My sincere apology, Paul!
You are right: this is not the right venue for the literary discussion.
(After sending the message, I thought that I should have sent it off the
list, but it was too late.)
The reason I started asking you was that I was interested in your
professional opinion and was very surprised by what I've heard from you.
(My curiosity stems in part from the fact that writing and some editorial
work have been among my professional activities for many years, albeit in
a different genre and with much smaller readership.)
But yes, I know that my questions and comments, while driven by the
curiosity about why things the way they are and desire to figure out
what's correct, can sometimes sound as a harsh critique. Sorry about that.
That's my nature of a researcher: learning from the opposition of facts
and ideas, and from challenging those. To me, the most interesting
questions and comments about the things I am doing (work or hobbies) are
those that make me thinking and help me learning, even though they might
sound as hard or critical. But I know that many (most?) of people are not
like that.
Sometimes, getting excited about the topic of the conversation, I tend to
forget that. As my colleague expressed that recently:
"People like us are inconvenient for those around us".
(I am also akin that engineer in the old joke, who yells: "Wait, I see
what the problem with the guillotine is..."
http://sethf.com/freespeech/memoirs/humor/guillotine.php )
Since you've mentioned, - believe it or not, some of my most important
revelations about teaching originated from the questions and comments by
students.
But again, despite the breadth of topics discussed on PDML, this is not
the best venue for my questions and comments related to your literary
work. I will do my best to refrain from those in the future, especially
since you requested that.
However, I cannot promise that I will not "torture" a NYT editor with
the questions about the peculiarities of NYT style I asked you earlier,
should the opportunity (and the appropriate venue) arise. ;-)
Peace!
Igor
Paul Stenquist Sat, 28 Oct 2017 09:33:18 -0700 wrote:
Okay, we’re done with this. I post photos here to be critiqued, and I
appreciate comments both positive and negative. But I don’t post my work
here . Ann posted a link to this article, because she thought it was a
topic of concern. And I appreciate her doing so. But it wasn't posted for
a critique. I get plenty of input from my editors at the Times in regard
to style and structure. And I’d venture to say that all of them are far
more qualified in regard to editorial than is Igor
I’m a writer by trade. The Times and various other pubs are my place of
work. Would any PDML members want me to come to their place of work and
critique their performance? I bet I could offer Igor some tips in regard
to managing a classroom. I have some experience there. But I wouldn’t do
that. It’s not part of our role as members of this group.
Again, thanks for the kudos, and comments regarding the issue at hand —
children dying in cars — are certainly appropriate. But no need to
critique my work in detail or the Times style book. Feel free to write to
the Times if you have a problem with the way they report the news, but
don’t debate it with me.
Love to all!
Thanks much,
Paul
On Oct 28, 2017, at 12:10 PM, Igor PDML-StR <pdml...@komkon.org> wrote:
Paul,
Thank you for the detailed response. I've learned some interesting things
about NYT's style.
My teachers/advisors (at all stages and levels) taught me that each paragraph
should contain one main thought/point. Then, if you were to write down those
main points, you get a reverse outline, which is a good tool for checking on
the coherence of the written communication (paper, thesis, ...) And that's
what I've been teaching my students in the communication courses.
I think I see the rational behind shorter paragraphs (in a way similar to
that for shorter sentences): they are usually simpler to read. But I'd say,
not at the expense of splitting the thought. But the same way as a long
sentence doesn't get just cut in parts, a paragraph doesn't get split up into
parts before the thought is completed.
And, I am failing to see the rational behind quotes being separate
paragraphs. Moreover, I am rather confused how that is supposed to work here:
the same direct quote is split into two parts between the last two
paragraphs. It is not that every sentence of the direct quote are in a
separate paragraph: Three sentences of that direct quote are split between
two paragraphs.
Again, sorry, - I don't mean to start a debate here. Rather, I am just
explaining why I am still confused by NYT's style.
Igor
PS. This is not to undermine that the article is very interesting.
Paul Stenquist Fri, 27 Oct 2017 18:57:51 -0700 wrote:
Hi Igor,
The Auto Alliance point regarding how long it would take to equip the fleet
is self refuting in that they said the same thing six years ago. More
importantly, I get only 900 words, so I have to pick my battles.
In regard to the paragraph breaks, the first is debatable but a split
decision in my view and the editors. The Times philosophy says short graphs
are better.
The graphs toward the end of the story are mandated by an immutable Times
style rule: every direct quote is a separate graph. That is written in stone,
and it seems to have worked well for at least 50 years.
Paul via phone
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
