Elizabeth (the delinquent, ecumenical) (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
hermionesviolin) wrote2003-10-24 03:40 pm
hermionesviolin) wrote2003-10-24 03:40 pm
frustrated
Upon rereading, i'm less upset by the changes made to my piece, but people agreed with me that the edits changed my meaning, so i wrote to Cate, pointing specifically to the edit about Smith being an integrated and practical part of Northampton, because that really stuck out as potentially factually inaccurate
Total form letter response. I mean, i understand the formal tone, and she was totally respectful and understanding, it just irks me.
Normally i feel much more comfortable engaging in writing versus in person because both parties can really weigh their words and make sure that they're really understanding the other person is saying and they can make sure they're saying exactly what they mean to say.
Here, however, i want to sit down with her and show her all the problems i have with the piece. But really, there's almost no way to make someone see your point of view when it's a matter of taste as most of this is.
I don't want a "correction" printed unless someone can tell me for sure what the truth is.
I do want a real column, not Letters to the Editor (which don't get edited), but i hate that the paper then owns my stuff and can edit it so much. "Editors do not typically ask for writers' input on their pieces, but I prefer that courtesy to the writer." I absolutely appreciate that from her, and i intend to say so when i respond to her e-mail, but i hate that i have to appreciate that, that it isn't a given. Yes, there's a line; edits will be made at 2am right before print; writers shouldn't have to approve every comma change (okay, i'm kinda lying when i say that last bit, because while i understand how that's not feasible, as a big fan of owning one's words, of being responsible for what is attached to one, i don't think anything should be attributed to someone without their approval).
Total form letter response. I mean, i understand the formal tone, and she was totally respectful and understanding, it just irks me.
Normally i feel much more comfortable engaging in writing versus in person because both parties can really weigh their words and make sure that they're really understanding the other person is saying and they can make sure they're saying exactly what they mean to say.
Here, however, i want to sit down with her and show her all the problems i have with the piece. But really, there's almost no way to make someone see your point of view when it's a matter of taste as most of this is.
I don't want a "correction" printed unless someone can tell me for sure what the truth is.
I do want a real column, not Letters to the Editor (which don't get edited), but i hate that the paper then owns my stuff and can edit it so much. "Editors do not typically ask for writers' input on their pieces, but I prefer that courtesy to the writer." I absolutely appreciate that from her, and i intend to say so when i respond to her e-mail, but i hate that i have to appreciate that, that it isn't a given. Yes, there's a line; edits will be made at 2am right before print; writers shouldn't have to approve every comma change (okay, i'm kinda lying when i say that last bit, because while i understand how that's not feasible, as a big fan of owning one's words, of being responsible for what is attached to one, i don't think anything should be attributed to someone without their approval).