thakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (01/18/90)
I was away all last week at a conference in Washington DC, and so I'm
just now catching up with all the postings about the proposed group
rec.arts.cinema. As moderator-apparent, I think I should put forth my
views on some of the issues that are being discussed.
First, the name. I don't see any great benefit to making the new
group a subgroup of rec.arts.movies. Making it a subgroup would be a
cosmetic change at best. Rec.arts.cinema captures perfectly what this
group would be about, and I strongly support rec.arts.cinema as an
informative and substantive name over the cosmetic and dubious virtues
of calling it rec.arts.movies.film (or whatever).
Really, people, all this hand-wringing over the name of the newsgroup
is just plain silly. Let's go with rec.arts.cinema.
Much more important (to my mind, anyway) is whether the moderator
should expect a good writing style or not.
I've read a few comments to the effect that writing skills aren't
exactly the best within the technical community, and we should
therefore not stress writing quality.
I thought I had made it clear what I meant by "well-written" in my
proposed charter, but let me clarify it once more so that I can lay
these concerns to rest once and for all:
I am not demanding that writers dazzle me (as moderator) with the
beauty of their prose. I don't expect authors to agonize for hours
over whether to split an infinitive or not. I don't expect authors to
spend a whole lot of time "prettifying" their article.
What I do expect to see is some sign that the author has *proofread*
his/her article at least once. That's *all*. I hardly think that
this is an impossibly difficult thing to ask.
Some people may not be aware of this, but newspapers are typically
written at the seventh or eighth grade level. If an author can't even
manage that level of writing, then I am going to seriously wonder just
how much thought has gone into the article written by that person.
Writing in reasonably good English sentences doesn't take a genius IQ
or a PhD from Harvard. All it takes is a little bit of common-sense
and the willingness to sit down and *proofread* your article before
you send it. That's it! Use your common sense, people, and do the
reasonable thing. I think even technical people on the net should be
able to achieve that much.
At a minimum, I would like articles to follow the basic grammatical
rules of English. (You know what I mean: every sentence should have a
subject and predicate. Use plural verbs for plural nouns. Avoid
run-on sentences. Etc etc etc.)
And in this day of spelling checkers, there's simply no excuse for a
plethora of spelling errors. (Typos I can understand, since they can
be hard to spot sometimes.)
Look at it this way: One of the important jobs of the moderator is to
keep the noise level down. Articles that are too poorly written to be
comprehensible contribute to that noise. One very big source of
poorly-written articles is the person who reads something and then
puts a slap-dash response together and posts it a hurry. That is
*precisely* the type of article that would make me doubt whether the
article is meant to be taken seriously or not.
Let me rephrase my basic point once again: reasonably good writing is
not an abstract goal to be pursued for its own sake. Rather, the act
of proofreading an article can very often help improve the
*substantive* quality of the article in addition to the writing
quality. So my desire for proofreading is intended not to create
additional pressures for the author but to encourage the author to
improve the substantive quality of the article.
In addition to all this, Kent Dolan <xanthian@well.sf.ca.us> made the
excellent point that for many readers of this newsgroup, English is a
second language. If someone who is proficient in English has trouble
reading an article, then how in heaven's name is a non-native English
reader going to understand the article? Non-native English readers
may be a minority, but there certainly are enough of them to make this
an eminently valid concern.
If you want an example of the type of writing that I'm talking about,
just look at some of the reviews that get posted to
rec.arts.movies.reviews. I don't think Mark Leeper agonizes over
every single punctuation mark in his article, nor would I expect him
to. And yet his articles are perfectly readable and clear. I can't
imagine that asking authors to read over their articles once or twice
would create a burden for our poor illiterate engineers.
So please, let's lay this issue to rest. The point I'm trying to make
is that there exists a definite link between the style of writing and
the content of what is being said -- and that is what motivates my
wish for proofreading, not some misguided ideas about how terrible it
is to split an infinitive. I feel that this "common sense approach"
is eminently reasonable and workable.
So let me revise Richard's revision (to my revisions to Richard's
original version :-) as follows:
-- Does the article show signs of having been proofread at
least *once*? Authors should follow the basic rules of
English grammar, and articles should be run through a
spelling checker. Proofreading not only makes the article
more readable, but it can very often help improve the
substantive content of the article as well. Nobody expects
Pulitzer Prize-winning prose here, and no one is going to
care if you split your infinitives. All that is asked is
that you use a common-sense approach and take a few minutes
to proofread your article before sending it in.
One final point on this matter: it would be a stupid moderator indeed
who rejects an interesting article *solely* on the basis of
grammatical errors. It would make a whole lot more sense to ask the
author to revise the article and make it more readable while
preserving the points being made.
Believe me, folks, I've had many of my article chopped up, hacked up,
and spit out by hasty editors. I *know* what it feels like to have an
article of mine butchered by editors who don't take the time carefully
my articles. That is the last thing I would think of doing to someone
who submitted an article. If I went around alienating potential
authors all the time, I don't think that the newsgroup would last very
long.
So please have a little faith in what I'm saying. We're basically
reasonable, rational people here. There's no need to get concerned or
worried about zealously protecting against fascist tendencies. I need
the confidence and support of r.a.c. readers, and I pledge to actively
work for that confidence and support.
I ask for readers to give me a chance to show that I mean what I say.
(And remember: if worse does come to worse, there's nothing preventing
the readers from revolt.)
Manavendra K. Thakur
thakur@eddie.mit.edu
thakur@cfa.harvard.edu
...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakurthakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (01/18/90)
Another issue people have discussed is whether video and television
films should be discussed in rec.arts.cinema.
My feeling is that film and television/video are indeed related, but
they are two distinct media. As an example, both cinema and the stage
share common characteristics (acting, lighting, direction, etc) and
yet retain their distinctive identities. In the same way, film and
television are related -- perhaps even more so than film and stage --
but I feel they are still two distinct media. So things that are
clearly films are appropriate for r.a.c., while those that are clearly
television or video are not.
What about the borderline cases? I think they need to be handled on a
case by case basis. Many a time filmmakers (particularly documentary
filmmakers like Frederick Wiseman) would prefer to have their films
shown in theaters, but cannot get commercial distribution. In
addition, many respected filmmakers (Ingmar Bergman and Raul Ruiz, to
name two) have turned to television as a means of financing and
exhibiting their work.
So my feeling on these is that we should try to understand to the best
of our ability the *preference* and *intention* of those who had
creative control over the film. If their stated preference or
discernable intention is for the film to be shown in theaters, then
the film is appropriate for r.a.c.
If their preference or intention is not readily discernable, then I
would have to play it by ear. The information and arguments provided
by the author of the article -- as well as any reader feedback --
would play a large role in my decision.
Accordingly, I propose the following criteria for deciding whether a
television film is appropriate for rec.arts.cinema or not:
-- Was the film exhibited *anywhere* in a theater? If so,
then it automatically becomes appropriate for
rec.arts.cinema.
-- If the film was not shown in a theater, can it be readily
demonstrated or discerned that those with creative control
over the film would have *preferred* to exhibit their film
in theaters? Or can it be shown that they *intended* for
their film to be exhibited in theaters? If so, then the
film is appropriate for rec.arts.cinema.
-- If a film or show is clearly television, then does it have
any substantive relevance to cinema? If so, then it is
appropriate for rec.arts.cinema.
Examples of television/video related subjects that WOULD be
appropriate for rec.arts.cinema:
-- An overview of Lucille Ball's career that examined her television
work
-- How the growth of television led to the introduction of Cinemascope
in the 1950s
-- Frederick Wiseman documentaries, which are always shot and edited
on film and intended to be shown as films but get shown primarily
on public television
-- The growing influence of television rights on theatrical filmmaking
in many European nations, especially in light of the impending
unification of Europe in 1992
-- Speculation on the impact of High Definition Television on
filmmaking
-- Experiments with combining video and filmmaking techniques (such as
Michelangelo Antonioni's 1982 film, THE MYSTERY OF OBERWALD)
-- The links between the rapid editing style of music videos and the
experiments of Soviet avant-garde filmmakers in the 1920s.
Examples of topics that WOULD NOT be appropriate:
-- Outright television shows or serials that are not exhibited
theatrically
-- Most direct-to-video films (individual exceptions are certainly
possible, however)
-- The quality and content of music videos -- virtually every music
video is shot on video and is shown on television
-- Films that were shot entirely on video and then blown up to film as
an afterthought (such as the documentary COVER UP - BEHIND THE
IRAN-CONTRA SCANDAL -- it was patently obvious that even the
credits of that film were done on video)
-- The works of video artists and television animators -- these belong
in their own respective newsgroups
Manavendra K. Thakur
thakur@eddie.mit.edu
thakur@cfa.harvard.edu
...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakurthakur@eddie.mit.edu (Manavendra K. Thakur) (01/18/90)
In article <1990Jan9.010634.7610@everexn.uucp> karen@everexn.uucp (Karen Valentino) writes: >There's room for disagreement about what is correct or proper >even when it comes to simple items of grammar--I know, because >I've even debated with someone over whether "awhile" is as valid >as "a while." Nope, nope, nope, nope. As moderator, I don't intend to spend my time splitting hairs on whether "a while" is more correct than "awhile." I don't care about that. I'm simply asking that the writer proofread their article once or twice before submiting it. My position is that I will ask for revisions in so far as I feel such revisions would improve the readability and substantive content of the article. I don't see how debating "a while" vs "awhile" is going to improve either the readability or substantive content of the article, so I'm not going to waste my time on it. >the point that I've tried to make is that no writer's stuff should >be changed and then posted unless the author first has a chance to >look the article over and say, "OK. I accept this. Post it." Well of course! As I've stated already, I *know* what how annoying it is to have someone else replace my words with their own. I fully expect that I will be rejecting very few articles. Most of the time, I would ask for revisions instead. In addition, I don't have the time to be a full-fledged editor and rewrite the article for the author. >In other words, the author has the final say over what appears under >his/her name, not the editor. That is basically how I intend to moderate the newsgroup. So many people (and you're not one of them, Karen) seem be getting all bent out of shape over this, and I don't see what the fuss is all about. I'm not a fascist monster who demands uniformity. I prize creativity and diversity -- hell that's why I like to watch films from around the world in the first place. Now, the only thing I have to add is that just as the author has the right to ok what gets posted under his/her name, so too should the moderator have final say over what actually gets posted to the newsgroup. Is this fascist? No way. Look at just about any other moderated newsgroup, and you'll find ample precedent for this viewpoint. The moderator's final say will help do two things: 1) preserve the viability of the newsgroup so that people continue to read it and contribute to it and 2) maintain the moderator's personal reputation and credibility with the readers of the newsgroup. If the moderator loses the confidence of the readers, the whole newsgroup may as well just pack it all in (at least until a new moderator is installed). >I agree that the nature of what is edited is important; but I >still am unclear from what you write what you consider to be >within the scope of the editor. Basically, the point of view is this: will this suggested change (suggested to the author that is!) help improve the readability and/or substantive content of the article? If so, then I would consider the basis for the suggested revision to be a valid one. It's as simple as that. No ironclad rules. No fascist intentions. No mickey-mousing over insignificant grammatical points. Simply a focus on 1) readability and 2) substantive content. >Other than that, I think everything in the proposed charter is >as clear as glass, and like its clarity. I think that you lay to >rest some of the issues that have been talked over here, including >whether r.a.c. should be a subgroup of r.a.m. To me, the charter >makes it clear that r.a.c is not a subgroup, but a whole different >ball game. Thank you. Manavendra K. Thakur thakur@eddie.mit.edu thakur@cfa.harvard.edu ...!harvard!zerkalo.harvard.edu!thakur
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (01/19/90)
Manavendra, I still would like to know if rejected articles will be returned or if they just drop into a black hole. I think this needs to be stated explicitly. I also would like to know if articles with *minor* grammatical or spelling problems will be left as is, or "fixed" by you. My strong preference is that my words remain as I wrote them. There is little enough of ourselves that come through in these postings; please don't "correct" people's personalities into oblivion. If I blew it, I'll take responsibility for it, and the mistake does say things about me. thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > >At a minimum, I would like articles to follow the basic grammatical >rules of English. (You know what I mean: every sentence should have a >subject and predicate. Use plural verbs for plural nouns. Avoid >run-on sentences. Etc etc etc.) > Some people for whom English is a second language will have trouble with this requirement. Are you going to take the time to instruct them in the points they are getting wrong? If not, and you repeatedly reject their articles, it will be one more instance of rejection because of their language skills. I think this would be cruel. >Believe me, folks, I've had many of my article chopped up, hacked up, >and spit out by hasty editors. I *know* what it feels like to have an >article of mine butchered by editors who don't take the time carefully >my articles. That is the last thing I would think of doing to someone >who submitted an article. > I've had articles chopped up by editors who *did* take the time, but didn't know some crucial fact and so missed the point. Again, either post an article as-is or reject it. I don't want an editor. -Dan | uunet!ashtate!dveditz Vote NO on moderated 'talk' groups. | dveditz@ashtate.A-T.com
jsp@key.COM (James Preston) (01/19/90)
In article <1990Jan17.190304.23309@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: }First, the name. I don't see any great benefit to making the new }group a subgroup of rec.arts.movies. Making it a subgroup would be a }cosmetic change at best. Rec.arts.cinema captures perfectly what this }group would be about, and I strongly support rec.arts.cinema as an }informative and substantive name over the cosmetic and dubious virtues }of calling it rec.arts.movies.film (or whatever). } }Really, people, all this hand-wringing over the name of the newsgroup }is just plain silly. Let's go with rec.arts.cinema. I agree completely; it is _very_ silly. Let's go with rec.arts.movies.cinema and be done with it. What's the purpose of names on newsgroups anyway? Isn't the purpose to make some attempt at a logical grouping of topics? "Movies" is a general term; about as general as I think you could get for "those things they show in movie theaters, and those long shows on TV". That most current discussions in the newsgroup "rec.arts.movies" tend to focus on <insert your favorite overworked topic here> does not change the fact that _any_ topic that in any way relates to whatever the poster thinks of as "movies" is appropriate for the group. And clearly the intent of the advocates of this new group is to create a group for the discussion of _movies_ only with a narrower focus of appropriate topics than the current group. That sure sounds to me like a subgroup. rec.arts.movies is for anything related to _movies_; rec.arts.movies.cinema is for "serious" discussions about _movies_. }Much more important (to my mind, anyway) is whether the moderator }should expect a good writing style or not. } . . . }What I do expect to see is some sign that the author has *proofread* }his/her article at least once. } . . . }And in this day of spelling checkers, there's simply no excuse for a }plethora of spelling errors. } }Look at it this way: One of the important jobs of the moderator is to >keep the noise level down. Articles that are too poorly written to be }comprehensible contribute to that noise. } . . . }So please, let's lay this issue to rest. The point I'm trying to make }is that there exists a definite link between the style of writing and }the content of what is being said } . . . }Believe me, folks, I've had many of my article chopped up, hacked up, }and spit out by hasty editors. I *know* what it feels like to have an }article of mine butchered by editors who don't take the time carefully }my articles. I don't know about anyone else, but what you said does the opposite of putting my fears to rest. I didn't _have_ any fears until I read your reassurance. You go on and on about what good writing is, and how important it is, and relate your bad experiences with editors. But the job of a moderator is _not to be an editor_. Not in any way, shape or form. The job of a moderator is _only_ to ensure that the _content_ is appropriate to the group. Period. I don't think that this particular group warrants moderation. But if you want to reassure me about your qualifications for that job, then tell us _unequivocally_ that you will _never_ reject an article for reasons of grammar or spelling. Don't get longwinded about how easy proofreading and spelling checkers are, just tell us that if someone happens to be lazy their article will still see acceptance. --James Preston
ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) (01/19/90)
In article <1392@key.COM> jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston) writes: > In article <1990Jan17.190304.23309@eddie.mit.edu> thakur@eddie.MIT.EDU (Manavendra K. Thakur) writes: > }First, the name. I don't see any great benefit to making the new > }group a subgroup of rec.arts.movies. > ... That sure sounds to me like a subgroup. rec.arts.movies > is for anything related to _movies_; rec.arts.movies.cinema is for "serious" > discussions about _movies_. I have a preference for rec.arts.movies.cinema, because the new group seems to parallel (in some sense) rec.arts.movies.reviews. But I can live with either one. > }Much more important (to my mind, anyway) is whether the moderator > }should expect a good writing style or not. [more text deleted--go back to > }the original article if you need to] > > ... But the > job of a moderator is _not to be an editor_. Not in any way, shape or > form. The job of a moderator is _only_ to ensure that the _content_ > is appropriate to the group. Period. No, the *first* job of the moderator is to tell you what s/he perceives the job to be. I have said that in r.a.m.r, I consider it part of my job to fix minor spelling and punctuation errors, errors of fact (e.g., wrong actor's name), etc. If you don't want that, you can 1) send your article with a request to change not a single character, 2) not send your article, or 3) call for a vote for a new moderator. Some moderators edit; some don't. As long as they announce their intentions before the vote, there's no problem. If you don't like what they're proposing, "just vote no." The proposal was for a moderated group. That is an integral part of the proposal, and since I don't see an *overwhelming* majority objecting to this, I would suggest we vote on the proposal and let the results speak for themselves. If someone then wants to propose a rec.arts.cinema-[un]mod, nothing is stopping him or her. Evelyn C. Leeper | +1 201-957-2070 | att!mtgzy!ecl or ecl@mtgzy.att.com -- If I am not for myself, who is for me? If I am only for myself what am I? And if not now, when? --Hillel
rissa@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Patricia O Tuama) (01/23/90)
In article <3496@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ecl@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes: >In article <1392@key.COM> jsp@penguin.key.COM (James Preston) writes: >> job of a moderator is _not to be an editor_. Not in any way, shape or >> form. The job of a moderator is _only_ to ensure that the _content_ >> is appropriate to the group. Period. >No, the *first* job of the moderator is to tell you what s/he perceives the >job to be. But isn't that precisely what James is worried about, Evelyn? Manavendra has made it quite clear that he considers his "job" to be that of a professional editor. And I think you'll find that for even those netters who don't oppose moderation simply on general principles, the term "moderator" does not translate to "editor." This newsgroup is a fine idea but there simply isn't any reason to moderate it.