However, we cannot let this week pass without a brief nod to an event that is the culmination of much hard work by many of our colleagues over the past few months. On Monday 26 July 2010 our employer launched a new look, and a new approach to business, which we are very excited to share with the world! As promised, however, no pressure, no names and no links right here. Interested readers will have no trouble tracking us down via the "About" page.
Enough said, we now resume normal programming...
Tags: News
2 comments:
There are a lot of "we"s and "our"s on this blog but I can't see posts by any other person. Is there another at Watermark, or other firm, that writes on this blog? Or is it the royal "we", so to speak.
I think it will be appropriate to respond to this comment in the first person!
It is a good question, considering that it is something I gave some thought to before starting the blog.
Certainly, it is not the "royal we", since I would never claim that level of authority (or wealth)! It is an editorial or authorial "we", and I had three basic reasons for choosing this style of writing.
For one, I did not want the blog to be too informal or chatty. It will not always be entirely serious, but it is intended to address relatively weighty matters when appropriate.
Secondly, contributions are welcome. A number of my colleagues have indicated some interest in writing for the blog, although this has yet to translate into any actual articles! However, I do want to maintain a consistent style and will always reserve the right to edit contributions to achieve this. (Any contributions will of course be attributed, and will not be edited for content.)
Having decided to avoid the first person, I considered the alternatives, including things like "your correspondent", or "this author". All much worse than "we"!
In my past academic career, "we" was pretty much compulsory for journal articles, even when writing as a sole author. If you did not do it, the editor would do it for you. In my current profession, it is common to use "we", particularly in substantive advice, not least because any work I do is on behalf of the firm, and more particularly its Principals.
So I am accustomed to "we", and "we" it is.
Post a Comment