my life as a proofreader

[gurdonark]

I agonize sometimes when I read things that I write, both non-LiveJournal and LiveJournal, because sometimes my writing betrays so many of the assumptions I make, including some of my more judgmental notions. I think that in an earlier phase of my LiveJournal, I made a more conscious effort to proofread out assertions, for fear they would seem judgmental. I have strong opinions, and really don't mind that I have strong opinions. But I do get concerned in all my writing about the silent sentences hidden within the sentences I write, like so many silent "e"'s.

When I write a complex legal brief, I must set forth the basic rules that apply to the issues under consideration.
Then I must apply the facts at hand to those issues, arguing that the facts more closely match law which favors my client, and not law which favors my opponent's client.
But even in the most elaborate briefs, both sides assume that courts decide cases based on precedent, that we have a system of common laws and statutes, and that a certain stylized procedure applies to the resolution of issues.

In "real life", though, we start from so many different assumptions, and we start from societal backgrounds which imbue us with so many cultural assumptions. A chance phrase can betray an unintended set of assumptions which the author either makes or keys into to make a point.
It's a problem of all communications--we are all prisoners of our own assumptions, but also of a stream of societal assumptions which we may not hold, but which we cannot speak without utilizing them. I do not believe that the solution to this is that odd academic "political correctness", which itself carries so much baggage that it is a largely unworkable mode of speech (the "anti-political-correctness" movement, if anything, is more laden with assumptions I reject). But I do go to sleep sometimes, conscious of something I wrote that might have been more precisely written, and avoided the baggage of an entire set of assumptions.

Comments

[uscwriter.livejournal.com]

Your observation is true to me, as well. I am, by nature or nurture, an opinionated person. And usually, if someone asks my opinion, I tell it. However, as a reporter, I had to learn to push as much of that as I could aside to only report what I could prove to be true. Very hard! Now, I try to read the facts from news- and can see when judgements or opinions are being presented, even probably unconsciously to the person writing. So much of the news is "bought," if you will, by those wishing to sway it.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I envy you that reporter experience, just a bit. I'd love to have lived "in these issues" day to day.

[mesawyou.livejournal.com]

hee hee. yeah that's the hard thing about jury picking. everybody has assumptions. Half of picking a jury is to figure out what they are and use them to your advantage.

*giggles*

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

This is also true, by the way, of a trial to the court--you just don't pick the judge.

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

Very thought provoking.

Like you, I think that the more I'm aware of my assumptions and prejudices, the more accurately I'll be able to express myself. I'm also careful, at least in my formal writing, to be inclusive where necessary.

A chance phrase can betray an unintended set of assumptions which the author either makes or keys into to make a point.

A friend of mine once wrote a story about being a cashier in a busy downtown Minneapolis bookstore/newsstand. In it, he used the phrase "homosexuals who caressed my palm as they they took their change." Some folks objected to that as sexist, and said it should be taken out. My friend rejected that idea; he thought it wasn't sexist. My own opinion was that it was sexist, AND said something important about the character, and should be left in.

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Yes. While I dislike when I hear AM radio hosts use PC as some bludgeon to attack any request to improve our language, I also dislike the over-PC approach some folks apply. I guess on free speech I'm a bit radically left, and radically against censorship.

you're innocent until proven guilty

[nancyjane.livejournal.com]

based on available evidence, i can't imagine anyone accusing you of insensitivity with any foundation.

oversights occur but i see you conscientiously, thoughtfully, applying your words to the page. of course you're right all our views are colored by our experiences, beliefs, skills. i tend to think that is also what makes them valid, and of value, if taken in proper context.

further abstracting an original expression tends to distort the native context, and any viewpoint can be "invalidated" in this way (but is not necessarily.) i think what's most important, in personal expressions, in thinking critically about one's own prejudices, biases, is to examine the validity of the context, the premise, from which he or she proceeded. if it's truly geniune, mindful, and rings true to the person's spirit, how can it be wrong? i really believe in the goodness of people, and that ugly prejudices proceed from individual desires to distort one's geniune feelings via context, for example, assigning real feelings to the wrong context, for any number of reasons. but i don't think geniune feelings should be held to any exterior measure, or criticism. understanding the context in which those feelings arose, may help any healing necessary needed by both the author and the recipient(s) of a shared expression. beyond that, maybe i'm blinded by optimism but i really can't see the 'correctness' of political correctness.

of course, knowing the vernacular of the day, is a function of vocabulary, the power of words and choosing the right ones to accurately express ideas is an enviable and handy skill, so awareness has its advantages... i know you'll use it for go

Re: you're innocent until proven guilty

[nancyjane.livejournal.com]

amend the last sentence:

i know you'll use it for good !

Re: you're innocent until proven guilty

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

Love the Jetsons icon.

This was a very thoughtful reply. I really appreciate it.

Re: you're innocent until proven guilty

[nancyjane.livejournal.com]

thanks ! btw, i didn't know you had a website. i saw mention of it in some comments... checked it out, i like !! there used to be a chef on tv who would say, very simple, very easy, while serving up some of the best stuff. this is the feeling i got from your site and comments. i also enjoyed reading your advice to prospective law students.

i think it's really great of you to share your experience and critical thought about law school and the market for potential lawyers. very good, very nice.

[serendipoz.livejournal.com]

I thought you'd be talking about editing words, rather than attitudes, ... but I've been wrong before.

In personal writing - and I think of lj as personal space - I expect people to have visible ideas and feelings. I'm much more inclined to give someone leaway if they have emotions in their writing (even when I disagree with the emotions) than I would if their writing comes across with little to give them depth.

I have wondered, for instance, at people who require their politicians to never have smoked grass, or had a child out of wedlock, or made a mistake and lived with the consequences. How can I expect them to know how to live the consequences of bad decisions successfully?

I like the spice of a wide variety of people's opinions and ideas. (Though I do wonder at another lj user calling me 'fascinating' - laughing in the cube.)

Thank you for providing your spice to my mixture!

[gurdonark.livejournal.com]

I know just what you mean. Thanks for the comment. I recognize that the use of "proofreader" is itself a "typo", but at least it was a "typo" on purpose. I'm always amused by the litmus tests applied to folks' past, on the left, on the right, and in the center :).

I don't think I've ever been called fascinating by anyone who didn't wish to sell me something.