Some people have qualities–including happening to get very lucky in the editor who read the submitted M.S.–that transcend their obvious (cough. Heinlein. cough.) flaws. They are very. Very. Very, Rare.

Gosh. It’s Fun To Have Capitals In.

I promise not to Abuse the Privilege…

Much.

Love, Rosalie

There was this one book that I waited for eagerly, by an author I love (and still love, hence I will not name them)expecting a work of greatness consistent with other books I’ve read of theirs. It read like something they had written as a twelve year old and not edited a word of since. I was very disappointed in them.

I could see traces of the quality that made them a great writer in the past/future/whichever twilight zone they write in, but the traces were small and few and far between. I do not know what happened, I really don’t. There is another book by this author coming out, and I may buy it, but if it is no better I may be forced to give up on all their future books, which would be a real shame.

I think what makes me good and grumpy is that the author in question clearly can write, but I can’t imagine that he/she (sorry, Book Chic, I’m NOT going to get specific) was seriously considering or respecting the middle-grade readers for whom it was intended. I’m finding it precious and self-conscious, written for reviewers rather than children, and I would be intensely interested to meet the real live child who actually gets through it without repeated prodding from an adult.

I would love to see what the author in question could do with some guidance from an editor like mine, who has a nose for the preachy and pretentious, and scrawls her violet pencil all over the manuscript when I stray too close to P & P territory.

And you know? Moby Dick could have used some serious editing, too.

Sixteen: I fell in love
With a book as raved as could be,
Only took a couple of days
Till it had disappointed me.
They swore that it would be all right
And I’d love it in the end
When I finished that last page
I’d missed another trend

And you’re right, usually when I read a book getting rave reviews I can see what people like about it even if I don’t particularly like it. But I’ve also noticed some that I can’t figure out what everyone else is seeing and what I’m missing…

The former leaves me feeling grumpy and sour; the latter feeling alienated and not-invited-to-the-birthday-party.

Also, because of your experience and knowledge you see more things than the average person does, care about such things more. For example, in my writing group there was a large discussion about the first line of a book being the most important one in the whole book, that it sets the tone and most agreed decisions to read or not read were based on that first line. When I mentioned it to my non-writer friends they burst into laughter, nobody had EVER looked at the first line of a book to make a decision about anything. Both approaches are valid but it shows how a professional in their area of expertise are more sensitive to subtleties than many of the simple consumers.

Also, i just realized they’re talking about YA books on the radio right now. odd.

Reading lots of positive reviews of books I hated confuses me. Couldn’t they see the abject insane plot holes and flat characters?

Maybe they are afraid of pointing out that the emperor has no clothes?

1) The author seems to occasionally panic about insufficient wordcount, and repeat the same info in five different ways. 2) The author throws in quotes with very tenuous (if at all even detectable) connections to the surrounding prose.
3) The author cannot decide how conversational it is acceptable to be with the prof reader.

I am baffled by the apparent lack of editing, as it does indeed seem like an unpolished first draft, yet I’m actually enjoying the book. Reading it is restful because I can let my mind wander for several pages, secure in the knowledge that anything really interesting will reappear a paragraph or two after I remember to focus.

Still and all, I hear you.