Revising and editing ...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Yeah for me it depends on how bad it is. A few mistakes here and there I am not likely to even notice any issues, but one book I read recently was so bad I had to just skip complete sentences because I could not figure out what the author was trying to say.

Yes, that's the kind of thing I was referring to. One of two mistakes in the book won't put me off reading it, certainly. I'm really referring to situations in which the author is clearly lacking basic grammatical knowledge.

An example: I was reading a book recently in which the author was fond of using the word "awhile", but was clearly unaware of the grammatical difference between "awhile" (an adverb meaning "for a length of time") and "a while" (a noun meaning "a length of time"), and hence kept saying things like "we stopped for awhile", which is just plain wrong; you can say either "we stopped awhile" or "we stopped for a while", but not "we stopped for awhile". That was a commercially published book, too. THAT'S the kind of thing that bugs me.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An example: I was reading a book recently in which the author was fond of using the word "awhile", but was clearly unaware of the grammatical difference between "awhile" (an adverb meaning "for a length of time") and "a while" (a noun meaning "a length of time"), and hence kept saying things like "we stopped for awhile", which is just plain wrong; you can say either "we stopped awhile" or "we stopped for a while", but not "we stopped for awhile". That was a commercially published book, too. THAT'S the kind of thing that bugs me.

...and THATS the kind of thing I have an editor for! I consistently get that kind of thing wrong. Then/than appear to be my favorite mix up currently.

But the thing is for me, and I am sure I am not atypical, there are certain errors I am just blind too. For example intellectually I know that than is a conjunction used in comparisons and then is not. So I know that :

Jill is better then David at math.

is wrong, but for some reason I never see that error in my manuscript. My brain just seems to ALWAYS use then, regardless of the correct answer.

So if random author number ten can not get an editor for some reason, I expect that things like then/than that are obvious to others slip through. I do not think its due to lack of knowledge in all cases, just everyone has blind areas.

Now, commas, are, an, area, where, I, really, just, do, not, undertand, the, rules, at, all. My poor editor! LOL

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

Now, commas, are, an, area, where, I, really, just, do, not, undertand, the, rules, at, all. My poor editor! LOL

I'm not sure anyone fully understands the rules for commas.

(Especially because the grammatically correct usage is not always the one that flows best on the page...)

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

An example: I was reading a book recently in which the author was fond of using the word "awhile", but was clearly unaware of the grammatical difference between "awhile" (an adverb meaning "for a length of time") and "a while" (a noun meaning "a length of time"), and hence kept saying things like "we stopped for awhile", which is just plain wrong; you can say either "we stopped awhile" or "we stopped for a while", but not "we stopped for awhile". That was a commercially published book, too. THAT'S the kind of thing that bugs me.

Isn't awhile one of those American words, like backseat? If it isn't, it is very common with American writers.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Isn't awhile one of those American words, like backseat? If it isn't, it is very common with American writers.

This is actually a case that illustrates the point that grammar rules follow the language, not the other way around. Here is the note about this from the Random House dictionary:

Usage note
The adverb awhile is spelled as a single word: After stopping in Hadley awhile, we drove to Deerfield. As the object of a preposition, the noun phrase a while is used, especially in edited writing, but the single-word form is becoming increasingly common: We rested for a while (or awhile ).

For those that can not accept language drifts with time, this will be a tough point.

[Harper Kingsley]

I always just use "awhile." I think it's an Americanism, like "I could care less."

What I've always been told is that whatever school of grammar you subscribe to, at least be consistent with it. If you've got "awhile" in part, but "a while" in another, and they're both basically being used in the same way... well, people are more likely to notice the mistake.

"Fake it 'til you make it." Should that be just "til?"

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harper Kingsley

I always just use "awhile." I think it's an Americanism, like "I could care less."

What I've always been told is that whatever school of grammar you subscribe to, at least be consistent with it. If you've got "awhile" in part, but "a while" in another, and they're both basically being used in the same way... well, people are more likely to notice the mistake.

"Fake it 'til you make it." Should that be just "til?"

But it's not "a school of grammar". Saying "for awhile" is just plain wrong. Perhaps you weren't aware of this until now, but now that you do know, why not correct your usage? It's an easy "rule" to remember: if you use "for" then use the separate words "a while". If you use it on its own, associated with a verb, then it's the single word "awhile".

Eg, "We talked awhile until dinner was ready"

or:

"We talked for a while until dinner was ready"

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by Harper Kingsley

I always just use "awhile." I think it's an Americanism, like "I could care less."

I was born and raised in the US, and "for awhile" still looks wrong for me, so at most it's a regional thing.

I think it's important to note that authors break grammatical rules all the time. Fiction, in particular, is full of sentence fragments and regional dialects used to increase the book's emotional effect.

Consider, for example, the first few paragraphs of Marion Zimmer Bradley's The Colors of Space:

The Lhari spaceport didn't belong on Earth.

Bart Steele had thought that, a long time ago, when he first saw it. He had been just a kid then; twelve years old, and all excited about seeing Earth for the first time—Earth, the legendary home of mankind before the Age of Space, the planet of Bart's far-back ancestors. And the first thing he'd seen on Earth, when he got off the starship, was the Lhari spaceport.

And he'd thought, right then, It doesn't belong on Earth.

Or the opening lines of Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn:

YOU don't know about me without you have read a book by the name of The Adventures of Tom Sawyer; but that ain't no matter. That book was made by Mr. Mark Twain, and he told the truth, mainly. There was things which he stretched, but mainly he told the truth.

Twain and MZB are breaking the rules, but they're doing it deliberately, with an eye toward maintaining the rhythm of the narrative and the personality of the POV character. They're not breaking rules at random. They're going for a specific effect.

I submit that as an author, it's perfectly acceptable to break with established grammatical rules, but only if there is a clear stylistic benefit.

Continuing the discussion of awhile and a while, my impression is that most readers either (a) don't care or (b) prefer the usage presented by Harry. Assuming that's the case, then I see no inherent advantage in writing "for awhile", because it alienates some readers without increasing the book's enjoyability for anyone else.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

I think it's important to note that authors break grammatical rules all the time. Fiction, in particular, is full of sentence fragments and regional dialects used to increase the book's emotional effect.

This is absolutely true, but I would respectfully submit that, before you can break the rules, it's important to know what the rules actually are, because unless you do, there will be circumstances in which you'll be unable to write in the appropriate style. For example, if you're writing in a formal context (as I do in my "day job") then it's very important to be able to use formal grammar correctly.

Once you can write "grammatically correct" English, then you have the knowledge to be able to relax the grammar for different writing styles, such as passages of dialogue.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is absolutely true, but I would respectfully submit that, before you can break the rules, it's important to know what the rules actually are, because unless you do, there will be circumstances in which you'll be unable to write in the appropriate style. For example, if you're writing in a formal context (as I do in my "day job") then it's very important to be able to use formal grammar correctly.

Once you can write "grammatically correct" English, then you have the knowledge to be able to relax the grammar for different writing styles, such as passages of dialogue.

I agree and would also be annoyed by "for awhile".

[Nancy Fulda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would respectfully submit that, before you can break the rules, it's important to know what the rules actually are.

Yup. You'll get no argument from me there.

[phloxy]

I'm an editor by day (medical and scientific content and academic nonfiction) and a writer by night. I second what HarryT says. I can handle a few typos in a book (editors and proofreaders are only human after all), but repeated grammatical mistakes are annoying.

Grammar isn't easy. Even after 15 years in the biz, I still learn new grammatical concepts, and styles and language (even spelling) change, so it's not as if you can ever learn everything. I do give writers some leeway, but good grammar raises a writer's credibility immensely. The nuts and bolts of grammar and spelling are relatively easy to master even though they are often boring to learn about (there, I said it). Still, polished prose and beautiful writing are wonderful to behold, so it's worth taking the time occasionally to work on grammar a bit by picking up one of the short instructional books that are available.

At the moment, I'm certain that I'm better at editing than I am at writing fiction. But I'm enthusiastic about both.

[LuvReadin]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

...Short stories aren't so bad, but for anything longer I can see the appeal of farming it out to a co-writer to do.

Or to a professional editor? A fresh pair of eyes can be of immense help. You mentioned on another thread about rewriting books so the character had the same clothes throughout - that's exactly the sort of thing an editor should catch.

Originally Posted by Nancy Fulda

(As an aside, I dislike the writing/editing dichotomy because it implies that writing is not editing, and vice versa. For me, 'writing' encompasses the entire creative process, from the moment the first words are on the page until the moment the finished draft is sent out into the world. Thus 'writing' includes drafting, revision, editing, polishing, and so forth. But maybe that's just me.)

But writing is separate from editing, and proofreading. There's a reason why publishers won't ask a copy-editor to proofread something they've edited; it's because it's actually quite difficult to see mistakes if you've made them. Even more so if you're the author and have read it over dozens of times - you're likely to read what you think it there, rather than what is. And as I said above, an editor gives a fresh perspective.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

[B]
I do definitely recommend using an editor, though.

Hear, hear! But...

Originally Posted by anamardoll

[B]You can get very good editing work done for under $200

That must be a very short book! As an in-house editor, I'd expect to pay something like GBP400 for a typical 50K-word book. At the price you give, I can't see it being much more than a proofread.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by LuvReadin

That must be a very short book! As an in-house editor, I'd expect to pay something like GBP400 for a typical 50K-word book. At the price you give, I can't see it being much more than a proofread.

This is a common problem on these forums, what one person means by editor never agrees with what another thinks. I have personally received price quotes from $100's of dollars to 1000's for my 100k book. Just depends on what you expect them to do and how good they think they are.

[Nancy Fulda]

Yup. The word 'edit' might mean anything from a major plot overhaul to light proofreading, depending on who you ask.

Someone really ought to standardize the terminology