![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I was so bored and so in need of distraction last night, I actually watched a Batman movie. The second one, I think. With DeVito as the Penguin. And Pfeiffer as Catwoman. They got the noir down right, anyway.
"Normal guys always let you down. Sickos don't scare me. At least they're committed"
Middlin' horrible movie. Great lines.
-----
Woke up this morning to not one but two felines staring me in the face and uttering very definite "mom we're huuuuuuuungry" noises. Boomer always claims that, but when Pandora gets that way, it's time to feed her or risk getting chunks taken out of my leg while she circles...
-----
Today, once my wordage is out of the way, is All About the Client. I have a pile of pages begging to be marked-up and abused for its own good.
I haven't done any hardcore editing for a while. It's both a pleasure (I'm good at this, it's a familiar skin to wear) and a pain (but I wanna wriiiiiiiiite!). I used to think that the ideal mix would be 50/50, then I went to 75/25 in favor of the writing. Now I'm not so sure. They're dissimilar skills overlapping a common product, and a good writer is not guaranteed to be a good editor, and versa vice. So using them both is good for me, not only to keep both sides of my brain in working shape, but because it keeps me honest.
Y'see, I can't tell myself something crappy is brilliant, if my editor-brain is awake and alert. But -- more importantly for me - I also can't get down on myself and say that it sucks if it doesn't. The editor-brain is my sanity: it keeps me from going to either writer-extreme of euphoria or dismals over anything I've written. That keeps me sommat balanced, and allows the writing a chance to escape to other readers for an impartial evaluation.
So the editor-brain is useful, and to be cultivated, maybe closer to 60/40 if I can swing it. It's also a right pain in the arse. But that's sort of in the definition of 'editor' -- right next to "not always right, but enough so to be annoying."
And now there is coffee, and a manuscript, and sharpened pencils cooing my name....
"Normal guys always let you down. Sickos don't scare me. At least they're committed"
Middlin' horrible movie. Great lines.
-----
Woke up this morning to not one but two felines staring me in the face and uttering very definite "mom we're huuuuuuuungry" noises. Boomer always claims that, but when Pandora gets that way, it's time to feed her or risk getting chunks taken out of my leg while she circles...
-----
Today, once my wordage is out of the way, is All About the Client. I have a pile of pages begging to be marked-up and abused for its own good.
I haven't done any hardcore editing for a while. It's both a pleasure (I'm good at this, it's a familiar skin to wear) and a pain (but I wanna wriiiiiiiiite!). I used to think that the ideal mix would be 50/50, then I went to 75/25 in favor of the writing. Now I'm not so sure. They're dissimilar skills overlapping a common product, and a good writer is not guaranteed to be a good editor, and versa vice. So using them both is good for me, not only to keep both sides of my brain in working shape, but because it keeps me honest.
Y'see, I can't tell myself something crappy is brilliant, if my editor-brain is awake and alert. But -- more importantly for me - I also can't get down on myself and say that it sucks if it doesn't. The editor-brain is my sanity: it keeps me from going to either writer-extreme of euphoria or dismals over anything I've written. That keeps me sommat balanced, and allows the writing a chance to escape to other readers for an impartial evaluation.
So the editor-brain is useful, and to be cultivated, maybe closer to 60/40 if I can swing it. It's also a right pain in the arse. But that's sort of in the definition of 'editor' -- right next to "not always right, but enough so to be annoying."
And now there is coffee, and a manuscript, and sharpened pencils cooing my name....
