Hmmm...
Has been this way for a while now...
I gave up arguing the point with a publisher for whom I used to write.
Homogenized = bland. When so many descriptions of competition
in classes look and read the same, why have writers? Byron (or
some other competent programmer) could come up with software
that sifts the results and prints out readable descriptions of what
occurred. Vanilla extract, all.
I have always felt that it is an editor's job to correct for misspelled
words, grammatical miscues, and factual inaccuracies. That the
power seems to have been expanded to include whacking submissions
with an "editorial tenderizer" is human nature, I guess, but it makes for
a far less interesting read. One of the biggest mistakes is to ask for a
larger submission than will ever be printed. (as in 1K words, when only
600 will see ink) The process of distillation into an abbreviation of the
original acts like a reverse-osmosis filter for water. Not just the bad,
but also the subtle elements of taste go away.
Disclaimer: I do not have a personal beef with anyone related to any
enthusiast publication. There is no intent to injure or damage as a
motive for this posting. I applaud the effort that some have put into
ensuring that reporting of our sport does occur on a timely basis. View
the above, then, as constructive criticism? It's way past time for me
to subscribe to NAP.
Alan
In a message dated 11/02/1999 3:36:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
TeamZ3@aol.com writes:
>Subject: Re: North American Pylon's latest issue
<snip>
> However (grab hold of your toosh Rocky), what I like most about NAP
>articles is that they are printed in their entirety as the writer supplied
>them; good, bad, or insanely whatever, rather than re-engineered into
>mediocrity (that's PC for editorially butchered, as viewed from the
>original artiste' :-).
>
>mAs
>- the little SOB still comes out to play once in a while
|