Asymmetrical Information

Hmmm.

I pulled [the book] immediately upon hearing claims that she represented the “general public”, with the assumption that she knew what the “general public” needed –not realizing that she was talking to an empiricist who despises impressions (based on anecdotal evidence) & pompously stated superstitious.

So, he's an empiricist who despises impressions that are based on anecdotal evidence?

Or

Based on anecdotal evidence, he's an empiricist who despises impressions?

Although the second is an absurd statement, it seems to be what he's saying in this sentence. If he cannot write more clearly than that, perhaps he needs that editor after all.

I generously turn my face from his typo, because after all everyone makes mitsakes.

Maybe he's that good. If one has confidence in one's writing, all the better to take full responsibility and submit it to the public to judge. I really don't see what's so pompous about it.

If this is the type of prose he uses in his book, no wonder the copy editor wanted to improve his sentences. This guy needs a course in syntax as well as humility.

Taleb is utterly confident in his abilities because of anecdotal evidence, a rather astute observation. He is a good writer though, Fooled by Randomness is one of my favorites.

I suppose I should post the obvious counterpoint...

I also enjoyed the longer version of _Stranger in a Strange Land._ At the same time, Heinlein is the last author who should be put forward as a case against editors. It's startling how much better the heavily constrained and edited childrens' books and short stories hold up on rereading than the stuff he wrote later in his career.

A good editor was needed to take Heinlein firmly by the hand -- wearing sterile gloves if necessary -- and insist that no more than 1/4 of the possible male-female sexual pairings be explored in any given novel.

I totally agree about Heinlein, though I think he started losing his mind towards the end as well.

As far as just publshing his work and letting the public decide... that's what self-publishing is for. A publisher has to make money and if they don't think a manuscript will sell as-is, then they don't have any obligation to publish it. And of course, the author has a right to refuse any changes and, therefore, publication by that publisher.

EI

Excessive bundling was no huhu; what Heinlein needed was dinkum editor to remind that Lazarus Long is funny-once.

I'm not sure Heinlein was any crazier at the end than he was in the middle. Job was written in 1984 and doesn't seem to suffer from the self-indulgence of a lot of his post-Stranger stuff.

I think he was always really creepy, but reined it in when he was writing for editors. With Stranger, he lost that restraint and allowed his creepiness full reign. Things got a bit better when the book had some interesting ideas going on besides RAH's creepiness, for example Job.

Falling in love with one's own newly minted prose is a common and forgiveable sin in any writer. Refusing to atone for that sin by not sacrificing portions of prose on the altar of clarity? Much less forgiveable.

I think you're a bit of an exception though, in that the bulk of your writing *is* done uneditied. Mind you, this blog is less likely to generate you real fame than your journalistic work, but the fact that you're still here, with a steady and large readership, 5+ years later is a sign that you're in less need of an editor than most. The guy you linked about is obviously in desperate need of one, given the fact that he can't even bitch out his editor without botching his grammar, but there are people who legitimately don't need one nearly as much as others.

Before seeing the linked article, I assumed it was going to be about J. K. Rowling.

Comments are Closed.