What to Do to Make the Editors Flare Up in Frustration

Writer: Miguel Rico T. Subosa, Managing Editor '08-'09

Okay, since this blog is getting a little too positive... let me break the mood a little, and incorporate a little sarcasm into this... So, for aspiring writers, here's what you SHOULD do to stoke the flames of the editors' frustration...

1. "Thesaurize" your articles. Okay... so you idolize the immortal Edgar Allan Poe, or the eternal Emily Dickinson, or even the recent Mary Roseanne Ramirez (sorry, Roseanne, this is my entry. walang aangal. haha.)... They have the indescribable acumen to use hifalutin' words without throwing you off, and of course, we, the editors, understand that you desire to do the same thing. However, sad as it may seem, this sort of verbal acumen may be inherent. I mean: not everyone can use big words like they can. Yes, it is tempting to use that aristocratically euphonious term, but, before you write it down, make sure you know what it really means. Remember, synonyms mean almost the same thing, not THE SAME THING. So, do not use Word's Thesaurus application to convert your "small" word into a big word. Get it? Say... You want to declare that the Arroyo administration makes you nauseous. Sounds nice, huh? But is it in the proper context? (buzz) NO. Unless you want to say that the Arroyo administration turns you into an abominable, despicable, sickening, obnoxious jerk, then no, nauseous is NOT the right word. In times like this, it is better to just be straightforward with things. Just say, "The Arroyo administration sickens me!" Stronger emotion, right? And stronger emotion means stronger appeal. (Well, don't use that phrase anytime soon, though. Journalists have this suckish thing that prevents them from saying what they really want to say. It's called political correctness.) But you get the idea. You don't need to use big words to sound big. Sometimes, the simplest words connote the strongest messages. Know when to use those big words. But if you choose to overuse them, expect a paper bleeding with crimson marks. Sorry, but your paper will be the outlet of our frustrations. Beware.

2. Observe improper subject-verb agreement and incorrect usage. Us, the editors, knows that you is already at high school, nonetheless, you already knows the regulations of correct subject-verb agreement and proper usage. Okay, so how did that first sentence sound to you? If it sounded normal to you, beware - you may be the potential submitter of a profusely bleeding draft. If it irritated your eyes, as much as it irritated me to type it, then, congratulations, you are among the people who are appreciated for making the editors' jobs easier. Before you submit that article, proofread that paper on your own. Are there any disagreements between the subject and a verb? Are all the prepositions used in the right context? Are there any double negatives? Are there any improper pluralizations? Please bear in mind that, like you, we, too, are students of MandSci, and therefore, have lots of homework to do. Please... I repeat, please... Make our lives easier by checking your grammar and usage!!! We appreciate it if you would give us at least one more hour of sleep. Trust us: one hour makes a difference - and a huge one, at that.

3. Beat around the bush... a hundred thousand times. We read your work once. Twice. Thrice. Four times. Five times. Six times. Seven times. Eight times. Nine times. Ten times. Ad infinitum. And we still don't get the point. Why? Perhaps you've been discussing the same thing over and over and over and over and over (ad infinitum) again. Perhaps your article contains nothing but a single, overdeveloped idea. Perhaps you've tried too hard to stretch a thought that doesn't even deserve that much elaboration. We don't know, but whatever it is, it is rather annoying. Yes, that is a litotes (and yes, "litotes" is singular). True: with brevity should come substance. But, length does not necessarily equate substance. Remember, what beats a good, long speech - is a short, substantial one. Impress us with a concise article that we will still talk about as we chat on YM rather than with a looooong article that we would choose to disregard, in favor of our five hours' worth of assignments. Sorry, not our fault. Blame our teachers.

4. Don't make any sense. We read your first paragraph, and we don't get your point. We read your second, and we still don't get it. We read your third - we still don't get it. We read your "grand finale" and we scream, "F**k! This doesn't make any sense at all!" If this is what happens, ugggh... then you've really ticked us. And that never spells anything good. We want an intellectually challenging article - not an intellectually challenged one. You know what I mean. Please... before you hand over that paper... make sure it makes at least some sense. If it's nonsense, make sure it's as rhythmic as Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky." If not, take note that, in copyreading, we can always enclose your paragraph in a humongous red box and inscribe in huge red letters: KILL. You don't want that happening. It's like a big trampling stomp on your ego. Seriously.

Okay. So that's about it. But I'm sure none of this year's journalists abide by these rules... right? Otherwise, you wouldn't have been nominated for membership in the school organ. Guys, you have the raw potential. Just a little honing, and you may be MandSci's next star writers. We know you will be.

After you read this entry, you may be discouraged to submit articles, thinking we're too meticulous. DON'T BE! We're not saying we detest your mistakes. WE DON'T. It's okay to make mistakes since even we, the editors, make mistakes. Please... just do your best to minimize your errors. That is all. Take note: hours worth of homework plus even more hours of copyreading your works equals excruciating pain and torment. No, that is not a hyperbole. Do us a favor and make our lives easier. Have pity on our poor souls.