[Bell Historians] Library Committee's learned journal

[Arcubus]

Are you talking about a commissioning editor or a copy editor? These are
different activities. How do the criteria for successful editing differ
between an esoteric interest and a serious mainline interest? Surely
good editing is a constant whatever the discipline. 

Bell history is not esoteric, it's a minority interest which for some is
archaeological, for some historical and for some both. It's good to have
both disciplines researching the subject. And without any context the
history or archaeology of bells is meaningless. Isn't 'learned journal'
a bit conceited? We're only talking about bells.

Mark

-----Original Message-----
From: David Bryant [mailto:djb122 at y...] 
Sent: 13 April 2003 22:30
To: bellhistorians at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Bell Historians] Library Committee's learned journal


> Would it perhaps a good idea to have referee/s entirely unconected 
> with
ringing/bell history? Perhaps someone from the Britsh Association of
Local History, whose Journal, The Local Historian, is a splendid example
of proper editing.

Bell history is by nature esoteric, and I don't think anyone without
detailed knowledge of the subject could successfully edit it.

David



This message was sent to you via the Bell Historians' Mailing List. To
unsubscribe from the list send an email to
bellhistorians-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/