Word added to quote in my story - Big deal?

Also, if I were the desk and HAD to add that in (which I don't see why), I would have bracketed the "and." That shows it's an editing add.

"[And] I'm only 15 minutes from Tahoe."

My guess is they looked at that, realized how tarded it looked and unnecessary and just added the word. Maybe.

 

My rule of thumb is if a quote isn't a continuous quote, do not present it as such. Find a way to present the quotes as two seperate comments.

In this case, I might have written: "I know I'm good enough," said McYoungster, who noted that he's "15 minutes from Tahoe."

The phrase "who later noted that he's..." can be altered, depending on the significance of his proximity to Tahoe. You might say "blah," said McYounster, who also noted that his proximity to the venue -- "I'm only 15 minutes from Tahoe," he said -- gives him an advantage. (I'm assuming some context here).

In neither of my examples would the reader -- or the copy editor -- assume a continuous quote.

 

To me, we're going more gently on one part than we should be: No way a copy editor should have edited in the word "And" in that spot, because it absolutely DOES imply that it was said as a direct continuation of the first quote.

Whether separating with attribution means a first quote and a second can be separated by a lot of actual time and space in an interview has always vexed me a bit, though, and I like IJAG's solution fine.

Inserting "And"....? 100 percent wrong, to me. Simple as that.

 

I would assume they are connected if they were part of the same graph...you're making a big deal out of nothing here...Really???

 

But that's just it. I'm not making a big deal about it. I'm asking if I should.

If you don't think having a word added to a quote in your story is a big deal, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's what I'm asking ... is this a big enough deal to bring up with my editor? The consensus seems to be that, while it wasn't the right thing for an editor to do, it doesn't rise to the level of saying anything about it, especially given that I'm a freelancer. And that sounds about right to me. I've even learned a little bit in the course of the thread.

 

I would at least ask the editor to get his thinking behind the change. You do deserve to know why the word was added.

 

I don't read my stories once they are published. It spares me these kind of anxious moments. Plus, I couldn't get along better with the copy desk.

 

This seems ridiculously dangerous though if they DO really screw something up. I always check my stories after they've been published. You don't want to head into a meeting with a coach oblivious to the fact that the desk changed his name from Coach Hay to Coach Gay by mistake.

 

Maybe this is only because I've been doing more editing lately, but considering how much copy editors usually help a story, I don't see the big deal.
Sure, it's their job to make the story better by editing it, but sometimes that's a lot of fuckin work. But it's also the job of the reporter to turn in clean copy, which we all know a lot of reporters don't always do (myself included).
This isn't something to make a big deal about. Because imagine if the copy editor made a big stink to you every time you omitted a word or something like that.
If it becomes habit, then I'd be worried.

 

What if the word "molehill" was changed to "mountain"?

 

every rule has an exception. but it's not like the editor accidentally changed "shot" to "shit."