I'm in the midst of trying to decide which of two candidates to hire for what will be the first (hopefully) of many positions in my editorial staff.

Both are very good applicants. I've put them to test writing a couple of stories for me, and have to decide which to hire based on these.

I thought one had a stylistic age edge over the other. The other was not as stylish, but had better research and a better instinct for story flow. She's also younger and less over-qualified. More moldable, perhaps?

I took a closer look at the stylistically better submission. This is what I discovered. I nearly sent this feedback to her (she asked for brutal feedback) but then decided there are lines I should still draw.

Maybe this isn't really brutal after all. Honestly I don't know how to tell anymore. I live a pretty brutal life as it is. I was brutal to begin with, but life is all shades of stark white now. I'm the proverbial Eskimo who has run out of words to describe snow.


Do you think this is a brutal critique?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Okay, here we go again. Please realise that these are very very subtle points that I am making and entirely subjective. Other readers will disagree. Some will read it and find it entirely fine, even great.

My perspective comes from working with freelancers for 2 years now. I try not to edit every piece because then I'd actually have to work. There's only two reasons why I'd rewrite a submission.

1. Very often I let something I dislike pass if the style and words flow. But if a piece doesn't flow, I will be forced to edit it. This is relatively minor work.

2. Then, there's a piece that doesn't pass at all content-wise. That's where I draw my lines and unsheathe my delete key, or ask the writer for a complete rewrite. It's usually because they have not followed my brief, or that my brief wasn't clear enough. In both instances it is my fault - less so in the former but still ...


Here's what I absolutely love about your piece -- ie what flows:

1. Fun - ie, Wordplay. I asked for it, I got it in spades. Love 'stranded', love 'untangling', love love love 'the root of great hair' --- you have the wordplay chops. I'd love to get someone who can wordplay as much as you can, we'd be throwing corny one-liners at each other all day.

2. From the point of view of a guy, all that insight into what women think of hair is fascinating. I didn't even care that eggplants had a colour. I also didn't know about the existence of lowlights, although now that you mention it, if there's highlights, there must be lowlights. All this is like cookery to me - I don't particularly care for how the chef made it, I only care for how it is presented, and then maybe only very little. But now I know.

This makes it a very appealing story to skim over.


However this is why I'd have to ask for a rewrite:
1. The insights into hair can cut two ways. While men are interested to know this sort of thing, women already do know it. Most of the readers will be women. So what does this text mean to them?

They read it, and they feel what you feel, and ultimately it can only be a celebration of the ordeal/rituals of hair-styling/self-definition every woman has to go through. And as such, I might argue that you didn't push that quite far enough.

Because in some way, I feel that I'm missing the point. Because you don't supply it. I don't know what to think. Readers are dumb, and I am that reader, albeit male (quid pro quo).

Hence, as an editor (with his own particular set of limited sensibilities) looking at your freelance submission, I'd opt to cut the text highlighted in yellow (see attached) to sharpen the focus. Make it not so much about hair-styling, but to remove the feeling that a reader might have of 'missing the point'. Or I could throw in a sentence that makes the point for you, like say "But you know all that hair-styling? It's also why your hair doesn't look good. Ironic, right?"

The other more critical way to think about all the hair insights (all those yellow text) is that they work as some kind of fancy filler. You know what editors call these - 'fluff pieces', in which about 30% or more of the entire piece consists of padding. The impact of the puns and the rest of the insights is to mask the fact that there is no real content there.




2. So now we come to content. Generally, I look for well thought out structures. After reading your piece, here's your structure in a nutshell, according to the question "What shall readers take away from reading this story?"

Let me take you from the top, roughly.

- That we have hair, and hair is woman, hear us roar.
- that "our tresses take a real beating during the styling", and that "The first casualty is always the scalp." No, wait, actually, it is the strands of hair that's the first casualty, right? But we'll go along because you need a way to segue into talking about the scalp. This exit ramp was not well-handled.

- Ok, so now, the body needs to be healthy to have a healthy scalp to give us healthy hair, so we must live healthily. Got it.
- That hair should shine without styling products. Urm okay. Because of the scalp, we suppose? How do styling products affect the scalp then? Doesn't say ...
- That hair can lose its shine because of the environment. Hm. - hm wait, even with a good healthy lifestyle? A little confused now. Should healthy hair shine IRREGARDLESS of environmental factors?
- That some hair products are not good for our scalps, but we don't know which products. Because you don't say. Still more confused. Should we stop shampooing?
- That there's hair problems, and they are roughly divided into dandruff and thinning hair. Ah....

And now we cue all the women who have dry hair, split ends, limp hair, and most important of all - the reason why they are reading this (and also the brief for the story) - LACKLUSTRE hair ie hair that doesn't shine and doesn't have body and that simply. won't. be. great. What about these hair problems, then?

And of those, how about curly hair, wavy hair, straight hair, short hair, and long hair? It's a zoo out there!

- For dandruff don't overwash. Two words.
- Still on dandruff, solutions are "Oil massages for the scalp, oral supplements, staying out of the harsh Sun, and performing various hair treatments." Are you sure you covered everything? Various hair treatments are so vague ...
- Eat lots of vitamins for a healthy scalp. This article is starting to look very scalp-centric, because didn't we already mention this? Also, this is what the real meat of the story should be, sadly it is only 1/8th of the entire story.

- Lastly, bonding with mum is great, unless you don't actually get along with your mum, which makes... oh... more than 50% of women out there. You lucky lucky person, the rest of us have to seek help from professional trichologists!

We are a health magazine and presumably up to date on the latest beauty/health info, yet we spend 1/4 of the story advocating traditional remedies, which also only cover one particular ethnic group and very specifically just coconuts and spices.


There is absolutely no question that I would have asked for a rewrite. I've attached some samples of stories that have been submitted before on the same topic -- just to give you an idea of what can be possible.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I think I know which candidate to hire.

And I didn't send this critique after all. Because what would be the point? Even if she wants it, I'd feel bad about drubbing her work.




A reporter dies and goes to journalist heaven, where St. Peter issues him a harp and a set of moderate-sized wings. "These seem kind of small," the reporter complains. "Well," says St. Peter, "Wing size here is determined by how much abuse you suffered in your earthly life. See that guy with the butterfly-sized wings? He was a publisher. And the person with condor-sized wings? She was a night city editor."

Just then a squadron of F-16s roars overhead, forcing the two to hit the dirt.

St. Peter stands up, dusts himself off and mutters: "Damn copy editors."