I love these blank meme templates

The Insolent Incumbent

I edited a Request for Information (RFI) yesterday for a federal contract for which my company is the incumbent. It's a multi-year contract, and the RFI is a formality; simply some mid-contract documentation to support the continuation of our work with the government client.

The resume section was a mess—several entirely blank "Summary of Experience" sections and numerous entries that I queried.

When the proposal coordinator released the edited files to the project manager for review, he told her that he didn't have time to look at the files. She told him the files had extensive edits visible with the "Track Changes" function on, and that there were queries that required his attention. He repeated that he wasn't going to review my work, and that it really didn't matter as we're the incumbent contractor.

This begs the question, Why even bother to send projects like this through Editing and Desktop Publishing?

The first cut is the deepest!

I just did my first "Reject" of a computer-related How To article in my freelance, online editing work.

I asked the writer a few simple questions and, BAM, she came back with an article twice the original length. In responding, she introduced roughly 12 items that IMHO required elaboration. Too bad, because the original was worth publishing if it incorporated the info I sought.

So long forest, hello trees.

Mas o menos?

This is a continuation of "Editors should be seen . . .," 3/9, below.

The context here is the requirement that each employee develop, in conjunction with her manager, business-related and personal development goals for the year. The manager has the option to add goals for the employee.

E-mail to my manager:

The following goal (your addition) contradicts our discussions regarding my author queries.

You added: “The number of proposals that should have identified more items for author review/approval than what was provided during the proposal process, also based on third party post reviews of submitted proposals.”

You have told me that there has been feedback (undocumented) from individuals (not named by you) that I write too many author queries. Again, and as I’ve tried to explain to you, I believe that my level of queries is appropriate.

It seems to me that defining a goal related to author queries can’t be done unless we agree on this critical editing function.

My manager has not yet responded.

4/7 Update: Still no response.

Editors should be seen and not heard from.

I just had a conversation with my manager, during which I pushed for some specifics related to my recent performance review.

In that review meeting, she said that she had received feedback from unnamed individuals that suggested I “need to step it up.” I have no idea if, in fact, she was being truthful, or if that was her inept way of offering the perfunctory message about improvement.

Regardless, what I got out of her today was a concern—maybe she said “complaint”; can’t remember—that there are too many instances when I query a writer rather than simply making the edit, be it a fix, a rewrite, or whatever.

I provided her an overview of author queries, with specific examples of when a query would be appropriate—for example, author intent unclear, conflicting information, and so forth.

Assuming some writers have complained to her about being “burdened” with what they consider unnecessary querying, this reflects how some writers view editors.

Over the years I have heard, directly and second-hand, writer comments such as: “They’re essentially a pain in the ass.” “They screw around with my writing. I’m the subject matter expert, not them.” “They waste my time with their stupid questions.” “They find fault with everything I write.”

Sometimes it just doesn’t pay to do the right thing. But, damn, it’s difficult to suspend one’s personal and professional standards.

Excuse me, Ivan, but I think you've got it wrong.

Editing the work of writers from other countries presents interesting challenges.

Sure, there is the inherent minefield of language errors. But the areas that have prompted the most author queries from me relate to the different culture, politics, history, and even anti-American orientation of the writers.

I recently edited a book by a Russian author and academic (working in the United States) on the closest presidential elections in U.S. history.

I more than earned my pay on the book, just in terms of the number of queries I posed to the author. Here are just two, directed at the following passages:

Conspiracy theories about the origins of September 11 and the Bush administration’s involvement in the terrorist acts are not plausible enough to consider them seriously here. What I wrote: "There are many who would disagree with your opinion. Please consider revision." What I felt like writing: "We here in the U.S. are not afraid to question the actions or authority of our political leaders."

Historically, the United States has a weak party system. What I wrote: "I believe that many readers of American history might reach a different conclusion." What I felt like writing: "Maybe our political parties don't have the power of the Communist Party, but they've served us well."

Editors have to exercise many forms of restraint, including the expression of judgments as well as personal politics and values.