Re: One More Chapter for Your Perusal

elanders wrote:

[Snip all context. If you care, you can find it.]

Bob, you weren't doing editing, you were doing stand-up. The closest you
came to a genuine edit is the Tom Swiftie, but even there, you showed
you don't know the full rule about Tom Swifties.

Of course, I do. Yours was no Tom Swiftie. It was merely so
ludicrous that it put me in mind of Tom Swifties.

Everything else was a set-up looking for a punchline, a punchline never
delivered -- not once.

You ask for sperific instances, then complain when you get them.

Well, that has no more to do with editing than spam has to do with steak.

Do you have any idea what a book editor does?

I write "six coaches pulled in front of the palace" and you say, no --
it should be "arrived in front of the palace."

Why, Bob?

Because "pulled should be pulled-up and pulled up means arrived."

Absolutely so.

Of course "pulled" is a perfectly fine verb that transmits an imagine
that links to the coach and horses, but you would have me kill that
imagery and replace it with a word that tells us only that they got there.

Coaches do not pull -- intranstive. That's a matter of English
idiom. Horses pull coaches. coaches "pull up." Coaches can "pull" in
the transitive only. As between "arrive" and "pull up," I prefer
"arrive." You don't have to tell us, or even suggests, that coaches
are pulled by horses -- no one expects them to be pushed by gerbils
You have simply missed a point of idiom.

Then you say "pulled" is wrong anyway and should be "pulled up." Why do
you say that, Bob? You really don't know, do you? It sounds glib enough.
Is that why you believe "pulled" should be "pulled-up", Bob?

Because intransitive "pull" is unidiomatic with "coaches." That's why.

And here's another one of your gems, Bob:

>looked out the
> window as if the French Army was outside. [He may have reacted as if
> the French Army was outside, but he didn't "look," in the sense of
> "fasten eyes on" that way. He could have "looked" that way in the
> sense of facial expression, but then he wouldn't be "look"ing out a
> window. You've jumbled two senses of the word.]

Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about?

I wrote "He looked out the window..." and your edit is, "but he din't
'look,' in the sense of 'fasten eyes on'"

What...?

You go on Bob:
------------------------------------
He could have "looked" that way in sense of facial expression, but then
he wouldn't be 'look'ing out a window. You've jumbled two senses of the
word"
-------------------------------------

Honestly, Bob, what in the world are you talking about?

If I say "John looked at the picture," that's one sense of "look." He
is seeing something. If I say "John looked as if he had seen a
ghost," that's another sense of "look." He is being seen (if not in
actuality, then by the reader). You jumble these two sense. You have
him "look out the window" and "look as if the French Army was outside"
-- but you use "look" only once. The result is that the one use of
the word has to carry two inconsistent meanings. You could have
written "He looked out the window and reacted as if the French Army
was outside." No award-winner, but at least it's accurate.

Were you sniffling
glue when you wrote that? It makes no sense. It's complete jabbberwocky.

If you aren't prepared to pay attention, wny do you ask for specifics.

The Duke looked out the window. That's a basic as a sentence gets.

Nothing wrong with it -- until he then looks as if the French Army had
arrived.

And
how does "fasten his eyes on" come into discussion? Where'd you get that
from? The only place I can thing of is the textbook edit that warns you
shouldn't write "he put his eyes on..." but that's something completely
different, Bob.

Every other "edit" you made is just as farcical as the one directly
above -- completely worthless.

So when you complain of conclusions and ask for specifics, you ignore
the specifics and express conclusions.

My recommendation to you, Bob, is that you don't post -- or edit -- when
you're field testing Hallucinogens.

"Field-testing" needs a comma, and there's no need to capitalize
"Hallucinogens." I'd also replace "don't" with "not." That aside,
it's clear that you're playing "Heads I win, tails you lose." Those
who tell you you're a lousy writer are criticized for not explaining
in detail. Those who give you details are critiicized by you in
conclusory form.

I predict that you will never be paid a cent for any of your fiction
and that you will still be overcompensated.

--
Bob Lieblich
Feh!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Problem with Crossword Bob
    ... Bob did that, and he pointed ... The writer can defend it, ... "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" ... Your edit was: ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: One More Chapter for Your Perusal
    ... A well-done Tom Swiftie is hardly noticed. ... Bob. ... Your edit was: ... In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: Get Your Fat Ass Over Here, Sponge Bob
    ... Your problem, Bob, is you don't know the difference between an error and a stylistic preference. ... "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" ... Your edit was: ... If the latter -- and that's what the preceding paragraph suggests -- they were accompanying those in the coaches, ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • My Problem with Crossword Bob
    ... Bob. ... "Accompanying the six coaches were a detachment of King's dragoons" ... Your edit was: ... In other words, Bob, you think editing fiction is the same thing as doing a crossword puzzle when it most assuredly is not. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
Loading