Do you read your articles once they are published? One writer explains why he doesn't...

I WAS intrigued by this post from Neil Baker - with some engaging pros and cons on the merits or otherwise of reading your own copy once it's published.

I can't imagine not reading work once it's in print - but then I kept everything from my first letter in Smash Hits in a bag under the stairs for years...until it accidentally got thrown out. Oh well.

What do you think?

Comments

[Anne]

I think every writer should read their copy after it has been published to see what has been done to it. Seeing how your copy gets changed can teach you a lot about what a particular publication does or does not want. It might not be a pleasant experience if you find your copy has been hacked to bits or typos have been added in but I think it's pretty daft not to read it in all honesty.

I remember how, in one previous job, I wished writers would read their copy after it had been subbed so they could learn from the changes.

Ultimately journalism isn't art. It's a trade. And to become a better tradesperson you should take an interest in how your customers have responded to your handiwork, IMO.

[Neil Baker]

Anne, I agree. And in my original post you'll see that the exception is when I write for a new editor. I always check to see what changes they've made, if only to make sure I'm writing in their house style. But generally, I find that my editors don't make that many changes.

[Nick Clayton]

I hardly ever read my own copy once it's published. It's nearly always a work in progress that's been frozen to meet a deadline. So there always things that have changed by the time I see it. My experience with edits is that they're mostly made to get copy to fit. And when the 1500 word piece you were commissioned for shrinks to 800 words you're only going to get upset by what the sub's hacked out.