What I learned from the copy editor today

Nobody likes the different shades of perfect and present tense any more . . . most especially the continuous . . . as in "are walking." Editors see it as weak passive voice and automatically change it to "better" active voice, which means throwing it into the past.

I stet it back because hell, if I wanted to say walked I would @#$#$ have said walked.

(Sometimes I pound the desk and then stet it back. That's one of the reasons I like the old-fashioned hard-copy edits better than edits that come on the computer - less chance of trashing valuable equipment. My desk has withstood much pounding, plate smashing, and at least one bat swinging. It's also been shot at several time, but that was not editing related.)

Editors trample over present continuous and perfect and God forbid present perfect continuous verb forms because they've been taught to stamp out passive voice. It's become a blanket rule, like always stop at the red light. . . another rule best observed in the breach. They pounce on an "is" or an "ing" like Dogboy going after a wild turkey.

Granted, active constructions often make a sentence sound better. But there are many times when the writer wants the sense, and even the nuance of the words he or she chose. That's why he's a writer.

Of course, try explaining that to most editors. You'll get kind of a big-eyed stare and some stutter about "pa-pa-passive voice." Then they'll apologize and tell you to stet it if you don't like it.

Duh.

What the world needs more chain-smoking, hard-drinking, SOB editors . . . not because they edit right - the best old-timers were slash and burn specialists. No, writers like to work with the old schoolers because they could trade blows with them and still buy them a drink at the end of the day.

Even the women.