![[Eats, Shoots & Leaves]](http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1592400876.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg "Eats, Shoots & Leaves, by Lynne Truss")
Dive into Python is almost finished. I still need to write one more chapter, but I’ve incorporated all the revisions from the technical reviewer (the ultra-talented Anna Ravenscroft). Now the copy editor is wielding her virtual pen and striking through every word I’ve ever written. Incorporating her revisions is simultaneously humbling, enlightening, and mind-numbingly tedious.
Here are the main things I’ve learned so far:
have towhen I mean
need to.
only. Instead of
you can only walk through a stream once,the copy editor prefers
you can walk through a stream only once.
lotswhen I mean
a lot.
whichwhen I mean
that.
likewhen I mean
such as.
thenimmediately after a comma, when I mean
and then.
notewhen I mean
notice, and vice-versa.
wewhen I mean
you.
As we saw in the previous chapter…
We’ll work through this example line by line.And so forth. Apparently we won’t be working through this example. You will be working through this example; I will be in the Bahamas drinking my royalty check.
In related news, my copy of Eats, Shoots, & Leaves arrived yesterday. It is hysterically funny, if you like that sort of thing.
In vaguely related news, here is a tip for people who do a lot of work in Docbook. In Firefox, create a new bookmark for http://docbook.org/tdg/en/html/%s.html, and then give it a keyword (I used the letter d). Then you can type things like d xref into your address bar to go to the xref reference page. Go go gadget hyperlink.
§
Ack. What did Footnote 12 say? I was writing something recently with an insane abuse of footnotes and I intentionally left that one unused because it felt wrong to use it.
Admittedly, when you’re publishing a book it’s important to have your copy edited (for accessibility’s sake, if nothing else), but I’ve always been fond of this quote from my linguistics lecturer:
“If anybody ever tells you that you’re using the language incorrectly, just yell ‘prescriptive grammarian!’ at the top of your voice and all the linguists in the building will run over and surround the guy… and then they’ll rough him up”
The is no such thing as correct usage; only common usage and prescribed usage. I find it liberating.
IIRC, footnote 12 read “Footnote 12: the famous recursive footnote (see footnote 12).”
— Mark 
I’m with Chris… because nearly all of the items on your list are (practically or literally) regionalisms, not strictly BAD.
…Which brings us to the matter of styleguides. Hooray!
“That” and “which” are a horrible mess for, uh, the majority I think.
— ben
My suggestion on how to handle those suggestions:
* Tell her “Bite me.” You have every right to make your writing conversational, and that example shouldn’t lead to very much confusion.
* Follow her suggestion. This changes the meaning of the sentence, and drastically helps clarity.
* Tell her “Bite me.” You have every right to make your writing conversational, and that example shouldn’t lead to very much confusion.
* Depends on the situation. Sometimes this can help clarity, sometimes it’s pedantic to contemplate the difference.
* Not bad to do this occasionally, but a little distracting when it’s overdone.
* Tell her “Bite me.” You have every right to make your writing conversational, and that example shouldn’t lead to very much confusion.
* Eh, whatever.
* Tell her “Bite me.” You have every right to make your writing conversational, and that example shouldn’t lead to very much confusion.
* Tell her “Bite me.” You have every right to make your writing conversational, and that example shouldn’t lead to very much confusion.
Especially on that last one. Including yourself in the reader’s experience makes the book MUCH more pleasant to read. Like you implied, you don’t want the reader to feel like you’re lecturing.
In conclusion, some grammar people never got out of Master’s Thesis mode, and go around sterilizing English wherever they run across it. These people need a friendly slap up side the head.
P.S. — No preview button, and I don’t know if markup is allowed… …I hope this ul doesn’t get butchered.
As a http://http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/lang/ qualified-linguist-to-be, I thoroughly agree with Chris (above). Trained linguistic ninjas lurk all over the world, ready to heed the cry of “prescriptivist”.
Seriously, though: provided your language is clear to all, who cares where you place ‘only’, or whether you use ’such as’ or ‘like’?
If people look at what you’ve written and think “that’s wrong” — perhaps because youve missed an apostrophe or Capitalised wrongly — then there’s a problem, because it’s interfering with getting your message across. Indeed, finding something like that in a novel is enough to jar me completely out of the narrative – suddenly, I’m reading a book, not enjoying a story. It’s like being on a theme park ride when it breaks down.
But — provided the message is clear — what’s the problem?
We have to notice the notes which are wrong; like, “This, then lots of that.”*
* So, where y’all from, bitch?
— Michael
Yeah, I’ve been going through much the same thing with my book.
It seems I use the word ’simply’ far too much (apparently readers don’t like that word), and I’ve got the same problem you do about footnotes.
I don’t know what the problem with footnotes is. Personally, I like them…
— Garrett Rooney
So does X = having a copy editor?
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2004/03/20/assets
— Richard
Ms. Ravenscroft’s edits range from, “sounds reasonable, but could go the other way” to “absolutely essential, if you don’t want to sound like a total amateur.” Looks like she’s doing her job just fine — which in turn frees up Mark to focus his editing energy on the larger structural issues. “Is this chapter clear, or do I need to totally rewrite it?” “Does this beautiful section that I slaved over for days belong in the book *at all*?” Stuff like that.
— Evan
Evan, sorry if I wasn’t clear. Anna is the technical reviewer; she makes sure all my code examples work and do what they say they do, and makes technical recommendations (which have been excellent).
The copy editor is someone else entirely, and she just moves sentences around, nitpicks about grammar and punctuation, and tells me when things aren’t clearly explained.
Both are essential, and both are making my book better in different ways, and both are what you get with a real publisher (as opposed to self-publishing on the Internet or anywhere else). But neither is particularly ego-boosting.
— Mark
Whoops, I misread that, sorry. What I meant was that the copy editor is just fine. (I’m sure Anna is fine too.)
And I do sympathize about the “neither is particularly ego-boosting,” because I know quite well how brutal a professional edit can be. It took me *forever* to start developing a thick skin about edits. No matter how hard you try, writing is always so damn personal. Stupid writing.
— Evan
Hang in there Mark.
It sounds like you’ve got some good people working on your behalf.
I know from first hand experience it’s a bit hard to have anyone rearrange my writing, but I also realized the need to have someone look at my words outside of the context and assumptions rumbling about my brain.
I’ve been wanting to learn Python, thanks for going through such pains to make your work so readable. I’m sure it’ll be worth it … and might reduce stupid questions from thick headed readers like me.
Dean
— MeanDean
I am no longer accepting public comments on this post, but you can use this form to contact me privately. (Your message will not be published.)
§
firehose ‧ code ‧ music ‧ planet
© 2001–8 Mark Pilgrim