Re: first round
Subject: Re: first round
From: Rachel Trusheim <rachel@sterlingandross.com>
Date: 1/29/10, 18:47
To: Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com>

Thanks, Barrett. I'll send these along!

Rachel Trusheim
Executive Editor
212.244.2084 ext. 111

Sterling & Ross Publishers    | 115 W 29 ST. FL 3   | New York, NY 10001   |   www.sterlingandross.com

On Jan 29, 2010, at 3:17 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Thanks for the edits; most look good. I've attached the revised version. Wanted to make some explanations regarding the editor notes:

 “The New Deal continued to snowball until 90 percent of the U.S. workforce was employed by the Works Progress Administration, digging trenches and putting on Eugene O'Neil plays” (1)
o    …until 90 percent of the U.S. workforce digging trenches and putting on Eugene O'Neil plays under the Works Progress Administration.”


The revised version seems to be broken, requiring a missing verb between "workforce" and "digging."

 “Peretz is also in the habit of targeting New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof for special criticism, apparently because Kristof has failed to target the Arabs for same” (98).
o                    It is unclear which part of the sentence “target the Arabs for the same” is referencing here.

It references "special criticism." Feel free to change this if you think it's still unclear, but this is a fairly common sentence construction.

  “The reader may notice that McCarty words this in a such a way as to leave open the possibility that no such debate has occurred” (126).
o                  Consider: “The reader may notice that the way McCarty words opens the possibility that no such debate has occurred.”

I think the first version is clear; the second version accidentally gives the meaning that, from McCarty's wording, one might see it as possible that such a debate really did not occur. In fact, the purpose of the first version is to convey that it is simply McCarty's intent to leave open the possibility of this, which is why I employ that particular clause..


On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Rachel Trusheim <rachel@sterlingandross.com> wrote:
Awesome!

Rachel Trusheim
Executive Editor
212.244.2084 ext. 111

Sterling & Ross Publishers    | 115 W 29 ST. FL 3   | New York, NY 10001   |   www.sterlingandross.com

On Jan 28, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Yeah, I can do that.

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Rachel Trusheim <rachel@sterlingandross.com> wrote:
I forgot to ask, can you work in Microsoft Word's track changes? That way you just accept edits, respond to comments, and edit the text so that I can see all movements in the doc.


Rachel Trusheim
Executive Editor
212.244.2084 ext. 111

Sterling & Ross Publishers    | 115 W 29 ST. FL 3   | New York, NY 10001   |   www.sterlingandross.com

On Jan 28, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Barrett Brown wrote:

Sure. Do I just need to make the changes in the summary document and leave the red edits unchanged?

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Rachel Trusheim <rachel@sterlingandross.com> wrote:
Hey BB,

Attached are the edits (pretty minor overall) to the ms. I've also included the editor's notes to give you a bigger picture of what we saw and did.

Could you check this out for me and turn around in relatively short order?

Thanks!
Rachel





Rachel Trusheim
Executive Editor
212.244.2084 ext. 111

Sterling & Ross Publishers    | 115 W 29 ST. FL 3   | New York, NY 10001   |   www.sterlingandross.com







<HOT FAT CLOUDEDam.notes BB.doc>