[STET] Matters

Nobody likes to be corrected when they’re wrong, but it seems like special venom focuses on “grammar Nazis.” They (we) are the people who can tell you when you should use “whom” or an en dash.

 

Of course, nobody should be a jerk when correcting someone or something who is wrong. But it always seemed to me that people who correct other people’s grammar or style, no matter how politely or humbly they do it, get a special type of sneer that mathematicians or scientists don’t get when they correct other people. People seem much quicker to get their backs up. Why is that?

 

I’ve thought about it and I am convinced that when people sneer at those who correct the written word, sometimes buried under that sneer is the idea that what people like me do doesn’t have any value. They’re wrong about that. I’m not going to let anybody imply (not infer) that my profession doesn’t have any value.

 

I hate to come off like I’m beating up on a strawman here but I do get an overall impression, not from anybody I know but in general, that there is condescension toward people in the editorial profession. It’s like people in the more left-brain fields are just too good for the guidance someone like me could provide. Like they’ve mastered a real field and they’re not going to let some diaeresis-pusher like me correct them. Who cares about that stuff, right?

 

With the explosion of the internet and social media over the last 20 years, there are more avenues than ever for people to express themselves in the written word. This makes it more important than ever to have people who could help people, if they want it, express themselves more clearly.

 

We push kids into the STEM professions and of course it’s important to get kids involved in professions that will materially improve the world and provide good jobs. But even in the more scientific fields, you still need somebody who can help you express your ideas clearly and accurately. I’ve been a medical editor for a long time—as of today, 20 years at the same company—and believe me, if people can’t read your paper, it doesn’t matter how brilliant the research is.

 

Those scientific studies you see quoted on weight loss or COVID vaccines or climate change? I’m one of the people who makes sure those data are communicated as clearly as possible. I’m a cog in a machine (I only do peer-reviewed articles part-time at my job) but I do help in making sure the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed in my tiny corner of the world. (Yes, I did look up the style of “i’s” and “t’s.”) I think that’s important because you can be a brilliant scientific mind but may need some help getting your ideas across correctly. That’s what I’m here for, and my philosophy has always been that it’s OK if a doctor’s writing isn’t perfectly polished because that’s not their job; their job is the science. Everybody can use a second set of eyes on something because anybody can make a mistake (God knows how many I’ve made). There’s a difference between a “25-week premature infant” and a “premature 25-week infant” and those are the types of things I’m supposed to catch.

 

I don’t mean to sound self-important in any of this. I’m very lucky to have been able to work in my profession continuously since graduating from college, 20 years of which have been with the same company. I have enough experience now not to listen to anybody who condescends to me or thinks what I do doesn’t have value.

Doughnuts

Don’t ever show up with a box of doughnuts. It’s a nice thought, sure, but the presence of those fried dollops of sugar portends something dark and mournful or perhaps just annoying.

 

Boston crème means an early Saturday morning, showing up bleary eyed with the chill of dew and fog still on you.

 

Chocolate means you are ready to work, building a deck or painting two coats, or even moving that friend you once knew better, dragging boxes of spatulas and fitted sheets up the steps to a new life.

 

Jelly means you put on a gray suit and black tie and meet at the house before heading off to church to hear the eulogies and “On Eagle’s Wings.”

 

The gesture is nice but doughnuts are the bribe and the reward for doing something you don’t want to do. But I will do them all anyway because that is what adults do. Thank you but I can make my own breakfast at home.

I can't stand Dan Abrams

He’s the guy who does legal analysis for ABC News. Like me, you might see him in the morning when you’re having breakfast or in the evening when you’re having dinner and there’s some legal issue to comment on.

 

Dan Abrams really annoys me and it doesn’t help that ABC drags him out anytime there’s an attorney’s opinion to be opined, which is constantly. He doesn’t offer any more than dime-store legal wisdom. He sounds authoritative but it’s nothing more than variations on, “Look, the prosecution is going to try anything it can to win this case.” It sounds smart because of the way he talks but if you listen to the substance, it’s just dopey and obvious. I have no legal training and I could have told you most of what he says. Plus, it always seems like he’s sneering.

 

I don’t have any actual transcripts or quotes of what Abrams has said but here are some examples of what he’s said about recent legal issues in the news. I made these up but they’re in the spirit of how he talks:

 

On Brian Laundrie as a suspect in Gabby Petito’s murder (before they found him dead): “Look, there’s been a lot of speculation on the evidence in this case but the prosecution isn’t going to release any information to the public unless they’re really sure they can make a case against this guy. They need to prove, beyond the shadow of a doubt, their case to a jury. That’s how you win a murder case.”

 

On the Supreme Court hearing on the Texas abortion law: “Look, the question here is: Does this law infringe on women’s rights or is it consistent with the Constitution? Right now, we’re looking at a divided court on a controversial issue. If five justices find the law to be constitutionally unpalatable, then they can send it down to the lower courts for review. But if five justices find the law passes a Constitutional test, we could be looking at strong abortion prohibitions in the Lone Star State.”

 

On the shooting on the set of Alec Baldwin’s movie: “Look, it all hinges on whether or not there was negligence on the set of the movie. Once an investigation has established that, only then will they look to determine who may or may not be culpable. Right now, we can’t rule anybody out.”

 

On Steve Bannon defying a subpoena from Congress: “Look, this all comes down to whether or not a private citizen can defy a congressional subpoena and not have to face consequences. Can a former president claim executive privilege to protect Bannon? And those questions are going to make their way through the court system, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.”

 

Once you really listen, everything Abrams says is a variation on “We’re just going to have to wait and see.” I’d rather see a lawyer with specific experience in the subject matter at hand offer a specific opinion, rather than this Jack-of-all-trades say nothing in particular.

 

I know it’s a really specific complaint about a random media figure but Dan Abrams just annoys me and once I realized what bothered me, I couldn’t stop seeing it. I guess I could always just turn to another channel during breakfast and dinner.