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. -- 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.
