[I've been sitting on this post for a while, saving it for a rainy day, as it were, but in light of the David Carr interview, it seems like a good time to share it.]
I remember the excitement when the implications of the World Wide Web became clear, first to non-technical pundits, then to the public at large. At last, everyone would have his own microphone, his own space in an infinitely large Hyde Park Speakers' Corner. There would be no gatekeepers, no one whose arbitrary, idiosyncratic, and possibly stupid whims one would have to satisfy before being allowed access to the masses.
That's a grand vision. However ...
I value good writing. I value it a lot.
Good writing is clear, but more than that, it is easy, even pleasurable, to read.
However, the ugly truth is that most people don't write well. They toss off their thoughts as quickly as they can type, and don't seem to proofread before committing the results.
Many mistakes are small, like pebbles in a road: you can step over them and not lose your way. Still, you have to make the extra effort. That takes away from the pleasure of reading.
Other mistakes are larger, and can throw the reader off the road entirely. I'll stop reading right there, and you probably will, too.
That's why I value editors. Gatekeepers they may be, but I prefer to think of them as a competitive advantage. By having a competent editor review your writing before it goes out the door, you've increased the likelihood that a reader will stay with your piece, which is the point, isn't it?
I wish the Internet had more editors. I know why it doesn't, but as a lover of good writing, I wish it did.
No comments:
Post a Comment