Re: My Problem with Crossword Bob

RichUlrich wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:51:24 -0500, elanders <elanders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

No, I don't like you, Bob. And we need to talk about that. Let's start here:

I like to read Bob's posts. He is one of the dozen aue posters whose
posts I download and read all of. And you seem like a boor who is
increasingly tedious, even though I catch you mainly through Replies.
So, I defend his willingness to drop your "correspondence" as a
lost cause.


You should talk about flexibility, Bob. You made about 25 edits on my except none of which you're apparently interested in defending. I've set up a thread for you to do that, but you've yet to respond.

Your problem is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference.

I thought that Bob posted one of the nicest Editing examples that
I have seen. Very good educational value. The other extended examples that I am reminded of were in the book on Writing by
Donald Knuth, the same guy of computer fame.

Sometimes bad writing sells. For whatever reason. As Bob points
out indirectly, a compelling story-teller might be forgiven for a lot.

Various elements that look like conventional "bad writing" can make
up a styling preference, I guess, but a good editor is going to point out the occasions, anyway. Bob did that, and he pointed out the *reason* that the text seemed "bad" to him, so you don't
have to guess. -- and it would also seem off-putting to some
unreckoned number of other readers. The writer can defend it,
but it is an ineducable writer who can't recognize it. I mean, I know I do not write well. But I almost always can make sense of
the *fact* that particular lines of mine seem awkward, even if I am at a loss for how to improve them.


If you read the criticism and understand it, and still reject it, then
maybe you just ought to say, "Well, I think there's an audience
for it." But when you deny that there is any reason for an
editor to make a point, you really seem stuck in cluelessness.


[snip, much]



What the hell are you mewing about, you idiot?

If you think his edits were on point, than let's see you defend them -- he's too yellow to do it.

Here are the first two. Put up or shut up:

--------------------------------------------->

You should talk about flexibility, Bob. You made about 25 edits on my except none of which you're apparently interested in defending. I've set up a thread for you to do that, but you've yet to respond.

Your problem is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference.

For example, I wrote:

"Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons"

Your edit was:

"Were they in the coaches or alongside? If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, not the coaches."

Well, that's ridiculous, Bob. It takes our colloquial use of language and tortures it into something it was never meant to be -- a pool of words to be inserted into crossword puzzles.

We don't write "accompanying the people in the motorcade" we write

"Accompanying the motorcade was a detachment of motorcycle police."
http://tinyurl.com/6tu2do

In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not.

---------------------------------------------------->

Here's another example of your wrongheadedness:

I wrote --


"12 slim-waisted men bristling with sword, pistol, and
campaign gear ..."

Your edit:

"Bristle" implies some sort of aggressiveness. I'd say "wearing," which is neutral. Surely they weren't arriving to attack the palace.

----------------------------------------------------->

Wrong, Bob.

Their purpose has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were armed to the teeth. Again, your edit is just wrongheaded.

Also, for reasons unclear, you told me to get rid of "12" and write it out.

Again -- wrong, Bob.


And in every edit following these you do the same thing -- replace what I've written for no other reason than you were able to find an alternative you preferred.

Well, that's not editing; that's a guy trying to write my book for me.


EG
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Get Your Fat Ass Over Here, Sponge Bob
    ... Your problem, Bob, is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. ... "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" ... Your edit was: ... If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • My Problem with Crossword Bob
    ... Bob. ... "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" ... Your edit was: ... In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: One More Chapter for Your Perusal
    ... A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed. ... Bob. ... Your edit was: ... In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: One More Chapter for Your Perusal
    ... came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed ... Yours was no Tom Swiftie. ... And here's another one of your gems, Bob: ... > window as if the French Army was outside. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Dylan Live
    ... I still want to say---I still feel that way and the people who defend him, ... The market presently hypes Bob Dylan ...
    (rec.music.dylan)
Loading