EVERY WRITER BENEFITS FROM A GOOD EDITOR
“Out of Context”
The three words a writer should never have to hear nor utter
Introduction
I see countless articles on Medium with writing tips. While I will edit the shit out of any writer’s story, I will never write an article purporting to tell writers what constitutes the right, wrong, worst, best, better, or discouraged way to go about putting words on paper. Why? Because each of us is unique — what works for one does not mean it works for another. Unless you are an INTP, this may not make sense to you, and if that does describe your personality, what’s about to come may make you smile.
Even if my deserving articles never get peer-curated onto ILLUMINATION-Curated because of my vital and uncompromising (except the willingness to inline link) uniqueness, and please make no mistake of the fact that I often tag as a contrast but not a provocation of more than thought-food, I have developed a fondness for the writing of maverick-in-her-own-right, Dew Langrial. This is my second consecutive piece linking How To Become an Effective Writer in One Day, This 2-minute writing advice is useful for every new writer, in which Dew writes (I feel I can dispense with the caution of Ms. Langrial with you) that a writer should start writing draft after draft until the polished story manifests.
Sound advice. Most should heed it. Not for me.
Dew writes:
Is your mind drawn in several directions at once? That’s because your boundless freedom is an obstacle.
My INTP mind thrives playing pinball between the split screens that chew on an issue in my subconscious, popping up for a conscious refinement, then submerging again until often many seemingly unconnected thoughts emerge together into a tapestry. Sometimes this happens mid-essay, and it’s like the story takes on a mind of its own and starts to write itself (see, e.g., A Chanukah Present for My Christmas Tree Brain, Convergence of storytelling and weekend prompts; and the very rough and early example but oh-so-dear-to-my-heart, Christmas Tree Brain Results in Black Slaves from the 1700’s Making Love in 2020).
Today though is a special treat. Today, I share with you a piece that I decided to write two days ago, and waited till it felt right to write, which I did, on a 90-minute walk — I wrote the whole article in my mind and now I just sit here transferring it.
“Please don’t take it out of context”
That was Dew’s response to my Maybe I Will Save One Life, or Many, And wash any guilt off the innocent. In Why You Should Never Use Writing To Get Love or Get Noticed, Dew wrote:
A well-written comment can mean life and death in some cases. Be generous.
That inspired me to write the afore-linked Maybe I Will Save…, in which I wrote:
I hope you are not saying that it can save someone’s life — that it can mean the difference between life and death, because I know that’s false, and would be inconsistent with the stories of writer suicides discussed earlier in your story. That’s like me telling the person who thinks if they had only called their suicidal friend …
As I will relate through a deeply personal story below, if I am suicidal, I am the only person who can prevent it, possibly by finding meaning to life on my own, and possibly through professional help, yet in either circumstance, the prevention is within my and only my control.
Dew replied with the header to this section. Now, if you read closely what I wrote, I did not take Dew out of context, and in fact, I pretty much apologized on her behalf for her statement, as I realized that Dew did not understand the context of a reader whose life has been touched by suicide. I knew what was in Dew's mind when she wrote it was not the subjective context that I read into it. I was quite miffed by the reply but thankfully I slept on it, and when I woke and read it again, I read it with my empath’s third-eye, and rather than hearing Dew protest as my mind of an INTP built-in-bullshit-detector first did, I heard Dew pleading with me that she was sorry and did not mean it the way I read it.
To Dew’s credit, I believe she has since edited the story. This shines a light on my kicker to this story — every story by every writer can benefit from a good editor who may bring a different perspective to the table and thus read it with an ear that the writer just doesn't have, or because the writer is too close to the story to see the forest.
Political Shenanigans — the unforgivable stupidity of purposely taking out of context
Yesterday my friend and colleague, Zen Chan coincidentally asked my opinion on this story from USA Today, Fact check: US House members can use gendered language; rules change affected one document. Kudos to USA Today for calling the Republicans out for this deliberate out-of-context gaslighting.
To show I hold both sides to the same standard, I actually once came to the defense of Donald J. Chump. On or about May 20, 2020, he made a comment that included the phrase “Badge of Honor” in a statement about Covid deaths and what a great job he was doing with testing that the Trump haters threw in his face as callous. The problem is they sound-bited the phrase out of context. I tweeted that day:
when words taken out of context to make point, all comms become less impactful. B4 tweeting, a 1 min. google search got footage and a quick watch showed Prez Chumps statements to be correct-”badge of honor” stupid but valid in context
More Examples of the Value of Editing on Context
Last night I read a serious story by one of my favorite writers of satire and dark comedy on Medium, Harry Seitz, Why Nuclear Power is Our Only Alternative, Nuclear power is coming, in which Harry wrote:
The biggest nuclear disaster in history is Chernobyl. 31 people were killed directly by the accident, and indirect deaths are estimated to be approximately 4,000.
That’s 4,000 deaths across 66 years, almost exclusively from a plant that would have never been allowed to open anywhere else.
As I know from exchanges, first angry and now mutually apologized for as friends do, Harry meant that in the 66 years of the existence of all nuclear power plants, 4,000 people have had deaths attributable to their existence. However, the plain reading of the words is that 4,000 deaths were related to Chernobyl having occurred 66 years ago. I know that to be false because being 54 years old, I remember the incident and knew it happened within a couple of years, give or take, of the Berlin Wall coming down in or about my senior year of college. Apparently many editors missed this, which I attribute to them not having the personal CONTEXT of having lived through those times.
A couple of weeks ago I came across a very talented young writer, Maren Morgan, and her story on the hypocrisy of the cancel culture, Why Nahko’s Cancelation Campaign is Bullshit and a Perfect Example of the Hypocrisy of Cancel Culture, On taking responsibility for our own guru projections on others and embracing imperfection, with which I was so impressed that I reached out to her and promoted her as a writer for ILLUMINATION and published her story, which I edited and improved to her liking.
The next day she self-published, 13 Pieces of Advice for Young People in an Uncertain World, What I have learned in 25 years from many mistakes, intentional therapy, and lots of books. I started to read the story and deciding that the piece could benefit from my editing, I off-platform edited the first two of the 13 points and sent my edit to Maren with this note:
Maren, please see my pass through just points 1 and 2 of 13. I am happy to continue but not if my time is not well spent. Perhaps contain your enthusiasm to rush good work to publication before it is your best work. I offer my editing to appreciative souls with no expectation of a quid pro quo other than their patience and willingness to improve. Just like your point 2, there is much that you do not know about your potential to write.
Point 2:
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” — Socrates
My note could have benefited from an editor suggesting that I go further out of my way not to appear presumptuous, as the note I received back basically said, paraphrasing, “you violated my boundaries and if I want your opinion on my writing, I’ll ask for it.”
Socrates rolled his eyes.
I think Maren is a great writer. I also know I offered her genuine improvements. I simply replied “noted” and left it at that until my mind tied that incident together with the point of this article — even great writers can benefit from an editor, and because I didn’t self-edit my email enough, Maren took my intentions and effort out of context, because she brings to her read the context of her mind, which couldn’t read my mind, but presumed to.
Back to My Friend Harry and Context
Harry wrote a hilarious piece of satirical social commentary, Porn, My pen name is kicking my ass, which, because of the personal points of view of many editors of ILLUMINATION, we did not publish, over which I seriously thought of resigning. I maintain that my fellow editors could not put their prejudices aside and see that in CONTEXT, Harry’s story was not vulgar, obscene, nor pornographic. I wonder how those of you who will choose to read it from my link will see it.
Thank you for reading my article.
In Rama I create,
Marcus