dragonfly editorial

Archive for 2007

When Editors Need Editors

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, June 13th, 2007

Correspondent T.E.L. kindly writes to tell me that there’s a typo on my website. How can this be? A typo on the website of a copyeditor?

It was too true. In a blog post, I had mentioned that computer systems should be backed up “several times as day” — instead of “several times a day.”

It wasn’t the most egregious typo in the world, but it was a typo, nonetheless. And it serves as a reminder that even editors need editors — when they’re working as writers. Because even if you’re an editorial perfectionist, when you’re writing, it’s very hard to see mistakes in your own copy. You know what each word is supposed to be, and that’s what your eyes see: what the word should be, not necessarily what it is.

It is for this reason that I’ve also written of individuals using the Internet to “exchange extremely large flies.” The response from another great editor reading my copy? (1) That’s gross; and (2) I think you mean files.

Thanks, T.E.L, and E.F., for keeping me on my toes.

Posted in Editorial process, Typos | no comments »

June Issue of Business 2.0 Deleted Before Going to Print

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, May 4th, 2007

Oh, goodness. Husband has just sent me this reminder of why writers, editors, designers — well, everyone — must have a system in place for backing up files regularly (ideally, automatically).

Dragonfly uses a company called Data Deposit Box, which automatically backs up our active work area several times a day to a web-based server. It costs us less than $10 per month (costs are based on number of GB that need to be backed up).

I hope that wasn’t some sort of company secret I wasn’t supposed to share.

Posted in Technology and communications | no comments »

Pronunciation of “forte”

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, May 4th, 2007

Friends of mine may know about the infamous editor who once “corrected” me during a job interview–when I was doing the interviewing, mind you–on my pronunciation of the word forte. I pronounced it FOR-tay, only to have said editor, after a few minutes of conversation, mention that “the word should actually be pronounced FORT, because it’s actually a French word.”

Well, needless to say, this editor quickly revealed himself to be a COMPLETE PSYCHO for many other non-linguistic reasons, but I never quite got over his smart-arse comment.

Until today, when I had my revenge. Below, please read the words of My Personal Hero, Bryan Garner, on the correct pronunciation of the word. (BTW, I get tidbits like these daily by subscribing to Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day, sent out by Oxford.)

forte (= a person’s strong point) has long been thought to be preferably pronounced with one syllable, like “fort.” That’s because the word is originally French (in which “fort” means “strong,” corruptly made with a feminine “-e” suffix) and is so pronounced. But most speakers of American English use the two-syllable version (/FOR-tay/), probably under the influence of the Italian “forte,” a two-syllable word referring to a musical notation to play loudly. Though it might have been nice to keep the two words separate in pronunciation, that hasn’t happened — and the two-syllable version can no longer be condemned. What can be condemned is the pretentious pronunciation /for-TAY/ and the occasional use of an acute accent on the “-e.”

Take that, creepy editor from the past. Take that!

Posted in English usage | no comments »

Upcoming workshop: Open or Strict Editorial Style?

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 27th, 2007

I’ve never attended a workshop put on by McMurry — publishers of the Copy Editor newsletter — so I can’t say whether their upcoming conference will be good or not. I can say that the topic they promise to address — the dilemmas presented by various types of editorial style, be they “open” or “strict” — is certainly a valid one, and one that all copyeditors face in one form or another.

Posted in Editorial style | no comments »

New York Public Library: Love = Unhappiness and Death?

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 20th, 2007

I must pause in my editing this morning to ask an important question. Are the people at the New York Public Library crazy? Reuters reports that the NYPL has just released a list of its “10 greatest love stories of all time.” Although I completely agree that “Instead of trying to glean wisdom from Britney’s (Spears) latest meltdown,” it’s better to turn to “stories that have stood the test of time,” I must question NYPL’s choices.

  • Wuthering Heights - greatest love story of all time? Perhaps the gloomiest and most sadistic one!
  • Anna Karenina - OMG completely depressing. Ends in regret and death.
  • Romeo and Juliet - Shakespeare, I love ya - but the title characters both die!
  • Dangerous Liaisons - The principal characters end up full of regret, having ruined their lives and thrown away their chance at happiness.
  • The Hunchback of Notre Dame - Mother sends her own daughter to the gallows. Le Hunchback commits suicide. All hopes of love are foiled.
  • Doctor Zhivago - Mistakes, betrayal, and death.
  • Casablanca - Well, I suppose I agree that this is perhaps the greatest love story on film - but the main peeps don’t get together in this one either.

What gives, NYPL? And don’t even get me started on the fact that Jane Eyre does not make their list.

July 23, 2007 Update

Correspondent D.C. recently read this blog entry and offered her two cents on NYPL’s list.

While I’m with you and prefer a neat, tidy, happily ever after kind of story, I may be able to shed some light on the New York Public Library’s choices:

One, it’s New York: the land of high crime and perpetual psychotherapy.

Two, there is something powerful and nostalgic about thwarted love that grips our very souls. Take Romeo and Juliet, for example, whose love was so immense they could not fathom to be apart in this world and chose union in the afterlife. In the era of divorce and sketchy relationships, this kind of devotion seems to provide an almost admirable contrast. Would it not have been more tragic for them to live and suffer a lifetime of being apart? In my screenwriting class, the instructor mentioned that conflict is what keeps the story going. Sometimes the protagonists do not always meet their goal, but if they are ennobled in the effort, the story can pack a powerful punch.

Perhaps this is what the library was going after. Perhaps I’m just a hopeless romantic. Perhaps I should sign off and get back to work before I get fired before I can quit …

We say: Don’t get back to work, D.C.! Keep sending us your insights …

Posted in Language and literature, Publishing | no comments »

Rampant Creativity 2: Bruce Lee

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 15th, 2007

In this periodic series of posts, the writers and editors here at Dragonfly bow their heads in honor of our wonderful designers — and the rampant creativity that inspires them.

Man paints giant Bruce Lee mural using only the blades of his hands and a good deal of black paint. What else is there to say?

Video courtesy of La YouTube.

Posted in Creativity | no comments »

The dilemma of social media

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 13th, 2007

David Esrati at the Next Wave is a big proponent of companies’ participating actively in social media — having blogs on their websites, for example, as a way of increasing their site content and therefore the value of their site, and the amount of traffic the site brings in. Here are some excerpts from a comment I wrote in response to one of David’s recent posts — my concern is the difficulty of knowing how to get a client involved in social media — when they may not even have a website yet.

These are difficult times we live in.

And I’m not talking about the threat of terrorism. I’m talking about the fact that there are multiple levels of knowledge and competence existent right now regarding website creation and maintenance.

You’ve got your businesses - some mom-and-pops, some multi-million dollar companies - who don’t have websites and don’t see a need to.

You’ve got your businesses that DO have websites — but ones that look like they were built in 1995. That perhaps were built in 1995, and haven’t changed since.

Then you’ve got your uber-professional websites. These may have a gorgeous look and feel - contain tens or hundreds of pages - and be built with the most sophisticated code yet typed out by a geek. Yet they may still suck, we know now, in terms of searchability - if they’re not dynamic (that is, having their content regularly updated) and if they don’t actively engage customers in conversations (i.e., provide customers some sort of participative venue, such as a place to blog or a place to write product reviews).

As communicators, creatives, and marketing types, how do we know where to wade into this mess? How do we effectively talk to customers whose knowledge ranges from a ton to none? How do we help individuals with nary a website understand that (a) they gotta get one, (b)they’ve got to disregard the little that they THOUGHT they knew about what a website should look like, and (b) they’ve got to jump over traditional websites and dive feet first into the world of Web 2.0?

I know we can’t start by scorning individuals or companies who haven’t fully incorporated social media into their communications strategy. Let’s face it - few have. (Even the biggies, like Coke.) And effectively telling folks that they’re clueless because they don’t have a cutting-edge website - I would argue - just makes them more resistant to building one.

Which is unfortunate. Because social media is real. And companies need, rather desperately, to know how to respond to it, and create websites that TAKE ADVANTAGE of social media rather than being crushed by it. Companies need know how to create interact websites, rather than static ones. How to engage in conversations with their customers, rather than letting customers dish them left and right.

The world of user-generated content - and that includes everything from people writing blogs and wikis, joining social networking sites, or posting photos or videos to Flikr and YouTube — ain’t going away. In fact, all evidence shows that social media usage is increasing - rapidly - across all age groups and both genders. (See http://www.boozallen.com/capabilities/Industries/industries_article/26060199?lpid=660614), for example.)

If it was ever unclear before, it’s crystal clear now that social media indeed can’t be ignored. Companies - and ad agencies, PR firms, and corporate communicators - who do so, do so at their own peril.

Posted in Social media / Web 2.0, Technology and communications | no comments »

Rampant Creativy 1: Peeps Diaorama

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 9th, 2007

In this periodic series of posts, the writers and editors here at Dragonfly bow their heads in honor of our wonderful designers — and the rampant creativity that inspires them.

Ye who call yourself creative, bow down before the regular Joes (and designers) who submitted entries to the Washington Post’s first-ever Peeps Diorama Contest.

View the slideshow here.

Posted in Creativity | no comments »

Oh, jargon, my jargon …

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 5th, 2007

Morgana at Best Room in the House forwards to me today a list of some of the world’s most annoying jargon. Maybe you’ve already had it e-mailed to you. If not, here ’tis, for your reading pleasure.

  • Core of my being — If you run across this in written form, just click the back button or close the book. If you actually hear the phrase spoken aloud, you need to exit the coffeeshop you’re in immediately and make sure the woman wearing the Sylvia Plath tee isn’t following you.
  • Think outside the box — If you can’t think of another phrase to use, you should be stuffed in a box.
  • Quantum leap — Unless you’re a physicist, avoid the word quantum, period.
  • Paradigm shift — Finding a new way to shaft the consumer is not a paradigm shift. That’s business as usual. If you actually encounter a paradigm shift, feel free to use the term.
  • Granular — If someone says a report needs to be more granular, don’t hesitate, just kick them in the balls. Granular is a word used by corporate weenies because they think it makes them sound more intelligent.
  • Confidence is high — If you’ve ever used that in a sentence, you were high.
  • Manage expectations — What this really means is, “we don’t know if this will work, so let’s make sure that if we fail, we can say that we expected this might fail.” Just say what you mean. Let people manage their own expectations.
  • Credibility gap — Political speak for calling a group a bunch of goddamn liars.
  • Less than stellar — As in, “Keanu Reeves’ less-than-stellar performance in, well, everything he’s ever been in.” Just say his performance sucked.
  • Critical mass — Again, unless you’re a physicist, stay away from their lingo.
  • Irregardless — WTF? I still don’t know what that non-word is intended to mean. Just don’t use it.

In any case, I needn’t tell you that your writing shouldn’t include any of these tired old cliches.

Posted in Clear writing, English usage | 1 comment »

The Power of Storytelling

Posted by: Samantha Enslen, president and senior editor, April 4th, 2007

If you’re a writer, take five minutes today to listen to this discussion by Ira Glass, NPR correspondent and host of my personal favorite radio show of all time, This American Life. Glass discusses the power of storytelling in capturing peoples’ interest — even in fairly boring material.

Publications coach Daphne Gray-Grant, in her weekly newsletter, Power Writing, summarizes Glass’s points thusly:

Stories and anecdotes are central to interesting writing because no matter how boring the material, the momentum of the form will carry the reader/listener along. (Glass compares hearing or reading an anecdote to being on a train.)

Interesting stories, by themselves, are not enough. They must have a point. Glass calls this the “moment of reflection.” This is the big payoff for the reader or listener. It’s when the writer shows the connection between the story that grabbed your interest and the idea that just might change your life.

Gray-Grant asks her readers this: “This week as you’re writing, ask yourself: Are you telling enough stories? And are you connecting the dots for your reader?”

Are you?

Posted in Clear writing | no comments »

What do our clients think?

Press Releases

view archives

Latest Comments

  • Samantha: Great concept … I love the idea of creating a new life...
  • Tracy Salcedo-Chourre: I love the ellipses. It either makes you look...
  • Greg H: What a truly fabulous blog post! Who would imagine those simple,...