One of the biggest concerns I have is exactly what you're talking about Rolfe;
I think getting someone else to thoroughly edit your work is pretty important, but when they're working for you rather than a publisher, surely they're going to have a sort of notion in their head of not upsetting their client, and therefore won't do a decent job.
Well, he's suggested
so little, I think he must actually think it's OK. I'm on page 62 (of 140) and only two alterations haven't been typographic things.
No doubt it could be bettered. However, I think James (pro writer) was on a different wavelength from me. I got the feeling he wanted it changed to a style
he would have used, and I'm not him. I remember when I gave the first pages of my PhD thesis to my supervisor, he started going over it, then stopped and handed it back to me saying, all I'm doing is changing your writing style to my writing style, this is pointless, just write the thing. (I'm not convinced he
ever read it, in the end.)
One of the features of my book is that I lapse into informal language now and again, usually to interject my own commentary on what I'm describing. It actually saves space - you can make some points much more parsimoniously like that. The majority of people who have read the book have responded positively to that. The law professor called these passages "bon-bons", and said they lightened up the experience of reading the very dense argument. My friend who read it said she liked them, then when she was told she had been a guinea-pig, the only person unfamiliar with the issues to have read it, she became very insistent that these passages must be retained - all with no prompting from me.
James wanted them all out. No exceptions. They interfered with the exposition, for him. Well, after that I asked everyone who had read it - about seven in total. One other person said on balance he'd take these passages out, but it wasn't something he felt strongly about. The others were all strongly in favour. So basically they're staying. It would have been different if everyone or even most people had been negative, but in that situation sometimes you just have to say, this is who I am and this is how I am telling you this story.
The editor (whose name I don't know) didn't mention this at all. The edited manuscript is really bare compared to the sample pages they give you to show you what sort of things they might do. He has suggested the occasional re-wording, but very few. He's verging on not supplying value for money, to be honest. So rather than second-guess the entire thought process, I think I'll just assume that his little compliment with smilie-face was genuine.
I guess there are swings and roundabouts to all this. Yes it would be good to have a hands-on editor contributing more to the presentation. On the other hand, this way gives enough input to know it's not a complete horror, while avoiding conflicts and arguments.
I'll never sell what James has sold, because I don't have Hamish Hamilton and the Edinburgh literati pushing it all over the bloody landscape full-time. Or Alex Salmond naming another book by the same author as his all-time favourite (bet he's miffed about the new one, serve him right). But if I can get a bit of momentum going, I'll be satisfied. Mostly, there are some particular lawyers who need to read it, even if they have to be kidnapped and forced to turn the pages.
Rolfe.
. That's nice.
