Changing Roles Editors Play

As I've previously mentioned, the initial image of an editor for most people includes a person editing copy text or articles, red pen in hand. Yet, as society evolves, so does the mundane definition of an editor. Currently, we live in an age where technology rules everything we do. Most people get their news, media, and information from an online source, using their phone for the information. Computers and cell phones now come equipped with spell check and grammar notifications. There are even websites and apps devoted to giving corrections in real time, my favorite being Grammarly. With all of this smart, editorial technology, who really needs a human copy editor to scrutinize punctuation and sentence structure? Instead, most writers can rely on their tech to catch the big stuff. 

When I think about technology taking over for a grammatical editor, it actually makes me excited for the future of editorial jobs because editors get to blossom into something bigger. They can stop fussing over sentence structure and focus on the big ideas, the template of the page, or the visual and emotional appeal of the piece. Taking away the need to check for simple typing mistakes allows for the editorial role to evolve into a writers paradise where the delivery is at the forefront, not the actual writing (by writing I mean the grammar and spelling nuances, obviously if any of those are glaringly wrong the editor should step in, but hopefully that writer is using editing software to solve those concerns.) The editor can push the writer to deliver a clear message and in essence, build the writers brand. 

Coming back to technology's role, as a writer, you have to do more than just write to be relevant nowadays. Simply put, you must create a brand. You must be present on social media- twitter, instagram, facebook; you must create a website; you must travel and meet fans; you must respond to fans on social media; you must do tours and readings and..... I think you get the point. You have to be more than just your writing. Your writing will need to be good enough to get you to that level, but once you get there, you will need an editor to help you keep building your brand to remain relevant. While an editor's role has changed from copy text editing to helping individual authors create a brand, the skill of brand building can also do the same thing for a website, a company, a store, a news source, an artist, or a social media platform. Technology has changed editing from looking at the text to looking at web functionality and usability. Editors have become the architects of textual design. 

Even though the editor's role is changing, I will always hear "editor" and picture a writer with a stack of papers and a red pen in their hand. Maybe that will still be the staple of their work, but with the rush of technology and the discard of paper, editors have evolved to not only design textual works but to help build them. 

Extremely Wicked, Shocking Evil and Vile... a film by Joe Berlinger

As I ventured into the Twittersphere of the Sundance Film Festival, one particular film (and person) kept catching my eye: Ted Bundy. People were going insane over him! Some were gushing over Zac Efron (because I mean who wouldn't? every girl that grew up with Zac-better known as Troy Bolton- has since been in love with him secretly and openly), others were questioning the glorification of the serial killer, some were defending Zac and Joe, and most were just intrigued by what the film really has to say.

In today's world, it still shocks me how a large number of people feel safe enough to get behind their phones and tweet mean, cruel, and incorrect facts, emotions, and responses to something they have no information or understanding of. Most of the negative tweets immediately focused on the trailer's depiction of the film, not remembering that a trailer's main marketing ploy is to get people talking and to intrigue viewers. From a marketing standpoint, the trailer has been successful, but not in the positive filmmaking conversational space and way it was probably intended.

As I scoped out the #ExtremelyWickedShockinglyEvilAndVile on Twitter there was a strong half and half intrigue into the film. The well-informed news sources were publishing insightful and informational articles, while the bashers were ranting about how this movie will make serial killers become the new role models for society. The two sides are clearly defined and quite obvious, and also very very intriguing. While this movie is yet to come out on the big screen, I am excited to see the societal buzz from people who have watched the movie. I think the filmmaker, artist, and director, Joe Berlinger will surprise everyone with his portrayal and his film will quiet the bashers that are loudly proclaiming false facts.

If you would like to partake in the conversation about Joe Berlinger's trailer... see you for yourself:
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile Trailer #1 (2019) | Movieclips Trailers

Free Write: Chapter Two from Technical Editing Thoughts

For this week’s reading, we were asked to read chapter two from “Technical Editing” by Carolyn Rude and Angela Eaton called “Readers, Users, Browers, Problem Solvers…” I wanted to focus on this chapter for my free write this week because I was amazed at the array of situations and concerns an editor has to think about when it comes to usability. As I previously mentioned in my first free write about my view of an editor, I saw editors as a job that works specifically with words and nothing else; yet this chapter is defying every notion of that thinking.

The first line of this chapter struck me “as an editor, you have two major responsibilities - to your reader and to your writer” (16). This is obvious to me. Of course you are editing someone else's work to make them sound clear, which benefits the reader and the writer. The next part is what surprised me “your responsibility to your reader should always come first” (16). At first I thought, hmmm… that makes sense, but then as it sunk in I questioned that statement. Isn’t the editor’s main focus supposed to be on the work that the writer created? Shouldn’t we work hard to please the writer and make their work shine? While a simple yes can be answered for these questions, it becomes clear that without the reader, there is no need for a writer or an editor. Harsh… but very true. So yes, I do agree that the reader should always come first.

As Rude and Eaton describe the many areas of editorial concern, the one that struck me the most was the physical features that will work best for the reader. They note that as an editor, we need to anticipate how the reader will interact with the physical document before they even begin to read it. They give examples including: a restaurant with low lighting will need a menu with larger text, an outdoor reading would require weatherproofing to ensure it’s able to hold up during the task, the size of the product will matter based on how it’s stored- in a pocket, on a shelf, in a file cabinet, and so on. These are all such small aspects to the overall document, but they matter immensely. As a reader, if I get distracted, the font or size is too big or small, or the document is messy with mistakes or ads then I will not use it. Even if that document has all of the secrets to the world and is the best writing ever, I need it to be properly usable in order for me to read it.



Overall, this chapter was insightful and has made me think through all of the documents that I use and appreciate. The first that comes to mind is my planner. An editor had to sit down and think about all the physical components of this planner to make it useful, engaging, attractive, and organized. They had to think through the tabs, colors, layout, size, thickness of pages, and so on. From now on, I will be more aware of the physicality of documents that I come into contact with and when I come across a well-produced document, I will mentally thank that editor for their eye for detail and thoughtfulness.

Technical Editing Reading Reflection David Foster Wallace "Tense Present"

1. What was your initial response to the text? Think about how it resonated in the body. What sensations did you experience?


My initial response to the text was of shock and intrigue. At first, I did not want to believe the accusations he was making about the dictionary and the way we accept definitions of words. I almost felt kind of stupid because I naively trusted the sources who wrote the dictionary and told me what to believe about a word. It also made me question myself and the overwhelming, immediate trust I give to authors. In terms of body sensation, it made me feel like I needed to get up and do something. It made my back straighten and my brain buzz with questions and the need to explore other texts and societal norms I trusted without question. It was an invigorating sensation that really made me aware of the texts surrounding me.


2. How do you usually respond to challenging texts that seem to defy convention?


My initial response to challenging texts that seem to defy convention is to at first, be hesitant. I always want to trust myself over a new source’s opinion because I have believed one way for so long. Yet, I make myself stay open to other possibilities as they unfold to allow new perspectives to enhance my view or actually show me a difference. That is the way I approached DFW “Tense Present.” I was not actually aware of all the conventions he was going to defy, as I went into the reading blind, so at first it did catch me off guard. But then I read and listened and tried to decipher what I could about his view versus mine and realized that there are more features to writing than I had originally believed.


3. To what extent is Wallace defying convention? Amplifying convention? What are some of the effects of his style?


Wallace is defying convention by making us question norms we thought we knew. He begins with the most trusted word source in society: the dictionary, and makes the reader wonder why they immediately trusted that source without anything real to back it up. From a young age, teachers, parents, and peers have told us that if we have a question about a word, our first stop should be the dictionary. Yet now DFW is asking us why we trust that as our first place of resource instead of the society around us which is constantly changing and evolving with language. In terms of amplifying convention, he goes back and forth between having a meaningful sentence versus a grammatically correct one. He amplifies that “there exists a Universal Grammar beneath and common to all languages” which while most know to be true, it’s important to be reminded. When people talk orally, they do not need to use every correct grammatical rule to be understood, yet when it comes to written discussion, grammar can be everything and can change the intention immediately. This is clear through the effects of his style. He travels in-between a clear, academic voice to an informal friend, bluntly telling you how it is. These two styles merge together to give the blunt truth he wants his reader to question and hopefully believe in the end.


4. How do you imagine Wallace’s relationship with his editors? Do some quick searches to see what you can find out about these relationships.


Without researching and just using this article to infer, I believe his relationship with his editors was difficult and they were at odds. He mentions in the footnotes how his editors will probably remove or delete parts of what he says. He is a very blunt, brutally honest writer about the topics he wants to inform people over. His editors would have to work with him to dial that back to an acceptable tone in order to not aggravate and estrange an audience while still teaching them what DFW wanted the reader to know.


When I looked it up, there was an interview with Deborah Treisman his editor of 15 years. She seems very fond of DFW mentioning that the work he would send her would have been edited and cleaned up 5 or so times before she even saw it. Then they would communicate through voicemail on corrections. DFW did not like to communicate via email and instead would use the phone. I can see DFW as having a strict view of grammar and sentence structure. I think he is a very polished writer and knows that it takes many drafts before even an editor should see it. This dedication is what made him a good writer.


5. How do you think you might manage working with a stylistically idiosyncratic writer like Wallace? Have you in the past? Are YOU an idiosyncratic writer? How can you begin to forecast working with editors who are helping you publish your work?





Personally, I don’t think I would do very well working with someone like DFW. My strong suit is NOT grammar or sentence structure so I would have to do a lot of learning, research, and practice before I even tried to edit something of his. He is also very blunt with his criticism which I appreciate as a reader, but I do not know how I would handle it as his editor. I would not call myself an idiosyncratic writer. I do like papers to look a certain way aesthetically, but I don’t have a specific style I always try to emulate. When it comes to working with editors over my work, I always try to remember that they are there to help me become a better writer and to get my writing to it’s best. It is always hard to hear when you did not do well, but I know that it has to happen in order for me to grow as a writer.

David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” Reflection

David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” Reflection David Foster Wallace’s “Tense Present” begins by questioning the truth of the dictionary, democratic conversation, and arguing between “corruption” and “permissiveness.” Wallace uses Bryan Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern American Usage, to prove that individuality can be separated from the mainstream interpretation to create an unbiased understanding of language. Using ADMAU as the focus for this ideal, Wallace questions the snoot, five edicts, New Critics, differing dialects, and the ability to understand as many English dialects as possible. Wallace ends by confirming the “most attractive thing about ADMAU’s Ethical Appeal . . . is Garner’s scrupulous consideration of the reader’s concern about his (or her) own linguistic authority” (58).

 As Wallace introduces the importance of language, he confirms its necessity by reminding the reader “you can’t escape language; Language is everything and everywhere . . . it’s what separates us from the animals” (41). The emphasis that language is particularly human is a strong indication of its worth, and a warning to give language the respect it deserves. This is easily forgotten as society has grown to take advantage of language by throwing out the rules, and as Wallace mentions, stop teaching it all together in schools. Wallace seems to be smitten with the idea of the “snoot” in relation to this case because a snoot has care and respect for the rules of language. A snoot holds people in their place when they are speaking or writing and helps others (whether they want the help or not) become more clear in their intentions.

 On the other side as humans, we question everything we come across, yet we do not question the dictionary or ask who declared each definition to be justified. Words and definitions have been “deemed ‘substandard’ or ‘incorrect’” by a never elected body of people (43). Then there’s the question of who gets to decide when the dictionary and language are officially in need of an update. Obviously, updates have occurred over time, as Wallace gives the example that if it did not we would all still be speaking like Chaucer (43), yet who and what decides that official fact? The ebb and flow of change within language relies on the society that speaks it and without a true “ruler” the society itself sets the rules. ADMAU also addresses the authority dilemma, bluntly saying that people want “sound guidance. And that requires judgment” which is subjective (43). So while a true authority figure is self-chosen, society also chooses who they want to listen to, and Wallace is suggesting we all listen to ADMAU.

 Wallace also brings attention to the difference between meaningful and grammatical, noting that the rules grammar puts into place “serve clarity and precision” (48). Orally speaking to one another versus written conversation allows the speaker to convey themselves entirely differently instead of complicating their true meaning by the recipient. Speaking face to face allows for the recipient to process not only the words but the delivery and added meaning. Written language can do the same thing, but is only truly clear when written grammatically correct. This simple understanding is what creates an array of English vernacular. “People really do ‘judge’ one another according to their use of language” (50). How one is regarded is based solely on how they handle language and interaction. Language can come with acceptance or immediate denial. Wallace mentions this not only as information but as a view into how language grows and can evolve through different social classes and populations.

 As Wallace ends his probe of linguistic authority, the purposes of expert authority and reader authority become a question of which one to trust. ADMAU confirms that these two sides are identical and when used together can create a democratic experience that keeps changing with society.

Editors are...

The initial image of an editor that comes to mind is someone in a small space surrounded by stacks of paper, red pens and markings, and a beeping monitor reminding the editor of his/her due dates; maybe other writers are entering and exiting asking questions and getting ideas, sharing their skills. My take away from this image in my head proves to show me that I don't really understand the many facets of editing and the array of jobs that an editor could have. I have a very one-sided image in my mind.

On the other side, I associate one set of ideals to editors. The first is I assume that all editors are trustworthy and have taken the time to understand their topic, author, and meaning behind a task. I expect editors to do their homework, check on statistics and research to make sure that everything they edit and allow to be published is actually correct. As I reader, I am trusting the editor.

I also expect to see a beautiful publication. I want the font, spacing, and page format to be welcoming, symmetrical, clean, and easy to access. I don't want to struggle to find the article or have to click all over the page. I also don't want to see formatting differences or inconsitencies. If these do occur I question the realiablity of the author and the edtior. If they did not take the time to make their work "look pretty" then how do I know if they took the time to put real thought into their work.

I can guess that being an editor is tricky at times. I can imagine that you are trying to "please" everyone with your work (client included) and are trying to make someone else's thoughts coherent and clear. But I also see being an editor as being a rewarding career. You get to help others and see your corrections influence work.

While my initial image of an editor is narrow, my understanding of their worth is vast.