IVP - Addenda & Errata - The Ugly Unincarnate Abyss

The Ugly Unincarnate Abyss

Probably you've noticed that there’s a real difference between “living speech” and “printed word,” that one-dimensional, wood-pulp cut-out of the author. We seldom write in the exact same way we speak—not even when blogging! And it’s a good thing too. This struck me about twenty years ago when I was just beginning what turned out to be my career as an editor. We used to publish an “Urbana Compendium,” a book made up primarily of plenary addresses at the triennial Urbana Student Missions Convention. IVP editors were given the job of shaping into book form the addresses that had been recorded and then transcribed. We did this during the convention.

I remember working on a plenary address by Billy Graham. I heard his delivery, and it was typical Graham—effective speech that moved the crowd. But when I was faced with editing the word-for-word transcription, I realized that there were a lot of lacunae—gaps that needed to be filled in. We’re not just talking missing words. I mean missing thoughts, whole sentences and, in my opinion, even paragraphs. I'm sure I was oblivious to this as I listened to his address. So I went about the task of filling in what Graham would have or should have said. Yes, that’s right, putting words into the great evangelist’s mouth. He would have opportunity to read, edit and sign off on it later, so I filled in and massaged the text with editorial impunity. (This, by the way, and if I may engage in anachronism, is one reason why I have no problem believing—or even extending—Randolph Richards’s account of how Paul’s secretary might have operated in producing his letters. But that’s a different story, and you can read about it in his Paul and First-Century Letter Writing, IVP 2004).

Where am I headed with this? You could take it as a reminder of something we all know: not all good speakers are good writers, and not all good writers are good speakers. But it’s primarily a reminder to authors that their physical presence in “live speech” is something absent when it comes to a book and its readers. (If it has to be biblical before you’ll believe it, read 2 Corinthians 10:10 and then reverse the flow.) Whatever personal charisma, endearing qualities, rhetorical excellence or anything else you bring to the task of connecting with people “live,” these are largely stripped away in the book. It’s now you and the page and the ugly, unincarnate abyss between printed word and reader. You’ve got to bring other charms to this task, or at least refashion the ones you’ve got. What’s more, you won’t be there to “read” your audience and make those on-the-run adjustments of your language, your speed of delivery or the level of your illustrations. You get one shot at it. That’s it! This is a handicap for those accustomed to relying on audience feedback, whether they do so consciously or unconsciously, overtly or tacitly.

Generally speaking, this isn’t as much of a problem for an IVP Academic author since they are writing for readers with greater-than-average attention spans and higher-than-usual interest in the topic. But when that author writes to a broader audience, the challenge is definitely engaged. Authors will tell their editors that laypeople love their talks. “When I speak, I’ve got them in the palm of my hand,” or, "When I speak I always get such a favorable response!"

What the editor wants to say is that the rhetoric of the page and stage are not the same. And few there be that master both. But it can be done. This is where an editor wants to and can help. But you can also study the ways of those who have mastered these two fronts of rhetoric. They are out there. I have my favorites. Who are yours?

Posted by Dan Reid at July 12, 2007 3:20 PM