Motto: Try it in detail

(unless I’ve obviously misunderstood

and my suggestion is obviously and totally wrong)

and see if you like the overall result.

 

From there, you may well be able to (and should!) improve the text further.

Some notes on what my scribblings mean:

1. If I crossed out something and then circled it and said “OK”, I mean to disregard the cross-out because in reviewing further I changed my mind. (This can happen frequently!)

2. A line over one word (or phrase) and under the next means to reverse the order.

3. A letter P with a vertical line through it means “paragraph”, as in “start a new paragraph here”, or (with the word “no”) “no paragraph break here” (sometimes I write “no break”).

4. An = sign between two words means they should be combined as one word.

5. A line across the top of a capital letter means the word should not be capitalized.

6. A slash between two items means that they need a space there – unless it’s a ratio, which I’m suggesting that you show as such (i.e., with a “divide” line).

7. A marked-out space means to remove the space. Another symbol to remove a space (or a letter) is a little loop (like a letter “e”) originating from the thing to be deleted.

8. If I felt less sure or less strongly about something, I may have indicated the change but marked it with a question mark. As with everything else, you have to decide!

 

My argument is that you must always be considerate of the reader, if you want to be read. I, for one, read slowly and carefully. If something isn’t well written, if it seems sloppy, I get distracted, I get bogged down in it, and then I haven’t got time for it. The goal is to make it as clean, simple, and immediately intelligible to the reader as possible. That’s not to say that you should ignore subtle and sophisticated complexities in your theory – but the challenge is to state them simply and clearly. (Incidentally, rhythm and music are also important: If you wonder why I sometimes suggest changing one word for another, and they seem to mean the same thing, it may simply be the number of syllables or the sound of the word.)

 

To some extent, my method consists in “attacking” whatever seems overdone – things which you may be attached to, so the “attack” may be painful. I apologize for the pain, but suggest strongly that it can be worth re-examining (and probably dropping) those attachments.

 

I take the risk of commenting on content as well as the writing itself, even when I don’t know as much about it as you undoubtedly do. The risk involved is not just that I may look foolish if I say something that is obviously wrong, but also that you may then be more inclined to disregard other suggestions which are not so obviously wrong (which would not be surprising, given that you might easily feel overwhelmed with the volume of “criticism” which I normally give). I encourage you to guard against that tendency, and to think through all my questions and comments carefully to see if there isn’t something to be learned from them. If in fact I misunderstood something, can you say it more clearly so others won’t make the same mistake?

 

Please don’t take offense at my style: Rather than writing lengthy notes, I may just say “Do this”, “Move this there”, or whatever. But it is always, and must be, your responsibility to decide what to do. I strongly encourage you to try what I suggest, and then to make further improvements. But you don’t have to do what I say – and you certainly shouldn’t feel obligated to stop there!

 

If you respond defensively, seeing my suggestions as a challenge to your production, and feeling a need to choose between my suggestion and your original, then you’re missing the point. The point is to get you to consider alternatives, starting with mine, and then generating more yourself. If you occasionally end up with what you started with, that’s okay, but if it happens very often, it suggests that you may not be generating alternatives very creatively!

 

It may happen that I suggest deleting a section which you think is useful and should remain, but perhaps you think it needs some editorial review, which I haven’t provided. In that case, write it as you think it should be (try to understand why I thought it was redundant or irrelevant, and then try to make it better), and then, if you like, ask me to review it again. If I still think it should be deleted, we can of course talk about it (or you may want to ask me earlier, if you don’t understand why I thought so the first time), but if you’re sure you want it in, I’ll be happy to review it in detail (after you’ve paid careful attention to crafting it as professionally as you can). I don’t want to review it in detail the first time, however, which would be a waste of my time if you then follow my suggestion and delete it!

 

A good overall strategy can be to make a copy of your draft before starting to work with my suggestions (that also gives you a recent backup in case something should happen to the one you're working on). Then – unless they're obviously and totally wrong – make all the changes I suggest. Next make whatever further changes seem appropriate (you can also do this as you work with my suggestions). Finally, compare the new draft with your original and see if there's anything essential that's been left out. (If at that point you're totally dissatisfied with the new draft – which I strongly doubt – you can always go back to the previous one!)