Podcasts, videos, books and tweets of the week 6

Its been a special week of bad Twitter posts

But this is a good if slightly random one.

Budd of the week

Dustin

I need this on the Genocide Convention

A conversation with Boyd van Dijk, currently a McKenzie Fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia, about his new book, Preparing for War: The Making of the Geneva Conventions. We discuss some of the myths surrounding the history of the conventions, as well as the tensions and conflicts not just between parties to the negotiations, but also within delegations, caused by conflicting interests, values, and paradoxes within their positions. We dig into the weeds of some of the different aspects of the negotiations, and discuss why this history should matter to how we think about and understand the operation of the conventions today. A fascinating conversation!

Dustin

Soothing after a difficult week

Dustin

A word can change a theme

The writer’s lot can be miserable at times, working against tight, occasionally shifting deadlines. It’s far from the glorified image of a hack working in a poorly lit room chain-smoking. Still, it is closer to reality than the carefully cultivated Hollywood image of fresh-faced and vigorous young authors striving to tell their truth.

Whilst the darkened room scenario is, in this case, purely theoretical, it can signify the crushing pressure a writer feels. The current world situation doesn’t lend itself to cheering stories of dogs saving the world. More often than not, they are stories of the world going to the dogs.

One of the most crushing battles for any creative endeavour is that of the critic. Whilst Joe Bloggs knowledge of special weapon deployment, agronomy and international social politics will never cease to amaze, it is a battle far closer to home that can be more defeating. That of the editor.

I’m exceptionally lucky. I work with some of the best editors in the business. Folk who know their stuff, inside and out. Unfortunately, a good friend was not so lucky this week. What happened highlighted several things for me; the key point being insist on an editor who knows the topic, its subtle nuances, and the importance and impact of adding or removing a word.

We’re all grown up enough to recognise the importance of writing styles, I’m an Economist/Guardian style sort of chap. We’re also fully capable of editing our own work at least once before sending it, to ensure we’re in word count, and most importantly, we recognise the vital inclusion of a word and how it affects the reader. French essayist Barthes wrote reams about the importance of language and message.

Some of us, as undergraduates, struggled with his essays, and the subtleties of the messages. Many, myself included, only really understood their worth after revisiting Barthes a decade later as more experienced writers. We take it for granted that the message is the whole, the sign and signifier working to produce the signified (helped a little by Berger). We know that by removing a single word, whose nuance may seem innocuous to the casual observer, can completely change the direction of the overall message.

We also notice a change, almost instinctively, because we are writing as expert witnesses. It’s our trade. So we expect editorial teams to appreciate our tone of the language and approach the subject matter with the same professionalism and understanding we took to writing it. After all, you wouldn’t get a chef to plumb your bathroom. Yet I’m continually surprised by the use of no specialist editors being let loose on exceptionally sensitive works.

My friend experienced some very clumsy editing recently. The clumsy removal of a single word completely changed a solid and well-considered assessment. It marred, for my friend, his well-argued paper. An act of editorial vandalism. Such acts, without professional justification, must be considered a challenge to an author’s authority and knowledge. A word is never just a word. It links the message; it may even convey an accurate and astute observation of an entire political system in three or four syllables. It is proof of how powerful words are.

Maybe I’m spoiled by my publisher. They know me; they know my writing style and are knowledgeable and sympathetic to my work. But surely this shouldn’t be the exception. It should be the norm. Especially when dealing with sensitive subjects written by knowledgeable authors.

Like I said; writing is never easy.

Ben

Thanks for reading Fallout! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support our work.

Subscriptions are hugely important for us.