These two virtues are the essence of a good, creative collaboration.
"Integrity without knowledge is weak and useless, and knowledge without integrity is dangerous and dreadful." —Samuel Johnson
Back when I was fine-tuning my 10-Value Pledge to authors, I was researching the subtle difference in the meanings of "value" and "virtue," and how these terms have evolved over time. Eventually I was drawn to the original source.
When it comes to contemplating the deeper meaning of words, Samuel Johnson is the acknowledged GOAT. He singlehandedly created the first Dictionary of English Usage, which made him the preeminent authority on our lexicon until the arrival of Oxford's first dictionary 150 years later.
Dr. Johnson literally defined the word virtue. He thought enough of the term to give it ten meanings, paralleling another set of written rules related to virtue.
The first definition is "moral goodness." The other meanings consider the application of virtue for generally desirable and useful traits, apart from morality.
In contrast, the dictionary's first definition of vice is "the course of action opposite to virtue."
In simplest terms, virtues benefit, while vices harm. But as with most things, it is more complicated than that.
Whether something is a virtue or a vice depends on both perspective and degree.
For instance, the profit motive leads to innovation and job creation. That makes it a virtue, right? So . . . does that mean "greed is good?" Gordon Gekko thought so, but most theologians and spiritual leaders beg to differ (i.e., perspective). When the accumulation of wealth becomes insatiable it tends to go off the virtue rails and deep into vice territory (i.e., degree).
Knowledge is another quality that typically falls under "virtue." We book people can't get enough of it, and unlike wealth, it is getting easier and easier to acquire with the touch of a screen. Under what circumstances is more knowledge a bad thing? Can it ever be considered a vice?
"Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." —Thomas Grey, "Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College," stanza 10
One thing's for certain: knowledge can be a force for evil. Consider two poster children for evil from the last century. First you have Stalin, who was admired for his bookishness by the same comrades he would later send to the Gulag. Then there's the other side of the same coin, Hitler, who could quote Nietzsche and Darwin off the top of his greasy head as easily as Captain Jean-Luc Picard recites the Great Bard.
"Ignorance is the curse of God, Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heav’n." —Shakespeare, Henry VI, act 4, sc. 7
That Stalin and Hitler applied their undeniable wealth of acquired knowledge to redefine inhumanity demonstrates what Dr. Johnson meant by "dangerous and dreadful." They exemplified a lack of humanity. They were also lacking in another crucial virtue: integrity.
As corrupt master deceivers, they embodied the opposite of Dr. Johnson's original definition of integrity, which still holds up: "Honesty; an uncorrupt mind; purity of manners."
Not to virtue signal, but I think that kind of integrity is what an editor brings to the author-editor collaboration:
honesty = unfiltered feedback on necessary corrections and improvements;
an uncorrupt mind = objective understanding of what the book needs to succeed; and
purity of manners = adherence to established publishing industry standards.
Dr. Johnson was onto something in the quote at the top of this blog post. If the author personifies the "knowledge" and the editor the "integrity," put them together and you have the opposite of weak and useless; you have something truly powerful and useful.
Incidentally, Stalin was a former editor, but one severely lacking in integrity. Exhibit A: he was the first editor of Pravda.
If you are a knowledgeable author in need of an editor who does value integrity—and would never work for Pravda—I happen to know one.
Comments