I recently read a young adult book called Bloodline. I usually prefer young adult books because they don't use as much flowery language as adult ones seem to, and they get to their point much more quickly.
Bloodline had some great concepts (though somewhat strange and confusing) and some interesting twists and turns. The problem is that the writing technique itself is AWFUL.
At first I just thought it was typical fantasy-genre flowery nonsense, but then I noticed that the word "trepid" appears in some form on nearly every page. The story is drawn out so long you wonder if the author will ever get to her point.
Towards the end it gets even WORSE. The phrase "though though" appeared, entire words were missing, and some sentences were even lacking in punctuation!
So my question is this: when a story is fairly decent except for grammatical mistakes and repetitive phrasing, who is at fault? The author or the editor?
2007-01-25 06:55:42 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Books & Authors
Both.
The editor should correct things, but it is up to the author to double check the editing and give final approval. The author will never go far publishing books of such poor quality, and the editor won't either.
2007-01-25 07:30:07 · answer #1 · answered by Batty 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Their both at fault. The author for writing it that way and the editor for not making them fix it. What happens a lot of times is that it is a rather less noteworthy editor so they just take the book pretty much as is and print it for cheap. A tip is to read the first few pages or chapters BEFORE you buy it in case you end up not liking it. The summaries sometimes can be misleading and it is a big waste of money if it ends up being a crappy book.
2007-01-25 07:07:28 · answer #2 · answered by Shelby C 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I would say that the bottom line is that the editor is at fault. The author made the errors, but it's the responsibility of the editor to catch and correct the mistakes before the book is printed.
2007-01-25 07:11:31 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The fault is that of the publisher, in particular the editor who should clean stuff like that up and the proofreader who should catch typos and things the editor misses
2007-01-27 23:26:15 · answer #4 · answered by R.H. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm guessing it's the editor's fault because much as the author should write as well as possible it is ultimately the editor's job to proofread the text and make it ready for publication
2007-01-25 07:05:41 · answer #5 · answered by Din 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
It's an interesting question. Since Jesus was both totally God and totally human, he should have had some faults, but God has none. Jesus, like Mary, has always been without sin and that's where the faults would lie. Of course it doesn't "make sense"; that's where faith comes in.
2016-05-23 23:01:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately, editors have more or less stopped editing anymore; other aspects of their jobs (artist management and development, corporation politics, etc) have taken over. Blame the publishing company for not shelling out the money for a good proofreader, and letting him or her be responsible for catching stylistic absurdities.
2007-01-25 07:27:35 · answer #7 · answered by angel_deverell 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would assume the editor. Its only a guess though.
I mean the root word is to edit, to fix or check, right?
2007-01-25 07:06:17 · answer #8 · answered by Christian T 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both but the editor is more at fault.
2007-01-25 07:14:29 · answer #9 · answered by Steve P 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The proofreader is at fault.
2007-01-25 07:05:20 · answer #10 · answered by newyorkgal71 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋