Reading your "Editorial, Standards of English in a democratic, mass publication journal." Your courage and vision have impressed me tremendously. You are making a historic breakthrough by doing what you are doing! I admire the following points.
"So where do we draw the line? How low will we go? As low as we can" is the answer."
I don't think that is a low standard as long as you can get the most raw materials - People preserve their own style of using English and their way of expression - a precious moment of inspiration in writing. Many cases in the history have showed that it was those not so sophisticated in writing discovered the most important facts. When those "language fanatics" found “infelicities of language in the journal” as you pointed out, however, they missed the real meaning of your journals, recording those “facts” – the raw precious materials. Even those "‘good books’ – Dickens, Trollope, Hemingway, Powell, Austen, Eliot, Conrad, James, Proust, Balzac, Roth, Updike, McEwan, and the like,” had inspired by “raw materials.”
The following idea of "dialogue" is an invention in the scientific publishing business.
"Then because Cases Journal is electronic we have the possibility of dialogue. Being misunderstood is routine even if your language is perfect. Wise doctors, for example, will ask patients to repeat back to them what they have understood. Often they find that patients have misunderstood even when they say they have understood clearly. So if readers cannot understand what authors have written then they should ask them to explain, and we will ensure that authors respond."
I applause for your philosophy on the journal! An article written with the depth and beauty is recognised more about its well-balanced thought and inspiration than its eloquent rhetoric. Simply state, facts are more important than rhetoric.
applause for your philosophy on the journal!
2 December 2009
Dear Honorable Editor Smith,
Reading your "Editorial, Standards of English in a democratic, mass publication journal." Your courage and vision have impressed me tremendously. You are making a historic breakthrough by doing what you are doing! I admire the following points.
"So where do we draw the line? How low will we go? As low as we can" is the answer."
I don't think that is a low standard as long as you can get the most raw materials - People preserve their own style of using English and their way of expression - a precious moment of inspiration in writing. Many cases in the history have showed that it was those not so sophisticated in writing discovered the most important facts. When those "language fanatics" found “infelicities of language in the journal” as you pointed out, however, they missed the real meaning of your journals, recording those “facts” – the raw precious materials. Even those "‘good books’ – Dickens, Trollope, Hemingway, Powell, Austen, Eliot, Conrad, James, Proust, Balzac, Roth, Updike, McEwan, and the like,” had inspired by “raw materials.”
The following idea of "dialogue" is an invention in the scientific publishing business.
"Then because Cases Journal is electronic we have the possibility of dialogue. Being misunderstood is routine even if your language is perfect. Wise doctors, for example, will ask patients to repeat back to them what they have understood. Often they find that patients have misunderstood even when they say they have understood clearly. So if readers cannot understand what authors have written then they should ask them to explain, and we will ensure that authors respond."
I applause for your philosophy on the journal! An article written with the depth and beauty is recognised more about its well-balanced thought and inspiration than its eloquent rhetoric. Simply state, facts are more important than rhetoric.
Respectfully,
A reader
Competing interests
None