Apologetics

I was recently talking to Jeff Larche, a colleague I met through my wife, Ashley, about the state of business and the publishing industry - and also of editing. He said something to me that I took rather kindly as a compliment (and I'm sure that's what he intended by it, too). He told me that he was glad that I wasn't an apologist.

What? You don't apologize? That's terrible! No, that's not what I mean (and the following definition isn't meant as an insult).

Wiktionary defines apologetics as:

apologetic (comparative more apologetic, superlative most apologetic)

Defending by words or arguments; said or written in defense, or by way of apology; regretfully excusing; as, an apologetic essay.

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition for the second opinion.

So what don't I defend? Writing & editing. More specifically, I don't defend writers and editors who function professionally with less than competent skill. I never have. Salman Rushdie speaks of an abundance of competency in the writing world - and there is - with a lack of true grace.

I feel that everyone - or at least most people - have the ability to learn how to write or edit with competency with even the basics of language knowledge. I don't feel, however, that everyone is meant to be a writer or an editor. Those are skills that take a great deal of time to hone and perfect and even over time we must continue to study and change our way of thinking. Apologizing for the state of bad writing or editing perpetuates it, and we have incidents where bad writers keep writing and bad editors feel like they can ridicule them for it. Bad writing needs to be taught out of people not excised. Treating it like a demon makes writers get defensive and editors get red in the face.

Writing and editing alike take a certain innate talent. Not everyone can be a writer (or editor), but a lot of people can perform very competently without needing to feel like they're *bad*.