NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/misc/writing/2795

Internet Message Format | 1992-09-04 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!concert!sas!mozart.unx.sas.com!saslpo
From: [e-mail] (Len Olszewski)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Editing on Computer or Hardcopy
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Sep 92 13:46:40 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Noter of Newsworthy Events)
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Lines: 54
Originator: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: stevens.unx.sas.com


In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
|> [e-mail] (Thomas Beagle) writes:
|>
|> >I used to say that I could never edit on a computer screen.
|>
|> I still do. And to be honest, sometimes I cheat and do it anyway.
|> (I invariably regret it, too).
|>
|> >After a while, entering changes on paper and then transferring them to
|> >my essays got to be too much work. I started editing on screen, and
|> >actually found it quite easy.
|>
|> That's the problem. Editing on screen is 'easy'. Editing, however, is never
|> easy. I've found in my work, and in the work of most people that speak about
|> it honestly, that editing on screen leads to really sloppy, incomplete
|> editing. Why? I'm not entirely sure. On a physical/physiological level,
|> staring as closely at a screen as you have to do for editing enhances
|> eyestrain and tires the eyes, which reduces comprehension and focus.
|>

There was a suggestion a few threads back that different areas of your
brain were at work when you edited versus when you generated original
text. There's something to that, I think, and the choice of medium to
accommodate the portion of the brain at work reflects that.

Also, there's a difference between "real" editing, and simply changing
text. In the technical world, an editor makes marks on hard-copy and
discusses the proposed changes with the writer (at least where I work
they do it this way). You can make non-destructive suggestions on
hard-copy that you can see, juxtaposed with the original text, and have
discussions and make judgements until you decide what's the best thing
to do. It's very difficult to indicate proposed changes
non-destructively in a text file. Once you make a change, there it is.
Even hare-brained changes make it in immediately. The risks are obvious.

But if you have a software tool that allows non-destructive editing,
this underscores the fact that editing is one job, and making the
changes to the text file is another. Mixing them together, well, mixes
them together (I love being literal). You may get two things done at the
same time by editing and making changes simultaneously, but something
will suffer - usually the quality of the editing.

Quality editing really is a distinct and valuable skill. It should be
your way of designing how to orchestrate a revision. Hell, that's almost
poetic, isn't it? 8-)
<-------------------------------^------------------------------------->
|  Len Olszewski                |  "If something is small enough, you |
|  Technical Writer             |   can't say anything about it."     |
|  [e-mail]           |    - Heisenberg's Uncertainty       |
| "Have cursor, will curse."    |      Principle                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Opinions this ludicrous are mine. Reasonable opinions will cost you.|
<-------------------------------v------------------------------------->