tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post3458537031141256600..comments2024-03-17T05:03:46.056-07:00Comments on xkcd sucks: Comic 661: An editor's helpful penCarlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074589998141327538noreply@blogger.comBlogger279125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-53903417010379253432010-06-25T00:21:24.698-07:002010-06-25T00:21:24.698-07:00Gryffilion: we exist to serve.
...well, to destroy...Gryffilion: we exist to serve.<br />...well, to destroy the unworthy and serve.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-62667527949980522262010-06-23T20:30:02.496-07:002010-06-23T20:30:02.496-07:00I realize that I am very, very, late to this amazi...I realize that I am very, very, late to this amazing thread. However: Rob, you are a god among men, and I would follow you into the depths of Hell if it meant I got to listen to you tear people superfluous orifices for the rest of eternity.Gryffilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14326158632676811873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-77011258964433704222009-11-18T16:27:11.765-08:002009-11-18T16:27:11.765-08:00Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this e...<i>Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this entire thread. I'm calling bullocks on that argument of yours. You are the functionally illiterate fellow here. Where are your supporters?</i><br /><br />man where are <i>your</i> supporters you big twat? like one person here has slightly agreed with you, and that beats out the people who agree with rob?<br /><br /><i>Elementary errors, as in typos? Welcome to the internet. I could argue with you in 1337speak and my arguments would still be valid.</i><br /><br />Typos do not validate your claims that you are proficient in the English language. I could understand one or two typos within a few paragraphs, but you have made like five typos for every comment you have left, including the one-liners.<br /><br /><i>"Just FYI, that is even less impressive than passing them. At least in passing them you can claim that you were taught something."<br /><br />Oh look, Internet Rob has an opinion. How is that relevant again?</i><br /><br />It was relevant because it was addressing a point you brought up.<br /><br />Anyway I realize that Mal and Rob have both said basically the same thing, but since you appear to not understand that we all have the same standpoint (i.e. think you suck), I decided to leave a comment.<br /><br />unrelatedly: guys are we beating the record of number of comments? wasn't it like 300+?Amandahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11192581573588205095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-68943680720219386992009-11-18T07:53:11.016-08:002009-11-18T07:53:11.016-08:00"Thinking one word and typing another is a ty..."Thinking one word and typing another is a typo, for the record."<br /><br />Nice revisionism! Come back when you can come up with something compelling, yeah?<br /><br />"Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this entire thread. I'm calling bullocks on that argument of yours. You are the functionally illiterate fellow here. Where are your supporters?"<br /><br />In this thread alone (and they are free to disagree), agreeing with my interpretation, we have Jay, Femalethoth, Doppler, Amanda, and myself, and probably others I'm forgetting. Add to this everyone who frequents the <a href="http://mibbit.com/?channel=%23xkcd-sucks&server=irc.foonetic.net" rel="nofollow">#xkcd-sucks</a> channel, which is another, eh, four or five people, probably. And once again, Occam's razor: even without the people from #xkcd-sucks, you need to find an explanation for four diverse entities to interpret your argument as meaning something the exact opposite of what you intended if you're assuming that you have made no error here. Or you can accept that you are either a liar or have fucked up. Guess which one is simpler?<br /><br />I would bet money that other people reading the conversation would side with me on this one. There's a trick I've learned over time. It goes something like this:<br /><br />Let's say you read something, and interpret it as saying a certain thing. Then, later on, someone else provides a different interpretation--one that is at odds with your own! You can test the validity of this new interpretation by going back and reading it with this assumption in mind. If, going back and re-reading, the new interpretation doesn't make sense, it's not a valid interpretation.<br /><br />Guess what? Your interpretation of your arguments doesn't make sense.<br /><br />"Elementary errors, as in typos? Welcome to the internet. I could argue with you in 1337speak and my arguments would still be valid. How many times do I have to repeat this is a red herring before you realize that it isn't an accepted form of logical rebuttal?"<br /><br />As many times as it takes you to learn this isn't high school debate class. And no, your elementary errors aren't typos. They are errors which indicate elementary errors in language--they indicate that the language is not something which is natural to you. Which, since you appear to have decided that the new hot argument is "whether you were arguing about what everyone thinks you were arguing about, or whether everyone simultaneously managed to misinterpret your utterly brilliant words in the exact same way," is entirely relevant.<br /><br />"As for you not getting the intended meaning out of my (valid) criticism of his edits, that is likely a result of confirmation bias on your part. You've been here over a year, so the fact that you would misconstrue the arguments of anyone who shows up here isn't all that surprising."<br /><br />Except, we weren't arguing about the comic or the edits. We were very clearly arguing about the role of an editor. This is a conversation that has never come up here before, ever. Confirmation bias has literally no way of explaining four people simultaneously misinterpreting your words in the exact same way. The only options that remain are that you are a liar, incompetent, or both.<br /><br />"Oh look, Internet Rob has an opinion. How is that relevant again?"<br /><br />Okay, sweetheart, two things. First: if you don't care about my opinion, you should probably stop coming back for more of it. Second: if you don't think that opinions are relevant, you should probably stop asserting your own with nothing to back it up.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-85438627092150064652009-11-18T07:33:50.527-08:002009-11-18T07:33:50.527-08:00Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this e...<i>Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this entire thread. I'm calling bullocks on that argument of yours. You are the functionally illiterate fellow here. Where are your supporters?</i><br /><br />Me, Jay, Amanda, Poore, Carl, at the VERY least.<br /><br /><i>Elementary errors, as in typos?</i><br /><br />That's not what he means by "elementary". He doesn't really mean "simple" so much as "fundamental". So, errors like <i>totally wrong word choice</i>.<br /><br /><i>As for you not getting the intended meaning out of my (valid) criticism of his edits, that is likely a result of confirmation bias on your part. You've been here over a year, so the fact that you would misconstrue the arguments of anyone who shows up here isn't all that surprising.</i><br /><br />Oops--no point in listing people who agree with Rob and Jay, then. You just KNOW they're all experiencing confirmation bias. What a weirdly discriminatory proposition.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-69651991291066303992009-11-18T06:41:02.716-08:002009-11-18T06:41:02.716-08:00"Haha. Dude, you were complaining about the w..."Haha. Dude, you were complaining about the word "excessive." "Necessary" is not a typo, it's a failure on your part to even remember what the hell you're complaining about. If you clearly don't actually care about what you're saying why should I?"<br /><br />Thinking one word and typing another is a typo, for the record. <br /><br />Also, I'll address your Joyce points later. They are a bit tangential to the discussion, but I do feel they need to be addressed. <br /><br />"See, here's the problem. Everyone I've talked to who've been reading this thread--a diverse group which includes people from all sorts of academic disciplines, including your vaunted maths and sciences--disagrees with your assessment of what you've been saying. Now, you are free to assume that literally every regular who posts on this blog is "functionally illiterate," but let's apply Occam's razor here, shall we?"<br /><br />Rob, maybe 4 people other than us have read this entire thread. I'm calling bullocks on that argument of yours. You are the functionally illiterate fellow here. Where are your supporters? <br /><br />"You demonstrate a profound capacity to misunderstand simple words and phrases. It is that we dislike how you are saying it--that is, we dislike the fact that your language is replete with elementary errors and apparently communicates the exact opposite of what you intend to say."<br /><br />Elementary errors, as in typos? Welcome to the internet. I could argue with you in 1337speak and my arguments would still be valid. How many times do I have to repeat this is a red herring before you realize that it isn't an accepted form of logical rebuttal? <br /><br />As for you not getting the intended meaning out of my (valid) criticism of his edits, that is likely a result of confirmation bias on your part. You've been here over a year, so the fact that you would misconstrue the arguments of anyone who shows up here isn't all that surprising. <br /><br />"Keep telling yourself that. Delusion is cute."<br /><br />That's right, I forgot that you proved it as opposed to just saying it. <br /><br />"Just FYI, that is even less impressive than passing them. At least in passing them you can claim that you were taught something."<br /><br />Oh look, Internet Rob has an opinion. How is that relevant again?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-57743157340647159602009-11-18T04:58:56.745-08:002009-11-18T04:58:56.745-08:00"Jay has already said he didn't feel stro..."Jay has already said he didn't feel strongly about some of these. Not to take his word for it or anything."<br /><br />Here, let me finish that sentence you quoted for you: "and even then only if the edit substantially changes the text--most of these don't do so."<br /><br />"That's right, I forgot that you ignore the argument presented if there is a typo in it. Have I mentioned that is a red herring yet?"<br /><br />Haha. Dude, you were complaining about the word "excessive." "Necessary" is not a typo, it's a failure on your part to even remember what the hell you're complaining about. If you clearly don't actually care about what you're saying why should I?<br /><br />"Nope. If you can't comprehend simple logical discourse, you have no reason to even reading this. I'm not about to take the time dumb down my arguments so you and the like can dismiss them because of unicorns or whatever illogical rationale you wish to provide."<br /><br />See, here's the problem. Everyone I've talked to who've been reading this thread--a diverse group which includes people from all sorts of academic disciplines, including your vaunted maths and sciences--disagrees with your assessment of what you've been saying. Now, you are free to assume that literally every regular who posts on this blog is "functionally illiterate," but let's apply Occam's razor here, shall we? <i>Entities must not be multiplied by necessity.</i><br /><br />In order for everyone here to be "functionally illiterate," as you would have it, you would need to have amassed a huge number of people who can't comprehend basic English in one place--and what's more, you've found someone who excels in writing (according, as you would have it, by test scores, as well as scores reflected in writing courses both creative and analytical) and is frequently sought-after for his skills at editing and analysis, who, despite this wide and varied success, still has managed to interpret your argument as being essentially the exact opposite of what you had to say. I imagine many of the others here have similar qualifications.<br /><br />In order for you to have failed as a writer, you're the only one who needs to have failed.<br /><br />Which one of these propositions is simpler?<br /><br />"Impressive, isn't it?"<br /><br />Your capacity for bullshit and self-deception? You bet.<br /><br />"Surprise! You and the other frequenters of this blog don't like what I am saying. Who would have thought?"<br /><br />You demonstrate a profound capacity to misunderstand simple words and phrases. It is that we dislike how you are saying it--that is, we dislike the fact that your language is replete with elementary errors and apparently communicates the exact opposite of what you intend to say.<br /><br />"You can disagree with that assumption if you want, but that is precisely what academia is designed to do. Maybe not creative writing academia, but in the physics and math departments we actually care more about the research being done than the bottom line."<br /><br />Keep telling yourself that. Delusion is cute.<br /><br />"I didn't pass them. My written word was deemed sufficiently coherent to test out of them."<br /><br />Just FYI, that is even less impressive than passing them. At least in passing them you can claim that you were taught something.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-57008949092886367702009-11-18T00:38:25.504-08:002009-11-18T00:38:25.504-08:00"No editor is going to say "this is a me..."No editor is going to say "this is a mere suggestion" about his edits unless they do not feel strongly about the edits"<br /><br />Jay has already said he didn't feel strongly about some of these. Not to take his word for it or anything. <br /><br />"Hahahaha. You don't even remember the word you're bitching about. Oh man, that's priceless."<br /><br />That's right, I forgot that you ignore the argument presented if there is a typo in it. Have I mentioned that is a red herring yet? <br /><br />"It is, in nearly all circumstances, the writer's responsibility to communicate clearly to his readers"<br /><br />Nope. If you can't comprehend simple logical discourse, you have no reason to even reading this. I'm not about to take the time dumb down my arguments so you and the like can dismiss them because of unicorns or whatever illogical rationale you wish to provide. <br /><br />"but for "a modicum of your attention" you sure are producing a lot of text"<br /><br />Impressive, isn't it? <br /><br />"Admittedly it is shitty text"<br /><br />Surprise! You and the other frequenters of this blog don't like what I am saying. Who would have thought? <br /><br /><br />"Academia and standardized testing are in bed with one another"<br /><br />Is that another proof by assertion or did you just forget to paste the link. I am willing to offer you the benefit of the doubt though. <br /><br />"I'm a little confused at why you seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone agrees with you that academia in general is an institution which is exceptionally good at testing the knowledge and merits of the individuals involved"<br /><br />You can disagree with that assumption if you want, but that is precisely what academia is designed to do. Maybe not creative writing academia, but in the physics and math departments we actually care more about the research being done than the bottom line. <br /><br /><br />"Certainly passing basic introductory English courses is in no way indicative of one's prowess with the written word."<br /><br />I didn't pass them. My written word was deemed sufficiently coherent to test out of them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-39688289949486886182009-11-17T17:50:24.016-08:002009-11-17T17:50:24.016-08:00First, it would be nice if politicians did make pr...<b>First, it would be nice if politicians did make promises they can keep, rather than promising everything. It's also difficult to correct that without knowing context -- it's possible she outlined problems she obviously couldn't guarantee a fix for, perhaps something she'd have to petition the administration for.</b><br /><br />You can come up with an explanation for any bad piece of dialogue. It's still bad, and that's a long logical leap to make. People should not have to make it.<br /><br /><b>Second, I agree with Ryan's comment that the exclamation point is appropriate, for one who jumps up onto a chair to SHOUT and interrupt the speaker. But I won't argue this, as I am not an editor, and I don't feel like arguing over minor grammatical details of a webcomic of stick figures. (The same goes for the criticisms of the art itself -- they're stick figures!)</b><br /><br />I think it's clear he's shouting anyway. You can infer that from context. But notice I left it in the first panel - where he would be speaking very loudly and abruptly.<br /><br /><b>But the main reason I chose to post -- in the third panel, Billy (or John, now) has just started to realize he's in over his head. While it's rare for real people to respond with a concession when they realize this, it seems a bit rarer, even on the Internet, for someone to suddenly shout "lol trolled" and run off.<br /><br />A real troll would never try to make a serious argument in the first place. If you really want to completely change the comic into being about trolls, you're going to have to replace John's dialog here with some Internet meme. Something like "In Soviet Russia", or "Can haz partiez?"</b><br /><br />Well, the punchline's not mine, but I like it better than the original. Have you ever seen someone try to argue ineptly on the internet, and when they get destroyed, they try to pretend they were trolling all along? Like <a href="http://lol.i.trollyou.com/" rel="nofollow">here.</a><br /><br />I believe that's what Carl meant.Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037127857062536971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-43092609433621359322009-11-17T17:17:07.075-08:002009-11-17T17:17:07.075-08:00"I am not Ryan, and this is my first post on ..."I am not Ryan, and this is my first post on this blog -- though I find it interesting how quickly that devolved into name-calling."<br /><br />You must find the whole internet utterly fascinating.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-51556695252557958182009-11-17T16:57:21.024-08:002009-11-17T16:57:21.024-08:00Also XKCD hasn't declined "somewhat"...Also XKCD hasn't declined "somewhat" lately. It started declining <i>somewhat</i> in the mid-300s or so--earlier, depending on how anti-nostalgic recent shit has made you. Verily, since around comic 500, it's been dropping <i>pretty fuckin' precipitously.</i>John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-3211827319876582762009-11-17T16:24:03.301-08:002009-11-17T16:24:03.301-08:00I am not Ryan, and this is my first post on this b...I am not Ryan, and this is my first post on this blog -- though I find it interesting how quickly that devolved into name-calling. Posting with a Google account to avoid being called a sock, though I was tempted to post as Anonymous just to stay out of the discussion.<br /><br />Speaking from a purely subjective point of view, I liked the original comic better. I found it funnier, and I found the new version ineffectively attempts to make a few changes to the actual content, not just its presentation.<br /><br />First, it would be nice if politicians did make promises they can keep, rather than promising everything. It's also difficult to correct that without knowing context -- it's possible she outlined problems she obviously couldn't guarantee a fix for, perhaps something she'd have to petition the administration for.<br /><br />Second, I agree with Ryan's comment that the exclamation point is appropriate, for one who jumps up onto a chair to SHOUT and interrupt the speaker. But I won't argue this, as I am not an editor, and I don't feel like arguing over minor grammatical details of a webcomic of stick figures. (The same goes for the criticisms of the art itself -- they're stick figures!)<br /><br />But the main reason I chose to post -- in the third panel, Billy (or John, now) has just started to realize he's in over his head. While it's rare for real people to respond with a concession when they realize this, it seems a bit rarer, even on the Internet, for someone to suddenly shout "lol trolled" and run off.<br /><br />A real troll would never try to make a serious argument in the first place. If you really want to completely change the comic into being about trolls, you're going to have to replace John's dialog here with some Internet meme. Something like "In Soviet Russia", or "Can haz partiez?"<br /><br />That probably wouldn't make it funnier, but it'd at least be consistent.<br /><br />On the comic in general, xkcd still makes me laugh. Your blog has some good points, but it comes off as just about any "sucks" blog -- nitpicky and overzealous. But then, I guess xkcdwasgoodbuthasdeclinedsomewhatlately wouldn't be as catchy a title, so I can't really blame you for that.David Masoverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02046738094423488974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-76773019332073464332009-11-17T13:51:20.492-08:002009-11-17T13:51:20.492-08:00Clearly this must be his NaNoWriMo project. [/snar...Clearly this must be his NaNoWriMo project. [/snark]Math_Magehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642323916552846153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-48460206772358295452009-11-17T09:23:50.176-08:002009-11-17T09:23:50.176-08:00Ryan Learn's total word count in this conversa...Ryan Learn's total word count in this conversation so far, by the way, is 5196, excluding quoted material. That's 29184 characters, give or take. That's about twenty pages double spaced, written in this topic alone since five days ago, making an average of four pages (approximately 1000 words) per day.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-14587380738998280582009-11-17T09:00:59.384-08:002009-11-17T09:00:59.384-08:00"Is that why colleges offer credits for multi..."Is that why colleges offer credits for multiple English courses upon passing them?"<br /><br />Academia and standardized testing are in bed with one another, especially when it comes to breadth requirements and introductory-level classes. I'm a little confused at why you seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone agrees with you that academia in general is an institution which is exceptionally good at testing the knowledge and merits of the individuals involved--as if it is not an industry like any other that primarily exists to perpetuate itself.<br /><br />Most of academia at the introductory level is measuring your ability to either take tests or follow instructions. Certainly passing basic introductory English courses is in no way indicative of one's prowess with the written word. At best it indicates that one knows the formula for academic writing.<br /><br />The best way to demonstrate command of the language is to write in a way which is clear, coherent, concise, largely free from distracting errors, and conveys your message as you intended it. Unfortunately you fail on most, if not all, of these counts.<br /><br />I think that's what you're not getting here. We are basing our assessment of your skills with the English language on your <i>use of the English language</i>. You can continue to assert that your test scores and job prove that you don't suck at it, but this is neither your job nor a standardized test--this is you using the English language, and you are using it poorly.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-59285207514365491572009-11-17T09:00:53.652-08:002009-11-17T09:00:53.652-08:00"Try again Rob.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..."Try again Rob.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_%28ceremony%2"<br /><br />You aren't even trying, are you? Here is the thing that I wrote, in which I use wake in exactly that sense:<br /><br /><i>Finnegan's Wake (with apostrophe) is a ballad telling the story of the <b>wake</b> of a man named Finnegan . . . .</i><br /><br />I am quite aware of the definitions of the words that I use. More aware, apparently, than you are.<br /><br />"The only works of his I have not read from cover to cover are Stephen Hero and Finnegans Wake, but nice try, again. Your argument is still pure conjecture."<br /><br />Maybe I should have said "understood." But I'm not sure which argument you're referring to here--conjecture that the pun on Finnegans Wake (which can be read as a declarative sentence without modification, indicating that Finnegans do, as a point of fact, wake, and with the addition of a comma can be an imperative sentence--"Finnegans, Wake!") was intentional and is grammatically correct? Conjecture that someone who has read Joyce would actually understand how the man uses language?<br /><br />"Were the edits made by Jay presented in such a manner? No. They were presented as necessary edits, which they are not, which has been one of my main points this whole time."<br /><br />They were presented in the exact same fashion as any creative editor presents edits. No editor is going to say "this is a mere suggestion" about his edits unless they do not feel strongly about the edits, and even then only if the edit substantially changes the text--most of these don't do so.<br /><br />It is understood, when a draft is returned to the writer covered in red ink, that it is the author's job to incorporate the changes in question. Again, since you have apparently never touched creative editing and understand absolutely nothing about its process, I don't expect you, a formatting monkey with the editorial authority of the MS Word Paperclip, to understand.<br /><br />"I am beginning to think you calling yourself a "creative writer" is a euphemistic way of saying "I bastardize the English language beyond all comprehension.""<br /><br />You caught me. It has nothing to do with writing creatively.<br /><br />"Also, remind me again where you posted a logically sound reason as to why my definition of necessary is "so broad as to be meaningless"."<br /><br />Hahahaha. You don't even remember the <i>word</i> you're bitching about. Oh man, that's priceless. If you're going to assume some sort of fake moral high ground, you should at the very least try to remember what you're complaining about. When you just pull something out of your ass like that, it becomes pretty clear that you're just complaining for the sake of it.<br /><br />"So essentially I am now accountable for readers who evidently maintain a low level of reading comprehension?"<br /><br />It is, in nearly all circumstances, the writer's responsibility to communicate clearly to his readers--indeed, the job of the copy editor involves improving clarity. If the writer fails to communicate his intentions clearly to his readers--or, in your case, actively communicates completely different intentions which are entirely at odds with his stated intentions--then it is a failing of the writer.<br /><br />"Perhaps I am doing six different things at once and this blog discussion only warrants a modicum of my attention. Being that I am the only one who can know what I am doing/thinking, aren't I the only one who can speak on the matter without relying on conjecture?"<br /><br />You keep saying that you're multitasking or whatever, and I'm not disputing that, but for "a modicum of your attention" you sure are producing a lot of text. Admittedly it is shitty text, which fails to communicate its intended points and is replete with elementary errors of usage, spelling, and punctuation, but it is a significant volume.rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-58831917049035821412009-11-17T08:20:38.999-08:002009-11-17T08:20:38.999-08:00"Also when will you ever acknowledge that you...<i>"Also when will you ever acknowledge that you purported to have relevant experience as an editor"</i><br /><br />When I look at my position title, it says "Copy Editor". You can off course redefine "editor" to exclude my line of work, but you'd be committing the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. <br /><br /><i>"Do you think your historical revisionism is possible to maintain when we can SEE your original posts AND their context? The only remotely defensible way you can claim that you've kept the same position all along is that it's what you were thinking, you were just too incompetent with language to clearly express it. " </i><br /><br />So essentially I am now accountable for readers who evidently maintain a low level of reading comprehension?<br /><br /><i>"Perhaps you deliberately make basic, fundamental errors of word use and spelling, because you want to remind us that the Web is informal on not just the topical but the syntactic level?"</i><br /><br />Perhaps I am doing six different things at once and this blog discussion only warrants a modicum of my attention. Being that I am the only one who can know what I am doing/thinking, aren't I the only one who can speak on the matter without relying on conjecture? <br /><br /><i>Perhaps you have yet to realize that even a test designed to measure English aptitude is far better at measuring your ability to take tests?</i> <br /><br />Is that why colleges offer credits for multiple English courses upon passing them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-40415003548941284922009-11-17T08:13:07.903-08:002009-11-17T08:13:07.903-08:00Try again Rob.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_%...Try again Rob.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wake_%28ceremony%29<br /><br /><br /><br />"If you don't think that is deliberate you have clearly never read Joyce."<br /><br />The only works of his I have not read from cover to cover are Stephen Hero and Finnegans Wake, but nice try, again. Your argument is still pure conjecture. <br /><br />"At various other occasions I suggested that there are edits about which the editor does not feel strongly--in my experience these are usually accompanied by a note which emphasizes that this is more a "try this, I'm not feeling the original language" rather than a "definitely make this change."<br /><br />Were the edits made by Jay presented in such a manner? No. They were presented as necessary edits, which they are not, which has been one of my main points this whole time. <br /><br />I am beginning to think you calling yourself a "creative writer" is a euphemistic way of saying "I bastardize the English language beyond all comprehension." <br /><br />Also, remind me again where you posted a logically sound reason as to why my definition of necessary is "so broad as to be meaningless".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-72573726857580866212009-11-17T06:57:14.787-08:002009-11-17T06:57:14.787-08:00Ryan, are you aware that creative editing is neces...Ryan, are you aware that creative editing is necessarily a very creative process? I say that and it sounds mocking, but you don't seem to realize it! While you can probably be pretty objective and mindless about making sure tables are correctly formatted, it turns out that when you edit creative writing you're pretty subjective about it!<br /><br />You also have not done a very good job explaining what a "necessary" edit is! Is it an edit which, if not made, will cause the work to be illegal in some way? Is it an edit which makes the work better than the unedited version? Is it an edit which you like? If you respond to this by throwing up your hands and saying "Gosh, I've REPEATEDLY EXPLAINED this, but HERE you can have a link to an online dictionary with about five different definitions, one of which maybe clarifies exactly what <i>I</i> have in mind with respect to editing" then I will be frustrated!<br /><br />Also when will you ever acknowledge that you purported to have relevant experience as an editor when you are, in fact, a formatter and occasional proofreader? Do you not realize that editing creative writing and formatting tables in LaTeX are very different things, and your career in one of these does not confer expertise on the other?<br /><br />Do you think your historical revisionism is possible to maintain when we can SEE your original posts AND their context? The only remotely defensible way you can claim that you've kept the same position all along is that it's what you were <i>thinking</i>, you were just too incompetent with language to clearly <i>express</i> it. This belies your previous claims to be extremely facile with the English language, but perhaps you somehow become <i>worse</i> with English on the Web? Perhaps you <i>deliberately</i> make basic, fundamental errors of word use and spelling, because you want to remind us that the Web is informal on not just the topical but the <i>syntactic</i> level? Perhaps you have yet to realize that even a test designed to measure English aptitude is far better at measuring your ability to take tests?John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-32237653918198619352009-11-17T04:39:55.333-08:002009-11-17T04:39:55.333-08:00--"See what I'm saying?"
Not partic...--"See what I'm saying?"<br /><br />Not particularly. It just felt canned to me. Maybe it's just the Mind of Mencia thing.Math_Magehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14642323916552846153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-72235140265351561392009-11-17T04:01:35.858-08:002009-11-17T04:01:35.858-08:00Wake: verb, intransitive.
1. to become roused fr...Wake: verb, intransitive.<br /><br />1. to become roused from sleep; awake; awaken; waken (often fol. by up).<br />2. to become roused from a tranquil or inactive state; awaken; waken: to wake from one's daydreams.<br />3. to become cognizant or aware of something; awaken; waken: to wake to the true situation.<br />4. to be or continue to be awake: Whether I wake or sleep, I think of you.<br />5. to remain awake for some purpose, duty, etc.: I will wake until you return.<br />6. to hold a wake over a corpse.<br />7. to keep watch or vigil.<br /><br />Finnegan's Wake (with apostrophe) is a ballad telling the story of the wake of a man named Finnegan. The mourners spill whiskey on him, so he wakes and parties with them. Now, as you may have learned in Basic English Class (unfortunately you seem to have, at best, a passing familiarity with the apostrophe, so this may be a shocker), the proper way to pluralize something is to add an S. Example: "I know many Ryans, and all of them suck." Finnegans Wake, therefore, is referring to multiple Finnegans, and they are waking. <br /><br />If you don't think that is deliberate you have clearly never read Joyce.<br /><br />"Great, you finally admit that an artists style trumps the editorial process, like I have been saying this entire time."<br /><br />No, actually, I don't. If you would read the part where I suggested that an editor would suggest the change if Joyce had not made it, you would, perhaps, begin to understand.<br /><br />"That has been a point in my position this entire time. Rob is the one who implied editorial choices always trump the authors stylistic decisions."<br /><br />I have actually never implied anything of the sort. I have explicitly stated the opposite, however:<br /><br /><i>This applies just as well to creative writing, if not, indeed, more so--if all you are doing for a creative writer is fixing grammatical errors and making, you're doing him a serious disservice. Improvements to style are utterly paramount to success as a creative writer.<br /><br />Anyone who tells you that the artist's decisions are holy and inviolable is a dumbass, and has no business ever touching anything related to the writing industry. The artist is not always right. The artist is frequently wrong. It is the function of an editor to take the occasions in which the artist is wrong and suggest that perhaps he meant to write it in a way which doesn't suck.<br /><br />The function of an editor is to look at a shitty line--shitty because the artist made it that way, not because of errors--and to say "this line is shitty, you should improve it." It is especially true when the artist in question is an artist.<br /><br /><b>It is the artist's prerogative to say "no, that was an intentional bad decision, I want to leave it as-is." It's just pretty generally a bad thing to do.</b><br /><br />I don't expect you to understand this, because you are a proofreader who has the editorial authority of the MS Word Paperclip. Your eminent complete lack of mastery over basic words and phrases would prevent you from ever having first-hand experience with making an editorial decision or improving a work beyond noticing that the author had a typo in the word "abscond."</i><br /><br />It is fitting that you, being a formatting monkey with the editorial authority of the MS Word Paperclip, did not understand my point at all--and ironic that you actually directly responded to this quote at one point, I believe as an "example" of "ad hominem." I predict you will continue to not understand, but who knows? Maybe you are capable of learning.<br /><br />At various other occasions I suggested that there are edits about which the editor does not feel strongly--in my experience these are usually accompanied by a note which emphasizes that this is more a "try this, I'm not feeling the original language" rather than a "definitely make this change."rshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15828938843801425383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-36431128727780473902009-11-17T00:39:15.260-08:002009-11-17T00:39:15.260-08:00"Wow, you've finally managed to come down..."Wow, you've finally managed to come down to something remotely reasonable."<br /><br />If you read my posts in their original context, you will find that none of my positions have changed, other than my concession that I should have been more explicit with an implied "my" towards the beginning of the discussion. <br /><br />"First you said that editors ONLY fix grammatical and spelling errors"<br /><br />No, what I did say was that a specific edit was neither or a typographical or grammatical error, and because there was no reason to remove it, it should have been left.<br /><br /><br />"then you said that editors don't make tons and tons of changes"<br /><br />No, what I did say was this particular case of editing made far too many unnecessary changes. <br /><br />"then you said that sometimes maybe the author should be able to override the editor."<br /><br />That has been a point in my position this entire time. Rob is the one who implied editorial choices always trump the authors stylistic decisions. <br /><br />"The problem is that elements you've identified (dubiously) as his "style" are shitty and don't make things any funnier."<br /><br />That does seem to be the prevailing <i>opinion</i> on this blog, but I think others (including myself) disagree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-21210887943108313032009-11-16T22:10:38.410-08:002009-11-16T22:10:38.410-08:00Also dude you weren't just saying that this is...Also dude you weren't just saying that this is editing which unreasonably oversteps the artist's prerogative to ignore editorial overview--you were saying that <i>this isn't editing at all</i>, that this is beyond the purview of an editor. First you said that editors ONLY fix grammatical and spelling errors, then you said that editors don't make tons and tons of changes, then you said that editors don't make unnecessary changes, then you said that <i>sometimes maybe the author should be able to override the editor</i>. Wow, you've finally managed to come down to something remotely reasonable.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-64051436132919897762009-11-16T20:59:38.341-08:002009-11-16T20:59:38.341-08:00Math_Mage, I'm not crazy about it. I don't...Math_Mage, I'm not crazy about it. I don't like the joke - but I do like how it feels like a snippet of a real conversation. The stick figures feel more human to me than they usually do. Their dialogue has some color.<br /><br />See what I'm saying?Jayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06037127857062536971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6714810984552499396.post-59305129369916183082009-11-16T19:11:45.826-08:002009-11-16T19:11:45.826-08:00Nobody is suggesting that Randall's will shoul...Nobody is suggesting that Randall's will should <i>never</i> override editorial suggestion. The problem is that elements you've identified (dubiously) as his "style" are shitty and don't make things any funnier.John Magnumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04416392917805723793noreply@blogger.com