I think there’s well-founded criticism in here, but the opening chunk confuses bad copy-editing — ultimately in the hands of the publisher — with bad writing. Which, especially from someone who’s job requires a good understanding of how publishing works, is bad. Surely Brighton Grace has submitted a manuscript and gotten back copyedits? One badly edited book justifies labeling an entire generation?

Perhaps the most important clue is in the first paragraph: “one thing I can always rely on is being let down by a popular or acclaimed piece of contemporary art.”

It’s hard to be a contrarian unless you’re willing to go to some lengths to find something to be outraged about.

▲

Timwi 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> the opening chunk confuses bad copy-editing — ultimately in the hands of the publisher — with bad writing.

I disagree. The article is very clear about the distinction, especially during the segue into the more substantive issues with the writing. And it does put due blame for the typos on the editors, not just the author.

	▲	BryantD 2 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, it’s not. First off, it opens with the assertion that the Typo Generation is “an emerging, unconscious literary movement and ethos that should concern us all.” Literary movement implies that the writer is the core problem. Second, he switches from typo complaints to critique of the writing itself with this line: “But even if that counterpoint has failed to persuade you, concerningly there are other glaring flaws I’d like to submit to the court.” That’s it. That’s the segue. There is no clear distinction between editor and author until much later, when he finally gets around to saying “But it is time to move on from the author and text itself.” This is literally 5,000 words into the essay. I don’t think you can call that part of the opening chunk. And then he reinforces his ill-advised rejection of editorial responsibility immediately with “Although I would argue that any truly serious and ethical writer — one who continually steps back from and revisits a text to trace its anatomy out of aesthetic passion or political or social necessity (because why else would someone be a writer?) — largely (not completely) invalidates the role of an editor.” This is stupid. Very few writers are so good they don’t need an editor. It’s also objectively clumsy writing; I’m exactly the kind of tortured writer who would put two parenthetical asides inside a digression marked by em-dashes. So I recognize this particular flaw, and I sympathize with it. I just don’t make excuses for it. And he can’t even allow his conclusion to stand. That second parenthetical, “not completely,” is simply hedging.
	▲	l33tbro 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

devindotcom 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's something there, though. This kind of copy error, along with the other criticisms in the article, suggest a kind of first draft quality. Certainly improving it is the role of the editor, but that depends on cooperation with the author.

Personally I've noticed this as well - I think hot authors are given free rein to publish again on as short of a timeline as possible. Publishing is a tough business and when you have a marketable name, you have to move quickly or lose the attention of the reading public. So they rush out the new book, or reissue an old one, in order to keep sales up. The quality suffers - if The Trees (which I have not read) was given a solid, collaborative close edit, these issues would very likely be resolved. Instead you see what is consistent with a superficial edit of a book that perhaps was not really ready to be meet the public just yet.

Last, friendly typo note for yourself: I believe you meant whose, not who's!

	▲	BryantD 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Thanks for the typo note — you are of course correct. And I agree on the timeline being rushed. If the author of the piece had reached conclusions about the state of publishing rather than coining cute terms like “Typo Generation,” I’d be much more sympathetic.

▲

2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

wredcoll 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

You've noticed the salient points.

I can always rely on being bored by an article claiming to be superior to common or popular art.

I'm sure there are legitimate criticisms to level against whichever book he was complaining about, but he failed to make any.

Typos are bad. Typos have always existed. Are there more now? Seems unlikely, but someone could do some actual work to find out.