Hello, all:

I think the question of editing is worthy of discussion.  The problem has
several parts.

1)  form -- punctuation, capitalization, standard syntax, what have you --
should be agreed on ahead of time and a manual should provide final
authority.  Each organization should select a style book (Chicago, APA,
MLA, etc.) and stick to it in all publications.  The style manual must
cover such issues as captions, identification of images and/or
photographers, publishing details of images, comparative scale of
photographic reproductions/images, and so on, as well as the nuts and
bolts of form.

2)  Editing someone's writing style is notoriously touchy and much can
depend on the intended audience.  If the presumed audience is
informed/scholarly, then the author may only have to answer to a single
editor/publisher.  If the presumed audience is juvenile, general and
novice, then I think it is appropriate to bring in education staff to deal
with the complexity of the language and context of the ideas.  Here,
however, curatorial intent may come into conflict with educational
philosophy, and the problem will be most sever in institutions where the
curatorial process is conducted entirely apart from the interpretive
process.

3)  In the end, each institution needs to have a designated grammar nerd
and style czar.  Sometimes this is the publications office.  Occasionally
it is some all-purpose worker willing to take on the hassle.  Most often
it is no one at all.

4)  Editing is part of the original plan for the publication.  Editing
doesn't take place outside of the process of conceptualizing the
exhibition, imagining the didactics and publications and producing text --
it is an integral part of the process.  Too often the editor and writer
are regarded as adversaries, and this is an unfortunate and
counterproductive situation.  Good writing resonates with the voice of the
writer but it shines with the clarity achieved through readings by
independent (although qualified) minds and ruthless rewriting.

5)  Good writing is largely about mechanics and not about subject,
critical perspective or showing off one's vocabulary.   It is about direct
and lucid communication, carefully controlled and broadly intelligible.
In order to make someone responsible for it, an organization much first
achieve concensus as to the over-arching goal of all publications, large
and small, scholarly or not.

I've done a lot of writing and editing, both as a museum staff member and
a consultant.  I've fought (and lost) to senior curators on such issues as
to whether there is an "s" at the end of Tangier (there isn't) and fussed
about whether a split infinitive is ever acceptible (in my book it isn't.)
 I've screamed about unclear pronoun antecedents to students and harped on
them more politely to colleagues. Most of all I've obsessed about the
profession's seeming disregard for the complexities of denotation and
connotation.  Don't even get me started about people making up words as
they go along....

Best of luck with your situation -- I'd love to hear about it.

Ellen B. Cutler
Merrimack, NH
[log in to unmask]

I wonder what other peoples thoughts are?