Anyway, I just got done fact checking and editing a fellow student's article for class. Since we moved out of Middlebrook the fnwc has pretty much died, and we don't even bother to update it anymore. That being said, I haven't edited anything seriously in awhile and I forgot how violent it can look when I'm finally finished. I generally don't believe in being kind to the writer in question. Edit and eviscerate, because what's wrong is wrong and needs to be righted. I am an advocate of the red pen and I think that whole philosophy of using purple pens because they're "cheerier" is a load of dung; however, the professor for this class uses a purple pen. Me? I'm a perfectionist. Every time I see a single error found and marked by another I fall into despair, but I seriously doubt my classmates react so violently to minute errors. So, I decided to try it out. I used a pink pen and an orange highlighter in an attempt to try to prove that, though I will gut a piece, I care about the writer and the work they have done.
It is truly a depressing sight. Despite my best efforts, it still looks like the pages are bleeding profusely. There are notes everywhere and I'm pretty sure that there aren't more than 10 unedited sentences in the entire three page piece. It's not a bad article, but it looks like it's dying. I kind of feel awful about it. Had I stuck with red it would've been all business. There would be no attempt to say: "Thank you for writing! I'm so glad you did! Now let me show you all of your mistakes with warm, cheery colors - forever ruining your perception of warmth, happiness, and glee!"
Bottom Line: Editing is better off when it doesn't mingle with the sympathetic parts of humanity.
In other news, I got an e-mail from Not-Michael-Moore Michael Moore. I was expecting it to be irritating political spam, but evidently there is a man at the U named Michael Moore, and he is evidently the psuedo-instructor of my IDL course
Tuesday's are boring, y'all.