writing and editing

OK so fyi another one of my articles has been posted as the lead story on lds.org. This one is on the True to the Faith resource and is one of my top five articles I wrote during my internship. However, I was looking over the posted article (at this lovely link) and there were a couple things that pretty much SORELY STUCK OUT to me while I read it. These things are really just minor editor changes (Luckily for me my editor said I was a really good writer and rarely had to change much of my work) but sometimes these things are so completely off of my personal writing style that when I'm reading and all of the sudden it's different from how I would personally write it, I really have to stop and focus and be like "what does it say?" Not to mention, several of these articles I read and reread so many times that I almost have them subconsciously memorized. This same type of experience actually happened to me as a writer for the Daily Universe as well. One specific change really altered the way I flowed the article when I wrote it and it still bothers me today.

In my article about the Stadium of Fire in 2006. The second paragraph as printed says:

From sending text messages to servicemen to reuniting one family after an eight-month separation, one main focus of the show was honoring the American troops serving their country from around the world.

My original version:

From sending text messages to servicemen to reuniting one family after an eight-month separation, a main focus of the show was honoring the American troops serving their country from around the world.

Caught the difference? The change is simple and to most it doesn't matter but the change here was from "a main focus of the show" to "one main focus of the show." For me, as a writer, reader, and editor, I like the flow that comes with "a main focus" .... at least when I read it. I don't like the word change to one because, first of all, one is repeated twice in that sentence which kinda stops the flow with what seems to be a repetition. Second, the phrase "one main focus" implies that there are many other main focuses. I know that "a main focus" doesn't completely eliminate this idea, but as the writer I chose a over one...and other seemly insignificant small indicators like the...because this main focus was what I thought was the most important, and while there were other themes that repeated throughout the evening, this one was the strongest and the one that would best represent the evening...White it wasn't the only focus, it was the largest and most important...none of the others were worth mentioning.

Ok that probably means nothing to you and probably makes sense to even fewer. But when I first read the printed version of the article, this SO stuck out to me and I really wish it hadn't been changed...especially when the change really doesn't fix any proposed problem the editor likely noticed.

OK on to my True to the Faith article. I honestly haven't read the whole entire thing through yet, but in what I did, I noticed a couple things that just don't fit my style. It's late and I haven't been getting enough sleep lately so I'll just mention one.

The first paragraph....talk about the main focal point of an article! The published version you will all see:

When Robert Lund, a bishop in Kaysville, Utah, USA, encounters any gospel-related question or concern, one resource he always turns to is True to the Faith.

Now, this one probably really really sticks out to me because of how familiar I was with this first sentence. This is a pretty long article so throughout my writing and rewriting of it, I read this first sentence quite a bit in my mind. I'm sure there was a reason they made this change and blah blah blah. But, well, I hate it.

My original version states: When Robert Lund, a bishop in Kaysville, Utah, USA encounters any gospel-related question or concern, there's one resource he always turns to--True to the Faith.

I think the following graphs are the same. I don't remember if I went directly into a quote or first provided information about what True to the Faith is. Ulk, again, this doesn't seem like too big of a change but I can't stand the reorganization in that first sentence. And maybe that's just me.

There's so much to say about the role of an editor to preserve an author's voice and the times its ok to forget rules to make room for a writers artistical voice.....so much to say...and maybe i will someday. but for now, im going to bed.