn’t compromised by bad writing or poor editing.

The internet has done more than provide easy access to being "published." It’s provided a forum for immediate feedback. More than once, I’ve seen bad writing or poor editing attacked, sometimes innocuously. But regardless of the tone of the criticism, the result is rarely calm. Defensive, largely uneducated or often simply ignorant or defiant writers will defend their poor writing as "unique" or "groundbreaking." They hear criticism of their technique to be criticism of what they define as their "voice." What they fail to realize is that fundamentally poor writing sabotages any effort on their part to establish a voice, much less convey a meaning. And, truth be told, it is rare that a writer who can’t edit his work has been able to create a "voice." What’s missing from their writing isn’t (necessarily) talent or insight, but rather skill and attention to detail. Kerouac wasn’t groundbreaking because he put commas in wrong places; he was groundbreaking because he made up new rules that made sense in the world his books defined. But even Kerouac edited his work to maintain those rules.

Usually writers who defend their error-strewn work as groundbreaking have no idea of its mistakes until they are pointed out. This is akin to calling a 3-year-old child a revolutionary because he mispronounces his Rs.

The ease of internet publication has not only removed the requirement of impressing publishers or editors with one’s sound writing ability, but it’s also removed a crucial element of patience and devotion to each piece. When a person can send a piece of fiction or diatribe from the womb of their mind to the screens of millions of people in literally a matter of minutes (or less), why bother checking the placement of commas? The piece itself, if even actually read by anyone, will likely be lost even more quickly than it was posted, so why spend the time perfecting it?

In many cases, this is true. However, this attitude has led to a proliferation of bad writing not only in the daily blogs of junior high school angst clowns but across the board, often on sites that should know better; literary or news sites which are read by perceptive readers, whose articles linger for days, weeks, months, and are then archived to be accessed for research or entertainment for years to come. And subpar writing does something harmful regardless of its lifespan. Just as it did for me hundreds of years ago when I read a friend’s obscure journal in the invisible Midwest of America, it compromises the intellectual integrity of the entire publication, print or otherwise. It is amateurish and careless, and this reflects on the publication.

It’s not easy to edit writing, and even more difficult to edit good writing. But the time spent doing so should and does reflect the level of respect that the publishers, personal or professional, hold for their readers. Respect must be earned, and it is best earned by demonstrating it.

In this case, internet publishers and writers should demonstrate their respect for their readers by making the effort to clean up their copy. If not, chances are good that most of that writing will be misunderstood, overlooked, and eventually irrelevant.


- posted by seanmh @ 9:40 AM