--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > would YOU hire her as an editor? > > > > Actually, one *does* have to read a book in order to > > edit it. However, if the editor takes a first look > > at the ms. and right off the bat spots an offensive > > paragraph, and the author admits there's nothing in > > the rest of the book that counters it, the author > > may not have a choice about whether to hire the > > editor, at least if the author is a freelancer who > > gets to choose his/her clients. The "hiring" in such > > a situation is by mutual agreement, not the sole > > prerogative of the author. > > Judy, do you *realize* that what you have > done here is to 1) *confirm* my contention > that you do not feel that you have to read > a book to condemn it, and 2) *confirm* your > own bigotry?
In your exceptionally weird mind, Barry, I'm absolutely sure that's the case. > You posit taking a glance at a manuscript, > spotting *one paragraph* in it that offends > you, and then running to the author to ask > if he has written another paragraph that > counters it. If he hasn't, you are suggest- > ing that you would refuse to edit his book. Yup (although "written another paragraph that counters it" isn't quite right). > 1. You do not have the RIGHT to demand that > he write something that "counters" the para- > graph that YOU found offensive. That is not > your JOB as an editor, and it is not your > RIGHT as a human being. The author is per- > mitted his opinion, *whatever* you may think > of it. Where did I say, pray tell, that I had the RIGHT to demand that the author write something other than what he or she has written? Where did I say, pray tell, that it was my JOB as an editor to do so? Where did I say, pray tell, that it was my RIGHT as a human being? Where did I say, pray tell, that the author is not permitted his/her opinion? > 2. You certainly have the right to choose > not to work with an author whose work you > don't like, Wow, really?? That's so...so GRACIOUS of you, after having denied me all those rights that I never claimed I had. but you have just *supported* my > contention that you believe that you don't > have to READ his work to decide that you > don't like it. All it took in your example > for you to decide not to work with the author > is ONE PARAGRAPH that YOU found offensive. Right. If that paragraph began, say, "Jews are scum and need to be wiped off the planet. This book describes a plan for doing so quickly and inexpensively..." and the author assured me it wasn't some kind of satire, that he was dead serious, I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation about turning down the gig without reading further, no matter what it paid. > In my opinion, that makes you far more of a > bigot than you insinuated that Philip K. Dick > was, ALSO without having read his book. Actually that opinion tells us a lot more about you than it does about me. > 3. In my opinion, you have just proved that > you are a BAD editor. You presume that it is > your job to tell the author what he should > believe and write Where, pray tell, have I suggested any such thing? All I've told the author is that I can't work with him because I find his ideas repugnant. , and that if he doesn't, > to your satisfaction, you don't want to work > with him. No, I don't want to work with him based on what he has *already* written. Well, THANK GOD. The author has > just been saved by your own bigotry from > having to defend his ideas from the person > he has hired to help him clarify those ideas. Absolutely correct. If finding bigotry unacceptable, as you suggest, makes me a bigot, I'm happy to be an anti-bigotry bigot. And yes, I'm protecting the author from having to wrestle with an editor who is steadfastly hostile to his ideas. That would no more be fair to him than it would to me. <snip> > See what I mean about taunting you to say stupid > and fanatical things? Works every time, and you > never catch on. And you think I want to "ban" > that? :-) :-) :-) You just keep on keepin' on, Barry. I couldn't be more pleased with what you're doing. Less work for Mother, don'cha know.
