Quote:
Originally Posted by rhadin
Granted the description and word choice could be better, but my problem with your example is the repetition. How many times do I need to be told it stinks?
Doesn't "nearly bowled over by the stench" say the same as "The smell hit him out of nowhere, like an invisible curtain that slapped him in the face." Doesn't it also say "A scent of rot and decay filled the place."
I also wonder what is meant by "It was so strong that he felt his stomach buckling and was aware of a slight gorge rising in his throat." Is it his stomach that was aware of the "slight gorge rising in his throat" (which is what the sentence implies as written)? And what's the difference between a "slight gorge" and some other "gorge"? And do stomachs "buckle"?
I understand that this was likely taken from a novel and so there is more leeway for "loose" language use than in nonfiction. But even granting that, it seems to me that a good editor would have helped the author tighten the phrasing so that it had a better impact.
Overkill in writing is like roadkill in driving -- usually undesirable.
|
In reference to this and Caleb's posting above--it depends on the editor. It also depends on how much else is wrong. Most editors know that you have to focus hard on a few points to work on or the author will simply be overwhelmed. If the person's spelling and comma use is awful, you've GOT to mark and fix that or at least point it out. I've had that happen and talked to the writer to be told, "the copyeditor is going to get that." Okay, but that makes reading it more difficult. It can make a three-line description hard to read and evaluate. It can mean I'm going to hate the plot because I'm struggling to even make sense of sentences. Hell, if it's bad enough I might miss that there IS a plot...
Same thing goes with other storyline issues. Not all writers hand off a "clean" manuscript to the editor and whether they realize it or not, that means the editor CAN'T do as good a job. The onus is on the writer to get the thing damn near perfect so that the editor can find things the writer DOESN'T see. If the editor is fixing the same old mistake with every manuscript there is no opportunity for the writer to excel and get better. The books aren't going to improve.
If you wonder why a book gets to market that contains spaghetti writing even after being edited, it can be because there were multiple large issues (or a lack of a particular type of skill on the part of the editor). My early work was edited but not edited for word choice. That means the writing isn't going to be as strong. I don't think I overused words or mis-used word (the two most basic problems with word choice), but it wasn't until the second Sedona book that I started working with a word-smith editor. That was a real eye opener from a technique standpoint.
I've worked with multiple editors now and most of them have a particular talent. Some of them are very experienced and they can edit for multiple problems all in one pass. My word choice editor knows that is her strength and tells people right up front. She catches plot inconsistencies, but it's not her focus. My copyeditor is very focused on copyediting, but he is the only one who happened to catch that I had a white Mustang in two places at the same time--after 3 other editors and at least 2 beta readers had read it. Yet the first editor caught a north/south issue (THANK YOU, THANK YOU...it was a very important plot point...) and so on.
I think review books get sent out in a mess because writers are in a hurry. If they have had one beta reader or one editor, they assume it's perfect. "The oil must have been changed in my car because I hired someone to do it." I've read books where I KNEW the writer had had it copyedited...for a rather large sum of money. And there were too many typos for what she paid.
But part of the problem can also be money. Hiring one editor is enough of a problem. Finding and paying for two or three multiplies the time, effort AND cost. It can become a real balancing act. I'm not making excuses for anyone either, but sometimes you can't FIND an editor for a particular project. (You can always find someone, but it doesn't mean they are good at it.) Sometimes the good ones become so expensive you simply can't pay the cost because if you're self-pub'd you know your numbers. You know approximately how many copies you'll sell each month and that may mean you hire one out of three editors and swap the manuscript with four other writers instead or hiring the one editor you want.
FWIW.