Edit: what would you do?--Part 2

I've gotten some terrific responses to the editing challenge for the sample from Mike's novel posted in Part 1 (note: if you haven't read Part 1, the following isn't going to work for you. Scroll down for the long sample being discussed). Part 2 and Part 3 will share those comments, plus observations on the observations.

You'll see illustrated the personal and subjective ways in which all readers (and editors) perceive a narrative -- it's a wonder we communicate at all. Then I'll chime in with Part 4. The focus is on both writing and storytelling issues, which are sometimes the same, sometimes different. These are in chronological order.

Gemma wrote:

Here are the few things that struck me as I read the sample.

In the first part, the people of the city are uncaring and (deliberately) don't notice the two homeless guys, but in contrast Nature (the wind, the cold, etc) seems more personally involved ("nature sought to balance hot and cold", "the bone-chilling wind that menaced the precious flame, and threatening to deny them a nicotine fix", etc). It seemed odd to me. I would find it more unsettling (and believable) if Nature was shown to be as harsh, but unseeing and uncaring, as the people of the city.

An interesting reaction that would never have occurred to me. I think you have to respect what the author is trying to do, and then help him do it better.

I loved the image of the magazine slapping the corpse in the face, however we later find that the lid of the dumpster was closed when Bull came to it, so there would have been no wind to do this and the body was more than half hidden.

Great catch on a staging flaw! As they say in tennis, "Good eye."

The shift of POV from omniscient to first person was problematic to me. If the rest of the book is to be written from the son's POV, how can that support the dramatic opening scene full of details he would be unaware of?

The shift didn't bother me, but my current WIP shifts from third person close for some characters to first person for the protagonist within some chapters. It has bothered some readers at first, then the issue went away when they had acquired the rhythm of the story. If the author keeps this portion of the narrative, it would probably serve better as a prologue, which would avoid the pov shift problem.

"At just over a year old, I had no idea how my father's murder would forever alter my life. Hell, I never knew the man." Is this just to let us know how old he was when his father died? It seems that whatever is about to happen to him aged five has a more disturbing impact on his life as he seems pretty happy at this point.

Right after saying that his earliest memories were of his grandmother he describes her and Sledge with a writer's eye, or at least with a very adult perspective. It seems as if these descriptions though are supposed to come from the five-year-old boy, as right after he switches to his POV as the adult narrator ("I would learn, years later, that Sledge earned his name..."). At one point he is looking through the window at the man coming up the drive but can also describe what his grandmother is doing. There are several other similar moments when the five-year-old reasons and analyses like an adult, or describes his own early childhood as if he were at once a child and an omniscient observer.

To me, the narrative suggested that it was written by the adult the boy has become. Clearly it could have been more clear for ths reader.

A few small-scale nitpicks: "the time of his final heartbeat at around 3:00 A.M. on Sunday, February 3rd, 1973" time of death is notoriously vague, "final heartbeat" seems melodramatic and overly precise.

More than one person commented on this. An omniscient voice can do this, but shouldn't if it throws up a little stumbling block.

Can people be vomit spewed from cars one second and then scurry off like cockroaches the next?

Why pick race as the only characteristic of the homeless men as worth describing in the first instance?

Another thought that would never have come to me. In a sense, both visually and in terms of character, perhaps this is the best way of quickly defining and identifying the characters.

Can they have the "same, thoughtless, machine-like precision of the employed" at one stroke but then be shown as outside that society and know "that they were invisible" at the next?

The cold wind is described several times without mentioning it's raining, I didn't realise it was supposed to be (notwithstanding the strange "ignored the rain and water puddles" which I read as rain puddles and water puddles) until "Bull watched the raindrops fill Darren's sightless eyes".

Good point on the rain -- scene-setting should have taken care of that. This is probably another example of a writer who, even when working hard to put every detail in, has filled in a blank spot in the narrative because he sees it in his mind.

"The raindrops repelled down the ebony strands of hair to collect at the ends like liquid diamonds before submitting to the pull of gravity" - it's gravity that made them run down the length of his hair in the first place and the raindrops are repelled by the hair, they can't "repell down".

Well…I could live with "repell" (actually, it is "rappel") as poetic license (respecting the author's voice), but the line -- like other parts of the narrative -- is, for my eye, overwritten. For example, using  "ebony" to describe hair color. In life, I wager no one says, "Hey, look at that ebony hair." Here, the unusual adjective slows the reader, I believe, and a simple "black" would have been much better.

The sentence is, to me, over-rich and complicated, the collection of images and adjectives not easy to take in smoothly, effortlessly. I feel that the effort the author made to create special, evocative language is showing through here as opposed to the scene coming alive on its own merits.

I'll get to the writing more when I do a little editing in Part 4.

Here's a comment from John, who focuses on storytelling issues:

To the writer of this piece: Sorry to be so blunt -- keep in mind, it's only my opinion. Now for the bloodletting.

John is, I think, being facetious about "bloodletting" and going for wry humor that might work in person, but I don't think it does in print. I would never begin an edit this way. An author is too sensitive about his/her material. Always begin with positives.

I feel the story should start with the second paragraph -- the body in the dumpster -- and then go directly to the opening paragraph after the first break, the one that ends with, "Hell, I never knew the man."

After a BRIEF narrative summary (I like the part where the boy is playing cops and robbers with the cars; it gives a little insight), go directly to the green station wagon and continue with the next seven paragraphs.

Good use of a compliment here -- these are vital. My edits are generally peppered with "Nice." comments.

This is the story. Virtually everything else should be cut. Way too much narrative description and summary to hold my attention -- there's really nothing going on. If this is a novel, there's time for backstory devices later on, once the reader is hooked. As for the city descriptions and the scene with the street people discovering the body -- are they needed at all? Are they crucial to the story? This early on, and without coming from any particular POV, it's like interjecting non-fiction commentary that serves only to disrupt the momentum.

Another "Good eye." John has anticipated my reaction to how this story does (or doesn't) begin. While I wouldn't do exactly as John suggests, his thoughts are definitely the way to begin to think about this narrative.

On this point, Jim, who has done a lot of reading for competitions and workshops, comments that, "If you don't hook my attention and hold it in the first twenty-five to fifty words, you probably won't." I have a hunch that this holds true for the jaded eyes of agents and acquisition editors.

Next post, two more insightful comments (unless I receive more -- send yours today) from writers.

I think this is interesting, don't you? And this input should be very helpful to the author in learning to detect slips and opportunities in his writing.

See you later.

RR

Free edit in exchange for posting permission. You send a sample that you have questions about and of which you'd like an edit. I won't post it without your permission.

Tip Jar: visitors have asked for a way to lay a dime or two on me and, I'll confess, it would be helpful. So if you want to chip in, click here. And many thanks.

(c) 2005 Ray Rhamey

Comments

[Gemma]

"Well…I could live with "repell" (actually, it is "rappel")..."

Oh. Rappel. I didn't know that word until thirty seconds ago. "Rappel down" makes a lot more sense then "repel down". :)