It sounds like a contentious altercation with Fontain heavily defending himself, his status as a writer, and his craft. But the Sun Times, I'd say, most likely didn't hire Fontain for his scathing egoism but for the craft he is so confident in. This isn't about Fontain but how he handled and is handling this situation -- where is the content of character in his retaliatory posture?
A columnist of his standing doesn't need the heavy hand of a newbie editor changing the tenor and tone and impact of his writing. -
Her edits flatten the prose, wring out the heart of the column, and turn it into a shallow, uninteresting, sequence of words that no one would be interested in reading. As Truman Capote noted: "That's not writing, that's typing."
since, a cpl weeks ago, i kvetched about the low quality [IMHO] of the the TotW candidates, i have to give you props: this week's top 3 candidates [IMNSHO] were excellent. unfortunately, the voters are not aligned with my opinion of the top 3.
I agree that it would be good for John Fountain and Jennifer Fountain to reach an agreement and continue Fountain’s column.
First step - take this out of public comment with a request for each person to meet in private and seek a solution. I do not think outside opinions will do any good.
Next step - emphasize we need good editors and good writers to work together to continue high quality columns in a world that is seeing print media disappear.
I already sent an email, but the "matriarchal" crack annoyed me. Perhaps Mr. Fountain has as big a problem with women as Ms. Ko is alleged to have with Black men.
Wow, these edits are so heavy I can't help but think somebody is playing "there's-a-new-sheriff-in-town" with Fountain's piece. Some of the copy-tightening is justifiable, but the wholesale reordering of paragraphs seems capricious. The first proposed revision absolutely sucks the life out of the column, and the second, while graciously/grudgingly giving Fountain his lede back, isn't much better.
Eric, you'd tell me if I ever Kho'd your column, right? Interesting situation. Over a couple decades of column-editing, I thought of my role as someone who learned a writer's voice and made sure he or she was conveying the points they intended to make without stepping on landmines along the way. Anything beyond basic edits would always involve a conversation with the writer, not a delivery of a wholesale rewrite and restructuring. Good lord. But something else must be afoot with this situation... why is an executive editor line editing a column in the first place? In any case, it's too bad this has become - yet another - internal workplace squabble tossed into the public sphere and tinged with accusations of racism, but here we are.
For the record, no. Lara edited my column for, what, six years? More? With great skill and tact and wisdom. Any good writer/editor relationship is built on trust that requires a lot of interaction. Obviously that relationship, that trust, was not built up here. Also for the record, I didn't toss this imbroglio into the public sphere, Fountain and the Crusader did.
When I saw the fusion headline in the news, I did a little eye roll and chuckle. The milestone claimed has no importance; the technology used is completely inappropriate for industrial use.
I carefully follow the news about fusion, and, infinitely more exciting and hopeful to me, nuclear fission. We can have zero-carbon, safe, and cost-effective nuclear power now, but the western world is largely turning its back on it. See Germany.
As a Side Note, scientific journalism is not worth reading, mainly. The only source I find really knowledgeable and with a perspective on what is truly progress, is the online journal Quanta. It’s a step up from what Scientific American used to be.
The coverage noted that we're a long way off from practical use of fusion, but is it not a breakthrough that researchers have finally -- after so many fruitless years -- produced an energy "profit," if you will, or at least break-even? Are the remaining obstacles far harder than that in your view? (I don't know. I'm sympathetic generally with cold water on hot ideas that somehow manage to elide rather obvious looming obstacles that seem insurmountable once you appreciate them, as with truly self-driving cars, for example, so I'd welcome your response.)
I agree that more fission now would be good. The problems are waste and potential disasters. The waste is not that much, when you look at it, and disaster potential, given that we're not talking about Chernobyl-style plants, seem not so disastrous and worth the risks. The China Syndrome is a great movie, but we have definitely internalized far too much fear of nuclear power (which such places as, say, here, or France, have been relying on for decades).
The biggest obstacle in my opinion is that the fusion reaction they are creating is explosive and very brief. Fission, and also fusion in the Sun, are very slow chain reactions that continuously put out a modest amount of heat per volume, which can be sustained in a vessel. Explosive fusion reactions seem much harder to extract energy from.
If I were editing Fountain's largely persuasive rejoinder, I would nix the odd word choice "matriarchal," which, unless I'm missing something, suggests resentment of a woman boss, as well as the implicit charge -- which doesn't ring true on the facts and allegations we have -- that he was singled out for a Kho-ing because he's black.
If I were editing Kho's response, I would suggest a rewrite that doesn't sound like bullshit.
It sounds like a contentious altercation with Fontain heavily defending himself, his status as a writer, and his craft. But the Sun Times, I'd say, most likely didn't hire Fontain for his scathing egoism but for the craft he is so confident in. This isn't about Fontain but how he handled and is handling this situation -- where is the content of character in his retaliatory posture?
A columnist of his standing doesn't need the heavy hand of a newbie editor changing the tenor and tone and impact of his writing. -
Her edits flatten the prose, wring out the heart of the column, and turn it into a shallow, uninteresting, sequence of words that no one would be interested in reading. As Truman Capote noted: "That's not writing, that's typing."
Wow! I'm not an award winning columnist and I'd be insulted with the amount of editing in either version.
since, a cpl weeks ago, i kvetched about the low quality [IMHO] of the the TotW candidates, i have to give you props: this week's top 3 candidates [IMNSHO] were excellent. unfortunately, the voters are not aligned with my opinion of the top 3.
A good crop of Tweets this week, I agree.
I agree that it would be good for John Fountain and Jennifer Fountain to reach an agreement and continue Fountain’s column.
First step - take this out of public comment with a request for each person to meet in private and seek a solution. I do not think outside opinions will do any good.
Next step - emphasize we need good editors and good writers to work together to continue high quality columns in a world that is seeing print media disappear.
I agree with Peter Zackrison's suggestions, especially the first step.
I already sent an email, but the "matriarchal" crack annoyed me. Perhaps Mr. Fountain has as big a problem with women as Ms. Ko is alleged to have with Black men.
Wow, these edits are so heavy I can't help but think somebody is playing "there's-a-new-sheriff-in-town" with Fountain's piece. Some of the copy-tightening is justifiable, but the wholesale reordering of paragraphs seems capricious. The first proposed revision absolutely sucks the life out of the column, and the second, while graciously/grudgingly giving Fountain his lede back, isn't much better.
Eric, you'd tell me if I ever Kho'd your column, right? Interesting situation. Over a couple decades of column-editing, I thought of my role as someone who learned a writer's voice and made sure he or she was conveying the points they intended to make without stepping on landmines along the way. Anything beyond basic edits would always involve a conversation with the writer, not a delivery of a wholesale rewrite and restructuring. Good lord. But something else must be afoot with this situation... why is an executive editor line editing a column in the first place? In any case, it's too bad this has become - yet another - internal workplace squabble tossed into the public sphere and tinged with accusations of racism, but here we are.
For the record, no. Lara edited my column for, what, six years? More? With great skill and tact and wisdom. Any good writer/editor relationship is built on trust that requires a lot of interaction. Obviously that relationship, that trust, was not built up here. Also for the record, I didn't toss this imbroglio into the public sphere, Fountain and the Crusader did.
When I saw the fusion headline in the news, I did a little eye roll and chuckle. The milestone claimed has no importance; the technology used is completely inappropriate for industrial use.
I carefully follow the news about fusion, and, infinitely more exciting and hopeful to me, nuclear fission. We can have zero-carbon, safe, and cost-effective nuclear power now, but the western world is largely turning its back on it. See Germany.
As a Side Note, scientific journalism is not worth reading, mainly. The only source I find really knowledgeable and with a perspective on what is truly progress, is the online journal Quanta. It’s a step up from what Scientific American used to be.
The coverage noted that we're a long way off from practical use of fusion, but is it not a breakthrough that researchers have finally -- after so many fruitless years -- produced an energy "profit," if you will, or at least break-even? Are the remaining obstacles far harder than that in your view? (I don't know. I'm sympathetic generally with cold water on hot ideas that somehow manage to elide rather obvious looming obstacles that seem insurmountable once you appreciate them, as with truly self-driving cars, for example, so I'd welcome your response.)
I agree that more fission now would be good. The problems are waste and potential disasters. The waste is not that much, when you look at it, and disaster potential, given that we're not talking about Chernobyl-style plants, seem not so disastrous and worth the risks. The China Syndrome is a great movie, but we have definitely internalized far too much fear of nuclear power (which such places as, say, here, or France, have been relying on for decades).
The biggest obstacle in my opinion is that the fusion reaction they are creating is explosive and very brief. Fission, and also fusion in the Sun, are very slow chain reactions that continuously put out a modest amount of heat per volume, which can be sustained in a vessel. Explosive fusion reactions seem much harder to extract energy from.
If I were editing Fountain's largely persuasive rejoinder, I would nix the odd word choice "matriarchal," which, unless I'm missing something, suggests resentment of a woman boss, as well as the implicit charge -- which doesn't ring true on the facts and allegations we have -- that he was singled out for a Kho-ing because he's black.
If I were editing Kho's response, I would suggest a rewrite that doesn't sound like bullshit.