The Volokh Conspiracy
[Eugene Volokh, March 30, 2007 at 10:56am] Trackbacks
Editing Tip for Law Students

that I just got from Jonathan Todres, who teaches in the NYU legal writing program: When you're editing someone else's work -- for instance, if you're a student who's required to edit a classmate's paper, or a law review editor editing a faculty member's work -- ask yourself, "What have I learned about my own paper from editing this other paper?"

As with all attempts to see the flaws in one's own work, this isn't easy to do well. But it's good to try. For instance, if you see some arguments that were meant to be rhetorically flowery but come across to the reader (you) as mere bloviation, ask yourself: Is there similar rhetoric in my article that I like but other readers may be turned off by? If the sarcasm in the article you're reading comes across as stridency or excessive combativeness, ask yourself whether your work suffers from the same problem. If you're seeing lots of redundancy or needless abstraction, look over your own work with an eye towards finding the same problems.

Bruce:
On a related point, this is why it's good to re-read your work days or weeks later, if you have the luxury of time, because it's easier to put yourself in the frame of mind that you are reading someone else's work -- and your comments tend to be a lot harsher, and the editing more ruthless. Something that struck you as great at the time may now just seem clumsy, confusing, or unnecessary.
3.30.2007 12:12pm
Andrew Solomon (mail):
Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but the hardest person to edit is yourself. When you write something, you write it as best you can at that moment in time. You don’t intentionally write crappy, and sometimes ungrammatical, sentences. You don’t intentionally write sentences that will annoy readers because they are sarcastic, strident, or excessively combative. You don’t intentionally write sentences (or paragraphs) with redundancies or needless abstractions. You don’t intentionally write clumsily, and in a confusing manner by including unnecessary stuff. So, it is very important to be ruthless when editing your own work. The best method, as has been suggested, is to pretend that it’s someone else’s work. Take off your writer’s hat and put on your reader’s shoes – this reader doesn’t know what the writer was trying to convey, and probably doesn’t possess the same familiarity with the subject matter as the writer. This reader will objectively analyze the writing without any preconceptions about the writer’s intent or point. When editing your own work, you must adopt this hypothetical reader’s mindset and point of view. It’s hard to do, but not impossible.
3.30.2007 1:21pm
Mr_Thorne (mail) (www):
What's that old saying about only a fool would represent himself in court?

Ditto for the attorney who would edit his own work.

Every writer needs an editor. Too bad for those attorneys who are so proud of their work that they can't see the value in an extra set of trained eyes.
3.30.2007 2:08pm
fsdaga (mail):
好狗网 博美 藏獒 吉娃娃 中国冠毛犬 日本仲 迷你品 蝴蝶犬 北京犬 博美 贵宾犬 八哥犬 西施犬 玛尔济斯 约克夏梗 丝毛梗 艾芬品 澳洲牧牛犬 古代长须牧羊犬 比利时牧羊犬 德国牧羊犬 喜乐蒂牧羊犬 边境牧羊犬 柯利牧羊犬 好狗论坛 狗的种类 狗狗的饲养 狗狗的生育繁殖 狗的美容护理 宠物狗的训练 狗的医疗 玩赏犬 牧羊犬 工作犬 狩猎犬 运动犬 非运动犬 梗犬类 大白熊犬 斗牛马士提夫犬 秋田犬 大丹犬 马士提夫犬 西伯利亚雪橇犬 哈士奇 腊肠犬 比格犬 灵缇 拉布拉多寻回犬 松狮狗 沙皮狗 美国爱斯基摩犬 斑点狗 英国斗牛犬 波士顿梗 牛头梗 猎狐梗 罗威士梗
3.31.2007 3:20am
Stash:
Like anything else, one's editing sense improves with practice. So I would agree with Mr. Todres that editing others' work teaches valuable lessons about editing one's own. I disagree with him about how to apply those lessons. The editing process does not consist of looking for particular flaws or drawing parallels to your own work. Rather, it involves reacting as a reader. Language which is overblown or too sarcastic in one context may be persuasive in another. (Of course, there is also plain bad writing.) As others point out, what counts is being able to distance yourself sufficiently to read your own work as if it was someone else's. In the end, however, there is no substitute for an editor. I would never think of filing a brief without having at least one person read it first. Ideally, I would like at least two: one who is familiar with the case, and one who is not.
3.31.2007 7:28am
Mr_Thorne (mail) (www):
That's a great idea, having two people review a brief, including one not familiar with the matter.

This sort of collaboration is facilitated by the use of standard proofreader's marks. That's what editors use.

Here's a pretty good listing of the marks:

http://www.espressographics.com/files/proofread.pdf
3.31.2007 2:09pm
Stash:
Mr_Thorne

I have found that the unfamiliar person is most valuable, especially in long-running litigation. I recently finished litigating a case for 9 years, and after a few years, you begin to talk in short-hand with colleagues, your opponents and in depositions. You cannot fall into this in briefs. We went through two judges and three magistrates. Someone without any depth of knowledge has to be able to understand what you are saying.

The proof-reading marks really take me back. Back in the day, I worked in publishing as both a legal and literary editor. I also taught brief-writing and poetry at one time. I used those marks all the time. Heck, my mother was a professional proof-reader and used to mark up my school papers with them. But I haven't seen them for years, because revisions and editing are done primarily by the redline function of word-processing programs. Very rarely do I see handwritten proof-reading marks. I expect they are still used in publishing, though I wonder if it isn't done with a computer.
3.31.2007 4:43pm

PicoSearch
Help