For The Benefit of Mister Thorne

I recurring refrain at Simple Justice is that I wish I had an editor.  My writing here is frequently filled with typos, missing words, mixed tenses and metaphors and the improper use of indefinite articles. Yes, I realize it. No, I'm not proud of it.

Some have suggested that sloppy writing here must be a reflection of my legal work.  It's not.  Like most lawyers, I labor over my briefs and motions.  My blawg posts, on the other hand, are cranked out with some alacrity.  They are merely stream of consciousness musings.  They were never intended to be anything more, even though others might have difficulty accepting this proposition because they spend a great deal of time writing, proofing, editing, rewriting and hand-wringing over their posts.  I don't begrudge others their way, and refuse to care if they begrudge me mine.

But two things happened in the past few days to make me give this some greater thought than usual.  The first was a very kind email from Ed Adams, editor of the ABA Journal, to whom I haven't been overly kind recently with my critique of Legal Rebels.  Ed was thoughtful enough to send me an email noting some errors in one of my posts, together with appropriate corrections.  He qualified his email in the hope that I wouldn't be offended by his taking such liberties.  Quite the contrary. I very much appreciated his help, as I have with others who have similarly noted mistakes in my posts.

You see, it's not that I want my posts to have typos, grammatical errors or, worse still, missing words.  Indeed, I am frequently interrupted during my brief writing stints by the demands of life, and I return to the keyboard and mindlessly leave a blank where a word should be.  It makes me cringe later when it's brought to my attention. 

It's not that I don't care about the editing deficits, but that I can't edit myself. I rarely read anything I've written here.  I write it. I spellcheck it. I post it.  Aside from my superhuman typing speed, this is how I manage to post as much as I do.  No time wasted agonizing over content or the mundane details of language.  Given my process, my posts are remarkably error free.

But one occasional reader, Mister Thorne, who I've previously discussed here and who is an editor of lawyers, makes me feel guilty for my slovenly ways.  It's not that he tries to do so, as much as knowing that he stops by and obviously sees my faults with his critical eye.  This struck home in the comments to his post yesterday.

Responses to “Blawgs — Anyone can have one; everyone can’t”

  1. Bob Ambrogi Says:
    18 October 2009 at 16:10

    How did an astute editor such as you let Greenfield get away with “chafe”?

  2. Thorne Says:
    18 October 2009 at 17:17

    I don’t have enuf red ink to keep up with Greenfield!

I suspect that Thorne's retort was written jokingly.  I suspect that Ambrogi's comment was not.  He's certainly correct that I misspelled chaff, a mistake that I remedied as soon as I read the comment, but Bob neither sent me an email nor left me a comment pointing out the error.  Instead, he took it to Thorne to point out my error.

Bob Ambrogi is both lawyer and chronicler of the blawgosphere, writing a Legal Blog Watch column on alternate days, previously with Carolyn Elefant and now with Bruce Carton.  Both Carolyn and Bruce appear to keep a keen eye on a broad spectrum of the blawgosphere.  Bob seems to focus a much narrower group, largely ignoring criminal law blawgs.  But even when a criminal law issue arose, and even when the news was broken at Simple Justice, Bob tended to source his mention to secondary or tertiary sources.  I got the distinct impression that Bob didn't like my blawg, and wasn't going to give me any credit no matter what.

I did write a post once that was critical of Bob, and shortly thereafter was invited to appear on a podcast with Kevin O'Keefe about twitter.  I knew Bob was miffed at my criticism, but I thought that was behind us.  Most lawyers are tough enough to take a punch, and punch back if they feel warranted. I link to Bob's posts with some frequency.  Still Bob rarely recognized my existence, at least as far as I knew.

Mind you, the lack of link love, whether intentional or a product of my imagination, didn't exactly slow me down or alter my methods.  I didn't write for the benefit of Bob Ambrogi, or anybody else for that matter.  But it would have been a bit less disingenuous, if he's got a bone to pick with me, to have had the balls to do so to my face rather than in the comments of Thorne's blog, a locus where the chances of my picking up on it were infinitely less than had he posted here or even at his own blog.

It's cool with me if Bob isn't a fan.  He's in good company.  But it's disturbing to learn that he's got something to say behind my back.  If that wasn't his intention, perhaps he should consider a more forthright approach to noting my mistakes.  After all, as a pundit of Legal Blog Watch, I would think he can tell the difference between the front door and the back.

Dang, I hope there are no typos in this post.  But I won't go back and look, so I'll just have to check Thorne's comments to find out.

Posted by SHG at 10/19/2009 7:35 AM
Categories: uncategorized
 
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this post
  • 10/27/2009 3:51 PM uberVU - social comments wrote:
    This post was mentioned on Twitter by montserratlj: Grammatical errors, typos, oh boy! Lesson: Keep mum re...:-) @ScottGreenfield, For the Benefit of Mister Thorne: http://bit.ly/2ViOZ8
Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

  • 10/19/2009 9:25 AM Greg Lambert wrote:
    Please don't get an editor, Scott. I think your approach to blogging is one that many others should follow.

    I know a number of very smart folks that have some great insights into their niche part of the legal world that would make great bloggers. However, they pour over their writings as if it is going to be in the Harvard Business Review. And, in the end, nothing gets posted, and they end up stimulating no one. I'd rather have you posting something that has a few typos than sitting on something until "it is just right."
    Besides, if you find there is a grammatical error in your post... there is always the "edit" button that allows you to go back and make the correction.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 10:42 AM Thorne wrote:
      RE: "I know a number of very smart folks that have some great insights into their niche part of the legal world that would make great bloggers. However, they pour over their writings as if it is going to be in the Harvard Business Review. And, in the end, nothing gets posted, and they end up stimulating no one."

      Greg: Those are the very folks who could make darned good use of an editor -- so they don't waste their time and the writing gets written, and well.
      Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 9:37 AM Jdog wrote:
    Many years ago, I was on staff writing copy as the one writer in the enterprise. The PHB figured that she could get around that problem by directing me, in writing, to copyedit and proof my own stuff. That trick never works.

    It's common wisdom -- and pretty much true -- in my biz that nobody can effectively proof his or her own stuff. Some writers are less bad at it; some are utterly horrible.

    There are really only three choices:

    1. Have somebody else do it for you.
    2. Live with more typoes and mindos than you (should) like.
    3. Some combination of 1 and 2.

    Well, there's always 4: give it up altogether. Hope that choice isn't tempting you.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 10:01 AM John Neff wrote:
      Editing involves rewriting and rewriting means loss of spontaneity on the other hand it can improve clarity, concision and reduce typos.

      FWIW I think clarity of thought and fact checking are more important for a blawg.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 10:09 AM Jdog wrote:
        Spontaneity is wonderful, when the results are; there's no harm done when a careful eye goes over a hunk of text, leaving in the wonderfulness, and takking oot typeaux and and repeated words, say.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 10:28 AM SHG wrote:
          I love to be edited.  I keep asking if someone would be so kind as edit my posts.  No takers, thus far.  Et tu, Jdog?
          Reply to this
          1. 10/19/2009 10:30 AM Jdog wrote:
            If you're serious, send me a set of (metaphorical) keys, and I'll fix typeaux as I see them; not a problem. I've got folks who have done that for me, and I can pay forward as well as the next guy.
            Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 10:05 AM Mark Bennett wrote:
    I'm a stickler for grammar and spelling, at least in my own work. I never would have (for example) written "such as you" because my internal editor would have flagged "such as" as too precious, and substituted "like."

    But grammar and spelling errors sneak into my posts. They're usually what I call gramlins—bits of text that should have been altered or omitted when I improved the structure of a sentence, but weren't.

    It could be embarrassing. How to handle it? 1) Spend a lot more time editing; 2) spend a lot less time editing; or 3) stop being embarrassed.

    I choose 3.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 10:30 AM SHG wrote:
      Hard as it may be to imagine, I am a stickler as well.  But I can't give my blawg posts the time that I give my legal writing, and, frankly, I don't want to. I choose 3 as well.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 10:36 PM Jeff Gamso wrote:
        Same problem at this end. And I spent 15 marking up papers of students in Freshman Comp classes.

        But the blawg, like listservs (another place I tend to let myself be textually sloppy), has what I think of as a homey informality. The listserv comments are more like returning phone calls than like serious work. The blawg is part of a conversation a few of us are having on line, an important one, I sometimes delude myself into thinking, but a conversation. And conversation just doesn't get the textual care of, well, texts.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 10:44 PM Jeff Gamso wrote:
          Oops. That should be 15 years.

          I'm sloppy in the commentariat, too.
          Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 10:51 AM Hollee J. Chadwick wrote:
    As an editor, I do notice everyone else's mistakes - but I don't make it a habit to point them out unless requested.
    I love this blawg, typos notwithstanding.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 11:19 AM SHG wrote:
      Thanks Hollee.  And I appreciate your not letting my typos get in the way.
      Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 10:57 AM Turk wrote:
    I hate typos in my post, and have been known when I see them even a year later to go back and edit.

    I find I can only edit when I see a final version posted because, for some reason, I don't see any of the problems in the draft mode.

    One partial solution to the impossible art of self-editing is to re-read the next day. That usually nabs about 1/2 of the problems.

    With all those unemployed lawyers, we ought to be able to find one to edit for us. We just need to find one that will accept beer as payment.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 11:20 AM SHG wrote:
      I'm betting that Thorne's not going to take you up on your beer offer.  Not even if it's the imported stuff.
      Reply to this
    2. 10/19/2009 12:24 PM Mark Bennett wrote:
      Most employed lawyers can't write worth a damn. Are the unemployed ones any better?
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 5:36 PM Sojourner wrote:
        Definitely not, but you and Scott are exceptions to that rule.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 5:38 PM Sojourner wrote:
          As well as very productively employed, in clarification.
          Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 11:23 AM Venkat wrote:
    I agree that the time spent proofreading a legal document is 10x the time spent proofing (if it is proofed at all) a blog post. Blog posts aren't a reflection of cleanliness of legal documents. In fact I've seen at least one blogger who had a relatively typo-free blog, but whose pleadings and briefs were a disaster.

    But I think a proofreader is not a bad idea (for me). I'm a fast reader but that makes me a slow proofreader who has to read multiple times to feel comfortable he's caught sufficient errors. I'm not sure a full blown editor would work for me. That would take the spontaneity out of it.

    I've often considered outsourcing this one.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 11:33 AM Thorne wrote:
      RE: Blog posts aren't a reflection of cleanliness of legal documents.

      Venkat: Of course they're not, but that's what potential clients see. And if it's the first thing they see, it informs their very first impression of you. Polishing your writing for readers is every bit as important as grooming yourself before a meeting.

      Given the larger audience, even more so.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 11:42 AM SHG wrote:
        Be careful about connecting the wrong dots. First, not everyone blogs for "client development," and for those people there is no connection between their blogs and their practices.  I know that for marketing-minded people, this sounds like heresy, but I doubt that many of my clients have read my blawg, and to the extent they have, I've never heard anyone question my typos.

        The second problem is that blawgs have no ROI, blogolaters claims notwithstanding.  So the notion of paying an editor to proof the content is really out of the ballpark for most.  Perhaps the Biglaw blogs, but then they all suck and nobody reads them anyway, so cares if they are grammatically correct.

        And just to throw in a personal view, this dopey little blog has done pretty well by most metrics, and it's suffered no ill-consequences for lack of a decent edit. 
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 5:33 PM Sojourner wrote:
          Thank G-d Scott isn't using this blawg as a resume builder! It's the completely honest pawse that refreshes and prompts deep thawt.
          Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 11:46 AM Turk wrote:
    I doubt that many of my clients have read my blawg...

    And on the opposite front, I make the assumption that everyone that hires me will Google me. So that if, for instance, a former client passes my name on to a new one, that new one will "look me up" with Google and stumble on my blog.

    And that makes me want to fix all those nagging grammatical errors and typos. I don't want them to see an inadvertent their/there error that makes me look illiterate.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 12:21 PM Thorne wrote:
      Simple Justice isn't the typical blawg, and Scott doesn't blog for the reason most attorneys do, which is to promote their practices.

      Now, look how Scott writes when it comes to promoting his practice:

      http://www.simplejustice.us/Criminal_Defense.html

      Based on that, I think he understands that people (e.g., potential clients seeking representation) judge others (e.g., those seeking to represent the people).

      My guess is that he's not waiting for a call from the managing partner of some giant law firm asking Scott to head that firm's litigation department.

      Most lawyers want their blawgs to help attract potential clients (and potential employers, partners, associates, etc.), and so they need to take greater care in what they write than the author of Simple Justice takes in what he writes.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 12:54 PM SHG wrote:
        Most lawyers want their blawgs to help attract potential clients (and potential employers, partners, associates, etc.) . . .
        Most lawyers who are concerned about their blawgs attracting potential clients, et al., have blawgs that no one reads or cares about because they suck.  "No typos, no readers" isn't a great motto.

        More to your point (I think), I'm not waiting by the phone for a call from the managing partner of some giant law firm asking me to head up the litigation department.  But if I was, and the law firm's interest or lack thereof was based on my website, I wouldn't take the job anyway.  I realize that this is heresy to those who feed off online content, but this is all for fun and little else.

        Run my name in Lexis and see the cases I've done, the trials and appeals.  That's real.  This stuff is for people who can't distinguish between what matters and what doesn't.  Or, for people who have nothing real behind them and only exist online. 

        Reply to this
        1. 10/20/2009 8:51 AM Thorne wrote:
          RE: More to your point (I think), I'm not waiting by the phone for a call from the managing partner of some giant law firm asking me to head up the litigation department.  But if I was, and the law firm's interest or lack thereof was based on my website, I wouldn't take the job anyway.  I realize that this is heresy to those who feed off online content, but this is all for fun and little else.

          Scott:

          You have to listen with both eyes. I said, "Most lawyers want their blawgs to HELP attract potential clients (and potential employers, partners, associates, etc.) . . . ."

          No one's going to hire you to be head of a big firm's litigation dept. just because you've got a great blawg without typos, and no one's going to hire you because of how you masticate a steak. But, go to lunch with our hypothetical managing partner and chew or speak with your mouth open, and you can forget all about the job.

          A blawg is part of a lawyer's marketing arsenal. It's got the power to attract, and it's got the power to drive people away.

          And yes, as Kevin O'Keefe maintains, a blawg can attract business. No doubt about it.

          ------------

          While I'm at it (this keyboard, that is) I might as well say something I probably shouldn't, which is this: Scott, you owe Bob an apology.

          He was joking around; I was joking around; we were just having a laugh. You suspected I was just kidding, but you got all paranoid about Bob's comment. You told us he was ignoring you and made you feel bad. Then you said he lacked the courage to talk to you.

          It seems as if you're looking for some love from Bob, and you percieve him to be shunning you.

          Well, you can't reasonably hold that against him: whether he's ignoring you, or you're just being paranoid.

          My advice: tell him you're sorry for sniping at him.

          ----------

          Maybe that's just some old-fashioned Thorne coming through (this keyboard). I was taught to chew with my mouth closed, to dot all my eyes and cross all my tees, and to apologize very liberally, whether that's warranted or not.

          Yikes! I'm getting old. Look at me now, living in a world where middle school kids look like baby elephants, they curse like drunken sailors, and they dress for school like they're going to change the motor oil on the school bus.

          Just imagine the level of on-line discussion 20 years from now.

          Ouch!
          Reply to this
          1. 10/20/2009 9:01 AM Mark Bennett wrote:
            If you're trying to get a job with a big firm, be sure not to speak with your mouth open!
            Reply to this
          2. 10/20/2009 9:39 AM SHG wrote:
            While I appreciate your effort to minimize the impact of your comment by deflection, you've managed to step in two deep piles in one comment.

            First, you are wrong in your insistence that dotting your "eyes" is a critical factor.  If I brought a book of $25 million, I could spit in the managing partner's face and he would beg me to come on board. I realize that you, as an editor, naturally believe that what you do matters enormously.  It does matter, but not to the extent, or in the way, you think.  It's just one thing to consider, and a relatively minor thing in the grand scheme.  Just because it's on your front burner doesn't make it critical for everyone else. 

            And as for whether or not Kevin's right, attorneys/blawgers have argued the point at length. What makes you think that you, an editor, know better than those who have actual experience and knowledge?

            Second, as to apologizing to Bob, no one asked for your opinion.  Don't presume too much. Your reach has exceeded your grasp.

            I was taught manners as a child as well.  One thing was to mind my own business. It may be more important than chewing with my mouth closed.
            Reply to this
            1. 10/20/2009 9:48 AM Thorne wrote:
              I suppose your wife (assuming you've been able to retain one) has some interesting stories to tell.
              Reply to this
              1. 10/20/2009 9:50 AM Jdog wrote:
                As a general rule, my experience is that drawing conclusions about how a person treats friends and loved ones from how he treats the importunate is remarkably unreliable. YMMV, of course.
                Reply to this
              2. 10/20/2009 10:18 AM Mark Bennett wrote:
                Awww. Geez.
                Reply to this
                1. 10/20/2009 10:48 AM SHG wrote:
                  Bear in mind he's not a lawyer. He's not supposed to understand just how low and inappropriate trying to deflect attention to my wife is.  It's how ordinary people lash out in the absence of any subtantive response when they are wounded.
                  Reply to this
                  1. 10/20/2009 11:17 AM Thorne wrote:
                    RE: how low and inappropriate trying to deflect attention to my wife is.

                    There's the expression of paranoia again.
                    Reply to this
                    1. 10/20/2009 11:21 AM SHG wrote:
                      I had given you enough credit to know when to stop digging. Apparently, I over-estimated you.  The new question is how far off I was.
                      Reply to this
                      1. 10/20/2009 11:31 AM Thorne wrote:
                        I'll start talking about your mother!
                        Reply to this
                        1. 10/20/2009 11:58 AM SHG wrote:
                          Glad to see your sense of humor back.
                          Reply to this
            2. 10/20/2009 10:03 AM Bob Ambrogi wrote:
              If you do not welcome others' opinions, why allow comments on your blog?

              As for an apology, that is not something I care about. I do care about being accused of going behind someone's back. I would never do that. I directed my comment to the person for whom I intended it -- and you were not that person.
              Reply to this
              1. 10/20/2009 10:49 AM SHG wrote:
                If you read my blawg, you would know the answer to your question.
                Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 12:16 PM Mike wrote:
    It's flattering when people point out typos. That's the best refutation you have of my arguments?
    Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 12:17 PM Mike wrote:
    I make the assumption that everyone that hires me will Google me

    The narcissism of the blogger. It's an amazing narcotic. As if we are so interesting that people will spend hours pouring over our every misspelled word and dangling modifier.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 12:21 PM SHG wrote:
      Is that your way of telling me that my modifier is dangling again? I'm so ashamed.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 12:24 PM Jdog wrote:
        I think that was you, Scott. Although I am ashamed, and will zip up my pants.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 12:26 PM SHG wrote:
          It was me. That was a by-product of my testing the dead bolt on the front door. It's now fixed.
          Reply to this
    2. 10/19/2009 12:22 PM Mark Bennett wrote:
      Narcissism would be assuming that everyone that Googles you will hire you.
      Reply to this
    3. 10/19/2009 12:28 PM Turk wrote:
      I make the assumption that everyone that hires me will Google me

      The narcissism of the blogger. It's an amazing narcotic.

      You are confusing narcissism for fear.
      Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 2:12 PM Packratt wrote:
    Frankly, even though the blog I write is incredibly important to me, I don't have enough time to edit what I write there as much as I should, nor do I have the resources to get an editor.

    Sure, it's funny to contrast what I write on my site to what I write for work as a technical writer. Though, I'm paid to write there and my work is passed through several peer-review editing rounds and a copy-edit and client review as well. It certainly makes a world of difference.

    However, while I do catch myself groaning at some of what I write on my site, I either edit out the bugs when I have time and see them, or just groan and accept that, unless blogging became my paid-for occupation, that I'll just have to live with being a human writer who is pressed for time and accept the mistakes that come with that.

    ...and Scott makes far fewer mistakes than I do.
    Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 3:30 PM Windypundit wrote:
    Somebody has to point out the elephant in the room, and it might as well be me: The very first word of this post about typos is a typo.

    I feel much better now.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 3:40 PM SHG wrote:
      I've been waiting all day for someone to notice. Thanks, Windy.
      Reply to this
    2. 10/19/2009 3:42 PM Thorne wrote:
      Well now you've stepped in it. Do you know what happened to the last person who pointed out a Greenfield typo?

      You will soon!
      Reply to this
    3. 10/19/2009 4:28 PM Mark Bennett wrote:
      That's not possible.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 5:30 PM Sojourner wrote:
        Scott I am so grateful to be able to read your thoughts. You are a national legal treasure (much more than that too, but you know what I mean).
        Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 7:57 PM Gideon wrote:
    What the eff did I just stumble into? Do you people have nothing better to do?


    Heh. Heh.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 8:36 PM Thorne wrote:
      We're Michael Jackson followers (i.e., we're making this a better world for you and for me). What could be better?
      Reply to this
  • 10/19/2009 9:33 PM Bob Ambrogi wrote:
    Jeez, Scott, I did mean it tongue in cheek -- a comment from one editor (which I was for a long time) to another. Mister Thorne is usually so attentive to typos that I wondered how he republished that one without comment.

    I read your blog all the time, follow you on Twitter and -- as you note -- had you as a guest on my podcast. You are reading way too much into way too little.
    Reply to this
    1. 10/19/2009 9:49 PM Bob Ambrogi wrote:
      Footnote to my own comment: I didn't "pick this bone" with you because I could care less if you misspell a word. I sent the comment to him rather than you because he's the editor who cares about such things.
      Reply to this
      1. 10/19/2009 10:05 PM SHG wrote:
        If you say so.
        Reply to this
        1. 10/19/2009 10:20 PM Bob Ambrogi wrote:
          You mean, "If you say so."

          (Joking, Scott, joking.)
          Reply to this
      2. 10/20/2009 7:11 AM Mark Bennett wrote:
        You mean "couldn't care less."
        Reply to this
        1. 10/20/2009 8:28 AM Bob Ambrogi wrote:
          Right. Maybe the better phrase would have been, "I don't give a damn."
          Reply to this
          1. 10/20/2009 8:55 AM Jdog wrote:
            Actually, it probably should be "I don't give a dam." Depending, natch, on what you think a: the etymology of the phrase is, and b: how important that should be.
            Reply to this
Leave a comment

All comments are subject to editing or deletion if I deem them inappropriate for any reason or no reason. Hyperlinks are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. References to Nazis/Hitler will not be tolerated. I allow anonymous comments, but will not tolerate attacks unless you use your real name. If you use ALL CAPS for emphasis, I will assume you wear a tin foil hat and treat you accordingly. I expect civility from you, but that does not mean I will respond in kind. This is my home and I make the rules. If you don't like my rules, then don't comment. Spam is absolutely prohibited, and you will be permanently banned.

Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

 Enter the above security code (required)

 Name (required)

 Email (will not be published) (required)

 Website

Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.