I may be bucking the trend but I prefer the first one you wrote over the published version. The first is more personal and conveys some genuine feeling of enthusiasm for both meadows and the book’s utility. The published version is more routine copy and places the emphasis on utility.
Both versions left me wanting to buy the book, so I say job well done! This will make a nice addition to our homeschool library. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Terry! :)
Wow, Terry - Jim and I both enjoyed both versions of your review! We prefer the published version for its omission of both ‘but little more’, and ‘doom and gloom’. Don't get me wrong - you absolutely made a great point about ‘doom and gloom’, using it to illustrate the fact that the focus of this book is not that - but we felt that having those as the last three words put things on a bit of a downer!
Thank you for approaching the magazine with your pitch to review ‘Meadow’, Terry, and for the review itself. It's not only that it's thoughtful, balanced and considered, but that it's been written by someone who clearly knows both the book and also what he is talking about!
There’s been ever such a nice to response to Jim's book since its publication, and we're really happy that your review is a part of that story. 😊🌱
"Preferred the published version": I am surrounded by Philistines. Seriously though, thanks for nice and honest feedback, tis much appreciated. I sent the published review to the publisher yesterday, so no doubt they will use it in their publicity.😃
I think the editor did not like your subclauses, hence the removal of the sub-clause and the insertion of the em-dash. Try running both versions through a Fleisch reading ease checker; I suspect the published version would be easier to parse.
I was extremely thankful for the editing of my latest book - the editor tidied up some of my longer sentences and sorted out my over-use of the word different (e.g. I tend to write "various different" which is unnecessary, and can be replaced with just "various").
Anyway Meadow sounds like a great book. We need more such books in schools.
I certainly like this editor more than the last one. Honestly, I think they were warranted in cutting the “doom and gloom” line at the end; it’s a form of editorializing that is probably a bit out of place in a review. I don’t believe I’d feel offended by these edits.
Yes, I wonder if it was less about getting rid of it and more about what the reader is left with at the end of the paragraph. Since it is a positive review, the positive final words make sense. The editor did will with making it 'punchy' as my journalist friends like to say. I gave one friend at Bloomberg a cover letter once upon a time and he chopped it down 50% to a punchy, energetic and more digestable page of prose.
Thanks Tom. Same editor! The doom & gloom was an allusion to the stuff kids are subjected to in the UK. I wanted to make the point that a more positive approach is better IMO. Still, fair enough
I may be bucking the trend but I prefer the first one you wrote over the published version. The first is more personal and conveys some genuine feeling of enthusiasm for both meadows and the book’s utility. The published version is more routine copy and places the emphasis on utility.
Thanks, Jeanne. Well, I'm inclined to agree with you, but there again I may be slightly biased. 😆
Both versions left me wanting to buy the book, so I say job well done! This will make a nice addition to our homeschool library. Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Terry! :)
A pleasure, Kerri!
Sounds like a fascinating book to me! Thanks for calling it to our attention ...
My pleasure, Joan. It's a beautiful book.
Wow, Terry - Jim and I both enjoyed both versions of your review! We prefer the published version for its omission of both ‘but little more’, and ‘doom and gloom’. Don't get me wrong - you absolutely made a great point about ‘doom and gloom’, using it to illustrate the fact that the focus of this book is not that - but we felt that having those as the last three words put things on a bit of a downer!
Thank you for approaching the magazine with your pitch to review ‘Meadow’, Terry, and for the review itself. It's not only that it's thoughtful, balanced and considered, but that it's been written by someone who clearly knows both the book and also what he is talking about!
There’s been ever such a nice to response to Jim's book since its publication, and we're really happy that your review is a part of that story. 😊🌱
Oh my goodness! I hadn't realized this was Jim's book, Rebecca! Now I'm extra thrilled to add it to the homeschool library! xoxo
Indeed. Definitely one for the homeschool library.
😊😊😊
"Preferred the published version": I am surrounded by Philistines. Seriously though, thanks for nice and honest feedback, tis much appreciated. I sent the published review to the publisher yesterday, so no doubt they will use it in their publicity.😃
I think the editor did not like your subclauses, hence the removal of the sub-clause and the insertion of the em-dash. Try running both versions through a Fleisch reading ease checker; I suspect the published version would be easier to parse.
I was extremely thankful for the editing of my latest book - the editor tidied up some of my longer sentences and sorted out my over-use of the word different (e.g. I tend to write "various different" which is unnecessary, and can be replaced with just "various").
Anyway Meadow sounds like a great book. We need more such books in schools.
Thanks, Yvonne. Yes, I hadn't thought of the sub-clause.
I certainly like this editor more than the last one. Honestly, I think they were warranted in cutting the “doom and gloom” line at the end; it’s a form of editorializing that is probably a bit out of place in a review. I don’t believe I’d feel offended by these edits.
Yes, I wonder if it was less about getting rid of it and more about what the reader is left with at the end of the paragraph. Since it is a positive review, the positive final words make sense. The editor did will with making it 'punchy' as my journalist friends like to say. I gave one friend at Bloomberg a cover letter once upon a time and he chopped it down 50% to a punchy, energetic and more digestable page of prose.
Yes, ending positively makes sense. Thanks, Kathleen.
Thanks Tom. Same editor! The doom & gloom was an allusion to the stuff kids are subjected to in the UK. I wanted to make the point that a more positive approach is better IMO. Still, fair enough