Your original, Terry. Opening statement a keeper. Straddled both cultures; like the descriptor. You summarize it cleanly in your original. The published version is informative, but I lean toward the style of your first. Thanks Terry for sharing your process!
The original version has an adult voice. It's lively and interesting; makes you want to read something by Singer. The published version is bland and boring. Reminds me of essays I used to write for school at age 12.
😂 Thanks, Miriam. "bland and boring" is right. I think reviews should be interesting in themselves, not merely a means to an end (that of informing the reader about a book)
WTH?? Yours is better, hands down. No question. Why would any editor change it? I can only guess it’s because he’s the editor and he thinks he’s supposed to edit. (He is a ‘he’, right?)
Ha! I'm not going to get into a debate about mansplaining or toxic masculinity here 😂 He is a 'he', and usually his edits are fine, just copy edits. Thanks for liking mine better!
Yeah, you're right. I must have been in a mood when I wrote that! I've had plenty of male editors who were amazing, even in the dark ages (70s, 80s, 90s), when it wasn't the norm.
I really liked the original version! This review has its own voice, and when you read it, you see the person who wrote it, the emotions and passion for writing. The second version (they have completely changed the style, somehow too much) looks like it would have been written by a robot. Thank you for sharing with us, you write beautifully!
😂 at "written by a robot"! My wife thought it had been parsed through ChatGPT and J.M.Elliott thought it sounded like it had been filtered through an algorithm, so you're not alone! Thanks for nice compliment about my writing 😁
To be the resident contrarian here: I actually like the published/new version better. I find it tighter, smoother, more professional sounding. Just my opinion.
One quibble: “It is bordering on the preposterous to think that a writer best known for his fiction, and who died nearly thirty years ago, has anything relevant to say to us today.”
I disagree!!! The best writers--Twain, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, say--are classic precisely because they’ve succinctly captured something manifestly universal about our sordid, tragic human condition. Look at say Homer. Dante. Milton. Technology has of course moved on. But not those deep intrinsic universals. If anything I think older authors and their work have MORE to say now, because they were writing much more openly and honestly, without the ideological capture of contemporary times.
Thanks, Michael. I might agree with you about with you about the published version being tighter, but I think it lacks vibrancy and entertainment value, surely important aims of a book review? As for relevance, I agree with you completely. But as I wrote in response to Ehud's comment, partly to jolt the reader straight away, and especially because of an incredibly tight Word count, I was unable to write something along the lines of " some people, especially school students, might think... ". But thanks very much for your feedback, I appreciate it
I like your original version better. The edited piece feels broken and fragmented. What were they thinking when they edited it like that?
I noticed the typo with Noble too! I thought maybe you just wrote it down wrong but if that is in the finished piece, you're in trouble. Just what you need. Your piece, your name, your typo.
Thanks Matt. No, in my original I wrote that he was a Nobel Laureate -- clearly spelt correctly. I think I will take it up with editor for the reasons you state.
The original is substantially better than the published one. As a professional editor, I am shocked at how this was rewritten. The original doesn't need any editing at all.
I much prefer yours, Terry, because it has a human voice and spoken by someone who really knows what he is talking about. The edited version was - what shall I say? - tedious.
And 'Noble' prize? The editor needs to go back to skool.....
I kind of wish you hadn't tipped us off first as to which piece was the edited one - but it was obvious! 🤣
Such an interesting post. Thank you for another great read! Well, one great one and one slightly less great. See above. 😉
Original: "It is bordering on the preposterous to think that a writer best known for his fiction, and who died nearly thirty years ago, has anything relevant to say to us today." No follow up showing that what he wrote then is relevant today.
Published: "In this collection of previously unpublished essays we discover that despite passing away nearly 30 years ago, his ruminations on censorship in literature, the use of profanity and roles of writer and journalist still have a compelling relevance to our own time."
Possible: Yet in this previously unpublished collection of essays Singer discusses censorship in literature, the use – and overuse – of profanity, the role of the writer and the journalist, and even the development of computers that will write literature for us, all highly relevant in the present day.
See what I'm getting at? You have that great opening line but you didn't bring it home. The editor flattened it, true, but it is flattened and complete.
Also, why would it be preposterous to think that an artist who wrote even 500 years ago would have relevance to us today? Think Shakespeare.
He should have left your last line alone. You added useful information; not everyone knows that Singer won the nobel.
Hmm, I can see what you mean but I think we'll have to agree to differ because I DID follow it through. But there's another issue: you appear to minimise the "flattening", but my view of book reviews is that they should be anything but anodyne. Which brings me on to my opening line. Of course I don't personally think texts of 30 years old or even more have nothing to say of relevance today, but I wrote it like that for two reasons: firstly, I think a book review should grab the reader's attention straight away. I read a book review last year that began: "This is the most badly-written book I have ever read." I HAD to read the review after an opening like that. Secondly, a purely pragmatic reason: There is a strict limit of 150 words, with almost no leeway (sometimes I've managed to get away with 151). Writing something like "Some people, especially school students, might think that ..." would have taken up far too many words.
Thanks re last line. The editor did say he'd won the Nobel although, as Rebecca Holden pointed out, he called it the Noble prize, thereby at a stroke making me appear to be an uneducated slob.
But thanks very much for your detailed feedback, Ehud, I appreciate it. And in the interests of fairness and transparency I should tell you that my wife agrees with you. Obviously, I shall be getting in touch with my lawyer....
Haa! My regards to your wife! I originally commented before seeing the other comments that unanimously preferred your version. I saw them after I pressed "send." I see now the importance of realizing that this was a book review, and that its purpose is to grab the reader's attention. And also the word count. The other comments are obviously by people who know the purpose of book reviews.
Well, there's editing and there's massacring! I think the editor should have run those changes past me, because although I provided the review, what's been published isn't mine. It's as dull as ditch water
Your original, Terry. Opening statement a keeper. Straddled both cultures; like the descriptor. You summarize it cleanly in your original. The published version is informative, but I lean toward the style of your first. Thanks Terry for sharing your process!
The edited version has misspelled Singer’s middle name (Bashevis not “Balshevis”).
I agree with other comments that the editing process has changed the tone of the piece completely.
Right on both counts, Yvonne! Thanks.
The original version has an adult voice. It's lively and interesting; makes you want to read something by Singer. The published version is bland and boring. Reminds me of essays I used to write for school at age 12.
😂 Thanks, Miriam. "bland and boring" is right. I think reviews should be interesting in themselves, not merely a means to an end (that of informing the reader about a book)
Yeah, yours no question - the published version is laughable.
😂 Thanks, Troy. Laughable in what way? I found to be incredibly flat.
The original version has personality and voice. The published version feels like it was filtered through an algorithm to remove all the texture.
Lol. Thanks. My wife wondered if it had been put through ChatGPT!
WTH?? Yours is better, hands down. No question. Why would any editor change it? I can only guess it’s because he’s the editor and he thinks he’s supposed to edit. (He is a ‘he’, right?)
Ha! I'm not going to get into a debate about mansplaining or toxic masculinity here 😂 He is a 'he', and usually his edits are fine, just copy edits. Thanks for liking mine better!
Yeah, you're right. I must have been in a mood when I wrote that! I've had plenty of male editors who were amazing, even in the dark ages (70s, 80s, 90s), when it wasn't the norm.
I really liked the original version! This review has its own voice, and when you read it, you see the person who wrote it, the emotions and passion for writing. The second version (they have completely changed the style, somehow too much) looks like it would have been written by a robot. Thank you for sharing with us, you write beautifully!
😂 at "written by a robot"! My wife thought it had been parsed through ChatGPT and J.M.Elliott thought it sounded like it had been filtered through an algorithm, so you're not alone! Thanks for nice compliment about my writing 😁
To be the resident contrarian here: I actually like the published/new version better. I find it tighter, smoother, more professional sounding. Just my opinion.
One quibble: “It is bordering on the preposterous to think that a writer best known for his fiction, and who died nearly thirty years ago, has anything relevant to say to us today.”
I disagree!!! The best writers--Twain, Dostoevsky, Flaubert, say--are classic precisely because they’ve succinctly captured something manifestly universal about our sordid, tragic human condition. Look at say Homer. Dante. Milton. Technology has of course moved on. But not those deep intrinsic universals. If anything I think older authors and their work have MORE to say now, because they were writing much more openly and honestly, without the ideological capture of contemporary times.
Anyway. Congrats on the piece. Good stuff.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Thanks, Michael. I might agree with you about with you about the published version being tighter, but I think it lacks vibrancy and entertainment value, surely important aims of a book review? As for relevance, I agree with you completely. But as I wrote in response to Ehud's comment, partly to jolt the reader straight away, and especially because of an incredibly tight Word count, I was unable to write something along the lines of " some people, especially school students, might think... ". But thanks very much for your feedback, I appreciate it
Ah. Gotcha. Makes sense 😎
😃
I like your original version better. The edited piece feels broken and fragmented. What were they thinking when they edited it like that?
I noticed the typo with Noble too! I thought maybe you just wrote it down wrong but if that is in the finished piece, you're in trouble. Just what you need. Your piece, your name, your typo.
Thanks Matt. No, in my original I wrote that he was a Nobel Laureate -- clearly spelt correctly. I think I will take it up with editor for the reasons you state.
My favorites of his work: Enemies, A Love Story and Old Love. I've also read almost all the short stories. He taught me through reading him.
Thanks Mary. I shall have to look those up. What do you like about his work?
He hits the heart.
Very succinctly put! By the way, I unsubscribed from yours earlier because I was subscribed twice! I'm still subscribed :-)
The first sounds very USA Today. The second sounds like somebody with a personality.
😂 Thanks, Sherman. I'm not familiar with USA Today, having not read it since 1986! I now feel an overwhelming urge to investigate it !
Hahaha. During my many years of travel, the USA Today was the newspaper that many chain hotels gave free to guests.
😁
The original is substantially better than the published one. As a professional editor, I am shocked at how this was rewritten. The original doesn't need any editing at all.
Thanks very much, Lynn. That's very kind of you.
Clearly the original is better! So much more energy & style!
Thanks, Gillian. Yes, energy! The published one, IMHO, is as flat as a pancake. Thanks for kind comment :-)
I much prefer yours, Terry, because it has a human voice and spoken by someone who really knows what he is talking about. The edited version was - what shall I say? - tedious.
And 'Noble' prize? The editor needs to go back to skool.....
I kind of wish you hadn't tipped us off first as to which piece was the edited one - but it was obvious! 🤣
Such an interesting post. Thank you for another great read! Well, one great one and one slightly less great. See above. 😉
Gosh! I hadn't even noticed "Noble"! I don't think that's great for my reputation. Hmm. Not sure how to handle this. Thanks for your comments, Rebecca
Sorry - I'm a magnet for stuff like that - although strangely not always in my own work...! It stuck out like a sore thmub... 🤣
I appreciate it. No need to apologize
But I feel bad for pointing out the editor's mistake and your subsequent concern for your reputation. 😕
Nay, nay, thrice nay. You are right to point out such things. I could never feel offended by you
Trying (not?) to offend you is a challenge I boldly take on every other Wednesday in my 'Letters to Terry', Terry. PLEASE tell me you've noticed.... 😉
Published version a million times better. Sorry Terry. Give that editor a retainer.
Ha! Assuming you're serious, Ehud, why?
Original: "It is bordering on the preposterous to think that a writer best known for his fiction, and who died nearly thirty years ago, has anything relevant to say to us today." No follow up showing that what he wrote then is relevant today.
Published: "In this collection of previously unpublished essays we discover that despite passing away nearly 30 years ago, his ruminations on censorship in literature, the use of profanity and roles of writer and journalist still have a compelling relevance to our own time."
Possible: Yet in this previously unpublished collection of essays Singer discusses censorship in literature, the use – and overuse – of profanity, the role of the writer and the journalist, and even the development of computers that will write literature for us, all highly relevant in the present day.
See what I'm getting at? You have that great opening line but you didn't bring it home. The editor flattened it, true, but it is flattened and complete.
Also, why would it be preposterous to think that an artist who wrote even 500 years ago would have relevance to us today? Think Shakespeare.
He should have left your last line alone. You added useful information; not everyone knows that Singer won the nobel.
Saying all this as an admirer, Terry.
Hmm, I can see what you mean but I think we'll have to agree to differ because I DID follow it through. But there's another issue: you appear to minimise the "flattening", but my view of book reviews is that they should be anything but anodyne. Which brings me on to my opening line. Of course I don't personally think texts of 30 years old or even more have nothing to say of relevance today, but I wrote it like that for two reasons: firstly, I think a book review should grab the reader's attention straight away. I read a book review last year that began: "This is the most badly-written book I have ever read." I HAD to read the review after an opening like that. Secondly, a purely pragmatic reason: There is a strict limit of 150 words, with almost no leeway (sometimes I've managed to get away with 151). Writing something like "Some people, especially school students, might think that ..." would have taken up far too many words.
Thanks re last line. The editor did say he'd won the Nobel although, as Rebecca Holden pointed out, he called it the Noble prize, thereby at a stroke making me appear to be an uneducated slob.
But thanks very much for your detailed feedback, Ehud, I appreciate it. And in the interests of fairness and transparency I should tell you that my wife agrees with you. Obviously, I shall be getting in touch with my lawyer....
Haa! My regards to your wife! I originally commented before seeing the other comments that unanimously preferred your version. I saw them after I pressed "send." I see now the importance of realizing that this was a book review, and that its purpose is to grab the reader's attention. And also the word count. The other comments are obviously by people who know the purpose of book reviews.
Well I respect your opinion and value your feedback. I just happen to disagree! 😁
As I do yours.
Having said that...I think your main objection is that he didn't run it by you, and I agree, he should have done so.
Thanks, Ehud. Yes, I think given that he changed the whole tone of the piece a discussion would have been welcome.
Your version is better - valid reasons in the other comments. But what does an editor do? They edit. And the writer writes.
Well, there's editing and there's massacring! I think the editor should have run those changes past me, because although I provided the review, what's been published isn't mine. It's as dull as ditch water
True!
🙃