http://www.suntimes.co.za/2004/08/22/magazine/ane01.asp

The pen may be mightier than the sword, but those sub-editors carry pangas, chopping, battering and eviscerating the very language we are trying to preserve. It's disgusting, you submit an article, and they accept it. Then you read it in print and it is nowhere near what you intended, often with the subtle and humourous innuendo totally lost forever. I would suggest to Ronge, as a senior scribe in this profession, to start throwing his weight (no offence) around. Tell those sub-ed's to get taxidermed!

I'm agreeing with Jelly Tots here about not exclusively blaming the subs -- i'm both a sub and a writer -- and it isn't easy being either. subbing isn't just about grammar -- it's also house style and fact-checking. It's also a back-up for a journalist - meaning they have the responsibility to submit the cleanest, style-compliant and factually correct copy they can. too often though - journalists are better at getting the news but not at writing it down.

There definitely are bad subs out there as well - ruining a columnist's piece is just bad form -- and the fault does lie with the education system, and a culture and society that prizes television over print. Dumbing down is not the answer -- ever!

it might be important to remember though that English, like any other language isn't immune to change -- Chaucer wouldn't understand us today -- and grammar rules aren't unbreakable or unbending -- e.e cummings would agree

But hell, the day kindred spirit means family spirit -- i'm signing on for Japanese

Editing can change the entire sense of an article.

I once read an article in a newspaper about a local artiste in which it was abundantly clear that the writer didn't approve of the artiste.

Yet, when I read the unedited version on a website some weeks later, quite the opposite appeared to be the case!

Perhaps the editor didn't like the artiste?

We should not look at the issue as the fault of sub-editors. I am a journalist and fully understand how the newsroom operates. The problem is not that publications lack a certain standard of English but its the education system we should look at. Newspapers only cater for the level of literacy out there. We should dig deep and get to the root of the problem at primary school level.

How will people understand 'big' words if they don't even understand the fundamentals? People want to be informed quickly and effectively. How many people do you know who actually read the paper with a dictionary? No one has the time.

I understand that news has to be understood, but I have noticed a HUGE drop in standards - I suppose you will say the masses have never been included before... okay.

But it is clear that some editors/sub editors aren't so hot either. Bad grammar is rife, and kindred spirit will never mean family spirit...

We must find a balance yes, but the way to learn is to read more - and the more we practice the more we learn and the better we get surely?

I know few people want to use a dictionary when reading the paper, but standards have slipped to such an extent that it's not funny any more.
It's not just in the newspapers. Check the quality of most of the press releases circulating throughout the industry - people claiming to put the best possible foot forward for their clients don't know the difference between an apostrophe and a comma, and certainly haven't found the spell checker facility on their computer. And then they wonder why people don't use their releases...

I've always loved reading Barry Ronge because I admire his wordcraft. A sad day indeed when dumbing down is a directive rather than a by-product of a poor education.

I couldn't agree more!

God it hurts when I have penned a beautiful piece, only to have to prune it back to Grade four English just to be understood! That’s the way of it though. I'm a slut - I have to be, I have a family to feed and must deliver what my audience wants: 'Write cr*p? - No problem Mr. client, Sir!'

For those of you who also remember the Readers Digest column "It Pays to Increase Your Word Power" that Barry wrote of last Sunday, you might want to subscribe to 'Dictionary.com Word of the Day' at http://www.dictionary.com/wordoftheday/ - some really obscure words (and some really easy ones too) complete with source, pronunciation and meaning: all delivered to your mailbox free, every day.

There are plenty of bad/indifferent subeditors out there and not enough good ones; ditto writers.
Therefore, if you feel your copy has been mangled or mistreated, either complain to the editor or stop contributing to the publication -- and let them know why.
When you do come across a sub or copy editor who treats your copy with respect, let the world (and the editor) know.

This is a parallel discussion to the ongoing bitches and moans about announcers and newsreaders who cannot deal with idiomatic English. A recent beaut was "The chickens, they are coming home to roast."
Anyone operating in a second language has major problems with style, idioms and the ignorance of cutltural baggage that identify the non-native speaker.
The only answer to that is not grammar, syntax and spelling lessons, it is reading good quality writing in that language. The Reader's Digest has, for decades, supplied a magnificient source of an easily accessible, high standard of writing, as well as practical exercises in the language. Crosswords are magnificent training grounds in the expansion of vocabulary. But these are not common aids in use by writers and subs, they don't have the custom or history of consuming these sources of good language.
So you get writing by ear which, like playing music by ear, sounds enough like the real thing at first exposure to be convincing. But, for the sake of great creative expression, you need to be in charge of the foundations of language - its literature.
No read good, no write good.
How do we establish a culture of reading in an era of electronic communications ?
Find the answer and claim millions from the publishers.

I understand that English is a changing and dynamic language and as such one must respect new words and turns of phrase that accompany new words and sub cultures. However the basics are the same and in order to understand the subtleties of English, one has to practice it a lot.

This brings me to the point: if our new wordsmiths are not interested in challenging their understanding of English, why are they writing copy? Where is their desire to improve and to craft words into delicious sentences that make one think, chuckle and explore?

Is this a product of education too - a society of arrogant self-absorbed types who think they know all - and please understand I am generalising!!! Most creatives think that the sun won't rise if they don't, but they are mostly keen to devour new mediums and new ideas from others in order to increase their knowledge and potential.

So what is the problem with communication in general here in the eveloping world - any solutions?

First of all I would like to start out by saying not all newspapers/publications in South Africa lack that certain standard of English or grammar. Various newspapers cater for various audiences. And I'm sure I don't need to elaborate.

Daily newspapers, in my opinion, are not meant to have 'delicious sentences that makes one think, chuckle and explore'. Dailies are bombarded with bad news and who would want to chuckle. Certain publications indeed have grammatical problems but we cannot use fancy language for dailies. That is why we have publications for the 'intellectuals'.

Generalising is never a good idea. It is with that mindset that we consider all writers to be unprofessional, incompetent individuals. There are many writers who are passionate about their work and won't allow anyone to spoil it. And not all sub-editors are lacking ability either.

Technology has interfered with the culture of reading. It's all about radio, television and computers. Libraries are becoming historic monuments. As much as it is the fault of our education, it is also our own faults. I'm one of the fortunate ones who had parents who encouraged me to read books from a young age and not waste away in front of the television set.

English is my third language after Zulu and Sotho but majoring in English literature @Wits taught me one thing that is, "if it sounds good, it is good". Though language changes with the spirit of the times, the basics of language use dictate to the spirit of the times. I have an unfavourable interest towards "cool" writing but can be swayed favourably if rules are known before they are broken.

It's a brave person who dares to criticise the (arguably) only journalist in SA who can actually write genuine, correct English! The standard of English in our media is appalling. His censors probably attack because they envy his abilities - but, then, isn't that so often the case? Ignore them Barry - they're not worth it - nor are they worth the paper upon which they write!

Barry Ronge is not the only journalist who can produce good, quality reading. There are many journalists and publications that provide readers with a superb standard of writing.

I take you write as well, in magnificent glossies and are the best writer ever because you mother told you so. Barry is good, and the standards in this country have dropped. He is far and away the best writer that I have come across in the media for ages.

I actually write for a serious newspaper and not glossies as you put it. Jealous? Why on earth should I be? I just think it's wrong for to say that he is the 'only' one. I don't consider myself an amazing writer. I can only strive towards improving each script I produce.

Me? Jealous of Barry Ronge? Don't make me laugh. Being fairly new to the industry I draw my inspiration from people I work with. And personally I think it's unfair (and unfounded) to say that he is the only good writer there is. Do you only read his column? You should try and expand your mind when it comes to reading and you will be pleasantly surprised to come across excellent writers.

Although she can't spell Ronge, she is correct about the Writer.

I must agree that Barry Ronge is far and away the best writer this country has; he stands far above any other writer in this country, simply because of his quirky and knowledgeable style. No other writer in this country is able to:

- reveal the source of his inspiration in such a way as to not appear derivative. Barry does this with great elan; he cleverly writes about and reveals the specific thought, response and musings that lead him to the point of each article,

- Describe with such nostalgic accuracy "the good old days" as well as all the positive and negative results of progress - whether it be in language, politics, literature or laughter, and

- Offer incisive insight in such a way that it resonates with a broad range of readers.

There are no other writers of short topical articles in this country who can match him.

Write on, Ronge!

I am a sub-editor at a major daily newspaper, and in my experience a huge contributor to the problem is the industry's insistence on hiring subs whose first language is not English. I work with several previously disadvantaged "senior" subs who have been banned from even touching certain writers' work because they have screwed it up so badly in the editing stage. (You can image the resentment this fosters in a room where half the staff are taking long lunches while the rest of us are working through lunch, but that's another essay). It's not even grammatical, but here's my favourite example: A humour columnist once wrote: "There are three kinds of journalists: those who can count, and those who can't." (Geddit?) A sub changed it to "two kinds of journalists". Duh.
I have read complaints about the subs' desk being the last bastion of apartheid, staffed by old white males who have the last say on how information is transmitted by the paper. For my subs' desk, I say if only ... At least they would all understand phrases such as "kindred spirit" and and "irony" and "carpet" etc.

*Please note that I'm not saying there are no capable BEE subs. It's just that they won't work for the kind of money that newspapers pay, so the next best thing seems to be putting incompetent bums in seats and hoping they'll do as little damage as possible.

I'd also like to add, though, that the same policy is going on in the newsroom, where barely literate reporters file almost nonsensical stories. In a context such as this, the sub's job goes far beyond fact-checking and making sure the copy fits the paper's style.

In a world such as this Barry Ronge is a word genius, and, tragically, a dinosaur.