Hi, I have a bit of a predicament here. One of my articles got rejected for comma spices. The thing is, the editor's suggestion revision is grammatically incorrect. Here's an example of the original sentence structure:
"Buffaloes, on the other hand, are a magnificent animal."
"Lord of the Rings, of course, is the most entertaining franchise."
Just for the record, my article wasn't about buffaloes and LotR. (Though maybe it should've been?) The point is the editor is saying "on the other hand" and "of course" should not be separated by commas. But I know for a fact that's not right. I looked it up to be sure... Separate items in a sentence are supposed to be separated with commas.
"Buffaloes on the other hand are are a magnificent animal."
That can't be right! It may seem trivial, but it looks terrible to me! I'm worried it will affect how well the article sells. What should I do? Do I make the change, knowing it's wrong, or is there some way to argue this? Or am I actually in the wrong and just going crazy?
Thank you in advance!
When the editor is wrong?
Moderators: Celeste Stewart, Ed, Constant
-
Isabelnewth
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:15 am
Re: When the editor is wrong?
Hi this post seems to have been overlooked or maybe it took some time to appear: anyway....I quite often think that my editors are wrong. I agree about your buffalo sentence: it reads very badly without the commas. In general though, the editors here love commas more than I do. Disagreements with the eds are a particular problem when it comes to different UK and US grammatical norms. It's usually best to find a different way of saying the same thing, so that you don't offend your own sense of what's right and you don't get another annoying rejection either. There's always a way round the issue! Show us your actual sentences and you'll get a flood of suggestions!
Re: When the editor is wrong?
This is exactly what I do when an edit doesn't fit with what I am trying to say or offends my sense of how the rules define what I am typing. I either find a different way of saying it, or delete it all together.Isabelnewth wrote:Hi this post seems to have been overlooked or maybe it took some time to appear: anyway....I quite often think that my editors are wrong. I agree about your buffalo sentence: it reads very badly without the commas. In general though, the editors here love commas more than I do. Disagreements with the eds are a particular problem when it comes to different UK and US grammatical norms. It's usually best to find a different way of saying the same thing, so that you don't offend your own sense of what's right and you don't get another annoying rejection either. There's always a way round the issue! Show us your actual sentences and you'll get a flood of suggestions!
I have an editor now that says my entire article is only about organic hemp and cotton and not about alternative textiles in fashion, when hemp, cotton, and the other textiles were only each mentioned Once in ONE sentence and never again in the article. so I added another sentence farther down in the article that mentions all the same textiles ONCE in ONE single sentence.. and nope, he insists that the entire article is ONLY about hemp and cotton textiles and flax, milk, bamboo, and tea (protein strands) cannot be included in an article about organic clothing textiles. sigh... the article, in reality, is about finding a career in the green fashion industry and only mentions (defines really) what the textiles are in this industry in one single sentence and goes on to defined the careers about green fashion... LOL
Re: When the editor is wrong?
ever notice we don't get spammed anymore? It's because they have phpBB set to approve first time posts. So, everyone has to wait until the admin goes through the list of first time posters and kill the spammers and allow the real users. Spammers are the scum of the Internet.Isabelnewth wrote:Hi this post seems to have been overlooked or maybe it took some time to appear: an
To the OP: Ain't worth the argument. Give the editor what he/she wants and let it go.
-
Isabelnewth
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:15 am
Re: When the editor is wrong?
The spamlessness hadn't really registered with me, but now you mention it..... You're right and it's definitely an improvement 
-
Judith
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 11:30 am
- Location: I may be found where mountains rise and rivers flow.
- Contact:
Re: When the editor is wrong?
ReneeF - I had the same problem with an editor about a year ago. So I deleted the article, retitled it, resubmitted it, and prayed a different editor would get it. Apparently it worked, as the article breezed through.
Re: When the editor is wrong?
Re the buffaloes - they have to be more than one animal, unless you start the sentence with a buffalo. I wonder if the editor really meant to point that out.
Re: When the editor is wrong?
good to know. The article title is short and to the point. I'd really have to get creative to make it fit another category.Judith wrote:ReneeF - I had the same problem with an editor about a year ago. So I deleted the article, retitled it, resubmitted it, and prayed a different editor would get it. Apparently it worked, as the article breezed through.