TimmyH
Why Sub-Editors Suck
August 5th 2008 16:27
Times food columnist Giles Coren to his paper's sub-editors:
Chaps,
I am mightily p-ssed off. I have addressed this to Owen, Amanda and Ben because I don't know who i am supposed to be p-ssed off with (i'm assuming owen, but i filed to amanda and ben so it's only fair), and also to Tony, who wasn't here - if he had been I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.
I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do. Owen, we discussed your turning three of my long sentences into six short ones in a single piece, and how that wasn't going to happen anymore, so I'm really hoping it wasn't you that f-cked up my review on saturday.
It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.
I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh."
It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."
There is no length issue. This is someone thinking "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate c-nt and i know best".
Well, you f-cking don't.
This was sh-t, sh-t sub-editing for three reasons.
1) 'Nosh', as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German 'naschen'. It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, 'nosh', means simply 'food'. You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the 'a'. I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, 'nosh' means "a session of eating" - in this sense you might think of its dual valency as being similar to that of 'scoff'. you can go for a scoff. or you can buy some scoff. the sentence you left me with is shit, and is not what i meant. Why would you change a sentnece aso that it meant something i didn't mean? I don't know, but you risk doing it every time you change something. And the way you avoid this kind of f-ck up is by not changing a word of my copy without asking me, okay? it's easy. Not. A. Word. Ever.
2) I will now explain why your error is even more sh-t than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "s-xually-charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y.. I have used the word 'gaily' as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've f-cking stripped it out like a p-ssed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks sh-t with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, f-cking christ, don't you read the copy?
3) And worst of all. Dumbest, deafest, sh-ttest of all, you have removed the unstressed 'a' so that the stress that should have fallen on "nosh" is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not f-cking rocket science. It's f-cking pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. F-ck. f-ck, f-ck, f-ck.
I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it f-cked up by sh-t subbing. I have been away, you've been subbing joe and hugo and maybe they just file and f-ck off and think "hey ho, it's tomorrow's fish and chips" - well, not me. I woke up at three in the morning on sunday and f-cking lay there, furious, for two hours. weird, maybe. but that's how it is.
It strips me of all confidence in writing for the magazine. No exaggeration. i've got a review to write this morning and i really don't feel like doing it, for fear that some nuance is going to be removed from the final line, the pay-off, and i'm going to have another weekend ruined for me.
I've been writing for The Times for 15 years and i have never asked this before - i have never asked it of anyone i have written for - but I must insist, from now on, that i am sent a proof of every review i do, in pdf format, so i can check it for f-ck-ups. and i must be sent it in good time in case changes are needed. It is the only way i can carry on in the job.
And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.
Right,
Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming f-cking anger can make a man verbose.
All the best
Giles
Chaps,
I am mightily p-ssed off. I have addressed this to Owen, Amanda and Ben because I don't know who i am supposed to be p-ssed off with (i'm assuming owen, but i filed to amanda and ben so it's only fair), and also to Tony, who wasn't here - if he had been I'm guessing it wouldn't have happened.
I don't really like people tinkering with my copy for the sake of tinkering. I do not enjoy the suggestion that you have a better ear or eye for how I want my words to read than I do. Owen, we discussed your turning three of my long sentences into six short ones in a single piece, and how that wasn't going to happen anymore, so I'm really hoping it wasn't you that f-cked up my review on saturday.
It was the final sentence. Final sentences are very, very important. A piece builds to them, they are the little jingle that the reader takes with him into the weekend.
I wrote: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for a nosh."
It appeared as: "I can't think of a nicer place to sit this spring over a glass of rosé and watch the boys and girls in the street outside smiling gaily to each other, and wondering where to go for nosh."
There is no length issue. This is someone thinking "I'll just remove this indefinite article because Coren is an illiterate c-nt and i know best".
Well, you f-cking don't.
This was sh-t, sh-t sub-editing for three reasons.
1) 'Nosh', as I'm sure you fluent Yiddish speakers know, is a noun formed from a bastardisation of the German 'naschen'. It is a verb, and can be construed into two distinct nouns. One, 'nosh', means simply 'food'. You have decided that this is what i meant and removed the 'a'. I am insulted enough that you think you have a better ear for English than me. But a better ear for Yiddish? I doubt it. Because the other noun, 'nosh' means "a session of eating" - in this sense you might think of its dual valency as being similar to that of 'scoff'. you can go for a scoff. or you can buy some scoff. the sentence you left me with is shit, and is not what i meant. Why would you change a sentnece aso that it meant something i didn't mean? I don't know, but you risk doing it every time you change something. And the way you avoid this kind of f-ck up is by not changing a word of my copy without asking me, okay? it's easy. Not. A. Word. Ever.
2) I will now explain why your error is even more sh-t than it looks. You see, i was making a joke. I do that sometimes. I have set up the street as "s-xually-charged". I have described the shenanigans across the road at G.A.Y.. I have used the word 'gaily' as a gentle nudge. And "looking for a nosh" has a secondary meaning of looking for a blowjob. Not specifically gay, for this is soho, and there are plenty of girls there who take money for noshing boys. "looking for nosh" does not have that ambiguity. the joke is gone. I only wrote that sodding paragraph to make that joke. And you've f-cking stripped it out like a p-ssed Irish plasterer restoring a renaissance fresco and thinking jesus looks sh-t with a bear so plastering over it. You might as well have removed the whole paragraph. I mean, f-cking christ, don't you read the copy?
3) And worst of all. Dumbest, deafest, sh-ttest of all, you have removed the unstressed 'a' so that the stress that should have fallen on "nosh" is lost, and my piece ends on an unstressed syllable. When you're winding up a piece of prose, metre is crucial. Can't you hear? Can't you hear that it is wrong? It's not f-cking rocket science. It's f-cking pre-GCSE scansion. I have written 350 restaurant reviews for The Times and i have never ended on an unstressed syllable. F-ck. f-ck, f-ck, f-ck.
I am sorry if this looks petty (last time i mailed a Times sub about the change of a single word i got in all sorts of trouble) but i care deeply about my work and i hate to have it f-cked up by sh-t subbing. I have been away, you've been subbing joe and hugo and maybe they just file and f-ck off and think "hey ho, it's tomorrow's fish and chips" - well, not me. I woke up at three in the morning on sunday and f-cking lay there, furious, for two hours. weird, maybe. but that's how it is.
It strips me of all confidence in writing for the magazine. No exaggeration. i've got a review to write this morning and i really don't feel like doing it, for fear that some nuance is going to be removed from the final line, the pay-off, and i'm going to have another weekend ruined for me.
I've been writing for The Times for 15 years and i have never asked this before - i have never asked it of anyone i have written for - but I must insist, from now on, that i am sent a proof of every review i do, in pdf format, so i can check it for f-ck-ups. and i must be sent it in good time in case changes are needed. It is the only way i can carry on in the job.
And, just out of interest, I'd like whoever made that change to email me and tell me why. Tell me the exact reasoning which led you to remove that word from my copy.
Right,
Sorry to go on. Anger, real steaming f-cking anger can make a man verbose.
All the best
Giles
| 102 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
Who'd want to be a Journalist?
Hahaha
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Nice day.
Comment by Don Lee
White Line Philosophy
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
I used to be the editor for our scandal sheet at work and I always looked at myself as a glorified proof reader. All I did was fix punctuation and grammar.
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
Comment by Jayne Kearney
Writers In Writing (and other writing)
I just wanted to ask if you have quoted this verbatim and, if so, why does this guy - such a pedant - randomly revert to lower case 'i's and even allow a typo:
"thinking jesus looks sh-t with a bear" - Jesus with a 'bear' - WTF. Oh, perhaps he means a 'beard' .
Was he so pissed off he couldn't write straight??
Or is he so truly precious that he doesn't see that he desperately needs a good subbing??
Or is he being ironic??
Or have you, Timmy H, fucked up? If so you'd better hope darling Giles doesn't stumble across your blog!
Very funny post!
Jayne
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
This is exactly as it appears. Character for character. I noticed that problem when I first read the letter too. I'd like to think he's being ironic, but in reality he probably isn't used to proofing his own material if he has subs to rely on...haha
Thanks!
Comment by David Edwards
Sporting Mind
Therefore - to use his words - he is going to be a "c$%&" of a bloke.
Comment by Chris Champion
moneywhither
Vyoos
Zoomies
words-worth
The first paragraph of my post is:
The final paragraph of my post is:
And a legitimate comment here is: I agree with SL that he was in a bit of a mood; I think katyzzz's HACK pun is appalling (as a good pun should be); I think James has the right idea about the "fix punctuation and grammar" but would be fascinated to spend an evening on a big newspaper subs desk and see how much more there is to it; and I applaud Jayne's ability to write "fucked" without the removal of a vowel and addition of a hyphen.
Regards,
Chris
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
After all, as someone else recently said, why disregard those other thousands of words in the dictionary and a friend once remarked years ago use of such language is a prime example of a poverty of vocabulary.
But I'll just float away to my own little corner of the woods, which remains free of such words.
Up the wowsers, just like the footy team, not an invitation for a contradictory pun. That's my specialty to-day.
Should I add the ha ha ha ha LOL, to lighten it all up a little, we wowsers are so easily misunderstood. Sigh,( beats moans and whinges.)
Nothing family friendly about Orble.
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Comment by TimmyH
Tech News
Can you HACK it?
Genyration
Sorry for the belated reply, I decided to have a night out. I do that occassionally. LOL
Thanks Katyzzz
Comment by Jayne Kearney
Writers In Writing (and other writing)
I am totally up with your lighthearted wowser tone Katyzzz but I do genuinely hope that I was neither offensive nor indeed, displaying a poverty of vocabulary (shudder).
I guess I just responded to the tone of the piece. It wasn't until Chris' (flattering) praise that I realised I was the only one using the 'uck' part!!! After all, when I read f#*% I still say 'fuck' in my head.
I just figured 'Hey, this is Orble! No one will give a ...
toss?"
Comment by katyzzz
Photography Tips
Health Focus
Poetry Lighthouse
MS Paint Art
Comment by Jeanne Dininni
Writer's Notes
This is an interesting post, to say the least! I have to admit, though, that I stopped reading this writer's diatribe about halfway through because I found the excessive profanity tiresome (yes, Giles, our minds do automatically fill in the blanks--but you knew that, didn't you?) and his sexual crudity offensive.
Just had to comment, though, that point three is just plain wrong. Let me preface my explanation by saying that I agree with the writer that the sub-editor made a huge error in removing the indefinite article; yet, even without the indefinite article, the sentence ends on a stressed syllable.
Try reading the edited sentence aloud and you'll see that you naturally skip over the spot where the unstressed syllable would have been (had the article remained), and you still place the natural stress on the final word/syllable (i.e., "nosh").
I'd even go so far as to say that it would be virtually impossible to read that sentence, as written, with an unstressed syllable at the end. About the only way one could do that (in the current context) would be to remove the word "nosh" entirely and end the sentence with "a." (Of course, the sentence wouldn't make sense that way.) Yet, for analytical purposes, if you were to read our experimental nonsense sentence aloud, you'd see that it does end with an unstressed syllable, unlike the edited version which ends with the stress on "nosh."
So, while I agree that the indefinite article should have stayed, point three is not a valid argument for the fact.
Just my two-cents worth!
Jeanne
P.S. Found your post via Chris Champion's reciprocal post at Vyoos.
P.S. 2 - By the way, Giles, leave Christ out of it! His inclusion in such an offensive context does nothing to bolster your argument--and in fact does just the opposite.