10 responses to “Within the Mouths of Babes

  1. This post had the potential to be funny however you took too long and too many detours making your point.

  2. Amen to that, sister. That’s the problem (okay, one of them) with this whole blog. GV, get to the point!

  3. I don’t agree with the above posters – I’m not sure how often you’re aiming for funny, and not every post has to be so – but an easy way to punch up the comedy would have been to point out how creepy those babies on the boxes are.


  4. The part of Sharon V’s comment I was agreeing with was that this post (like most of GV’s posts) take too long to get to the point and tend to ramble on. For example, dry baby cereal isn’t actually all that perishable, so what the point of that little detour?

  5. Point taken. I will try to be more brief with posts like these.

  6. Also, probably don’t promote yourself as looking for editing gigs on a post that’s supposedly about an error on a baby food box.

  7. Katharine Swan

    Actually, I think it’s your — Kate’s — blog. If you want to turn a cereal box critique into a marketing plug for yourself, that’s your perogative. If it were me, I’d do it after showing off my cereal box-critiquing skills, but that’s just me.

    I don’t think the post is too long, either. It depends what you are going for. There is nothing wrong with sending a diatribe or two out into the blogosphere. In fact, the way you are doing it — short, easy-to-scan paragraphs and relatively shorter sentences — is is correct for the web.

    Seriously, people, this isn’t a contest to see who can out-criticize the Grammar Vandal. Lighten up!

  8. “perogative”

  9. Katherine,

    Wasn’t “lighten up” the response from Mitt Romney when he was photographed with a sign equating Obama with Osama?

    I agree that this isn’t a “bash the grammar vandal” contest. However, the point of the blog-o-sphere, to the extent that it has a point, is the interaction between the reader and the writer.

    Kate put herself out here. She has received significant recognition for her efforts. Along with that public attention will come some critical commentary.

    The test of the professionalism of any writer is their response to editing. Only a fool would not realize that improvements can be made in any writing. Only an amateur would reject the opportunity to grow. Frankly, from Kate’s own responses here, I think she seems open to improvement.

    For example, she has realized that her beloved AP Style Guide is not the final word in all matters.

    Honestly, I think that willingness to become better is a good thing.

  10. Katharine Swan

    Anonymous — “prerogative.”
    Thanks for the catch. When I get all fired up I sometimes type too quickly and miss letters. :o)

    Read — Sure, the blogosphere is about interaction. But that doesn’t mean I can’t defend someone when I see the need. In fact, the argument about the holiness of interaction actually supports my decision to respond to other posters’ comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s