Friend of the project

A while ago I read the obituary of a communication professor in which the author recounts a story from "a talk we had early in my doctoral student career after his work had been publicly criticized in one of our journals. I asked him how a scholar handles harsh criticism. Dr. Bormann replied that he appreciated criticism when it came from a "friend of the project." He went on to explain that a "friend of the project" is motivated to make the work the best it could be, rather than self-aggrandize."

This notion encapsulated for me both what was so helpful about good reviews and so noxious about bad ones. Since then I've definitely tried to incorporate this principle in my reviewing and grading, with what I perceive to be success. But it recently occurs to me that this is a principle that is worth extending to other aspects of life as a sort of test. My friend Storey has written extensively in the past about writing openly about his life, which includes his interactions with other people. Over time in my own public writing, as I think happens to a lot of bloggers, I've excised a lot of personal stuff as the audience has gotten more potentially diffuse. But I also edit in memory of a cringeworthy episode of internet sniping that I ended up excising because I was just angry. Although, oddly enough, that whole episode was about failure of openness and honesty that instead left me feeling helpless and that completely resolved once honesty was restored (in ways I hadn't even anticipated).

So I guess I'm pondering where the line should be for openness and honesty with other people in our lives, particularly when there is a public aspect that is not mutually consensual. Storey's probably not surprised to hear I'm not sure which side of the line he falls on -- from the viewer's perspective, I think it's obvious that details are more interesting than "keepin' it cryptic," but that's only tangential to the question. So I guess I return to the standard of "friend of the project" -- is the openness and honesty serving to move people and relationships forward? Sort of like, I like or love you enough to be honest with you and about you. Or is it serving some internal emotional need or some need to score points? In my cringeworthy episode, I settled on the latter assessment -- I wasn't doing anyone any favors by sniping on my webpage, and the result was unkind. I don't think I was exactly enlightening the reader either.

And I'm not sure these motivations are mutually exclusive, just as I don't think there is a bright line between helping someone with their writing or research and tooting your own horn a bit. I have to think I'm awesome enough to give you suggestions about what to do with your project that you've been working on and I'm just dabbling in long enough to critique you. Talking openly about one's life is vastly less compelling when life is boring and peachy and your mind is not in a whirl. It's possible to be open and honest in a way that accomplishes noble goals while fulfilling internal needs. Which I guess is what makes the line so blurry.

Taking a step in a related direction, I think this is a good standard for daily communication, and it's a standard I fail at far too often. It's so easy to get to point counting and feeling wounded. It's hard to focus on the project -- which I guess is how we got to this discussion in the first place.

Managing pain

Working from home is the only way to deal with having a mild cold and trying to respond to comments... I manage to make a few edits, and then I have to clean the toilet or some other less noxious task.

Also, no one ever suggests cuts, just additions, leaving it to you to divine what you can trim to get the paper back to the word limit.

R&R

Finally got the review! I got the much heralded revise and resubmit decision, and reviews ranging from enthusiastic to grumpy. But grumpy comments are so much less annoying when they accompany and R&R instead of a rejection!

It is kind of amazing how I got three very detailed reviews on my previous rejection, and yet the new reviews have new issues! That are valid issues, but, damn.

Last squeeze

Only 27 words! Editing kills passive voice, but also a few points I wanted to make,

The other paper

The good: They are interested in publishing it as a short report.

The less good: This requires cutting 1200 words to get it to 2000 words.

The even less good: That probably means cutting a lot of stuff I added on the revision, which means it would have been nice to have been given this option before then!

Back to the good: This paper has a high likelihood of finally getting into print after appearing at a conference, oh, five years ago.

Lesson: Work faster, kids. Don't let things sit on anyone's desk.

Waiting

Dear third reviewer,

Please submit your review. Two others have already submitted their reviews, and you are holding up the process. YOU ARE MAKING LIFE MISERABLE FOR OTHER PEOPLE.

Thanks,

A