You've put your finger on it, Mark: I couldn't quite work out why I didn't like the published version despite the fact that it was hardly different from my original. it's that ghastly word: so impersonal
I experience either-or posts (from anyone) similar to being at the eye doctor's when the tech is flipping back and forth between two lens strengths asking, "Which is clearer? This one? Or this one?" over and over. I break into a flop sweat, and my mind goes blank. The pressure in these situations is just too great! Which do I prefer? I don't knooooooow! 😩🤣 Let's just say yours are always better and leave it at that, shall we? 😁😂
I love these 'compare and contrast' review posts, Terry! This time the published version isn't all that different from your unedited one yet I prefer yours, because you're expressing disappointment which you have clearly actually felt, rather than - in the published version - just stating that something has been 'let down' by 'pointless inclusion'. I feel the published version shows you as an active participant in the reading of the book, whereas the edited version has, well, edited you out...!
Thanks, Rebecca. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I do try to make my reviews personal in the sense that I'm not just ChatGPT summarising something.
Just out of interest, WHY do you love these posts? My aim in doing them is to help people think about how small changes can have big effects when it comes to writing. My hope is that writers will find them useful.
I like these posts because I learn so much by challenging myself (no: by being challenged by you!) to consider differences between two pieces of writing - it's a really good thing to ask questions of writing, of writers, or indeed my own thoughts. I'm learning a tonne, Terry!
Yes, I was kinda blindsided by the map comment in the original. Took me by surprise a bit, whereas in your original I got a sense of what you thought before the final comment.
I know what you mean, Nathan. When I read the published version I thought at first that the maps comment at the end had come out of the blue, and that there had been no previous mention of the maps.
'Under the impression,' said Mr. Micawber, 'that your peregrinations in this metropolis have not as yet been extensive, and that you might have some difficulty in penetrating the arcana of the Modern Babylon in the direction of the City Road, - in short,' said Mr. Micawber, in another burst of confidence, 'that you might lose yourself - I shall be happy to call this evening, and install you in the knowledge of the nearest way.'
#1 lacks clarity. #2 is clear.
Nice work here
Thanks, David
"Aforementioned." Ugh.
Yours is better. Who is the editor of these selections you've posted? Needs a bit of a talk, I think.
You've put your finger on it, Mark: I couldn't quite work out why I didn't like the published version despite the fact that it was hardly different from my original. it's that ghastly word: so impersonal
I experience either-or posts (from anyone) similar to being at the eye doctor's when the tech is flipping back and forth between two lens strengths asking, "Which is clearer? This one? Or this one?" over and over. I break into a flop sweat, and my mind goes blank. The pressure in these situations is just too great! Which do I prefer? I don't knooooooow! 😩🤣 Let's just say yours are always better and leave it at that, shall we? 😁😂
I know what you mean, Kerri! And thanks for the vote of confidence. 😂 But no need to get into a cold sweat: these 'tests' are extremely low stakes!
This time I prefer yours. Just reads better. There was no need to edit at all.
Thanks, Ehud. Well that's what I thought, but I may be slightly biased 😃
I prefer the unpublished one, primarily for the ending, which took out any distance from writer and reader.
Thanks,Renee. Yes, that's a good way of putting it!
Oh, I forgot to say, as a student I greatly appreciate these posts with pointed questions that help me learn.
Great! Thanks, Renee 😀
I love these 'compare and contrast' review posts, Terry! This time the published version isn't all that different from your unedited one yet I prefer yours, because you're expressing disappointment which you have clearly actually felt, rather than - in the published version - just stating that something has been 'let down' by 'pointless inclusion'. I feel the published version shows you as an active participant in the reading of the book, whereas the edited version has, well, edited you out...!
Thanks, Rebecca. I think you've hit the nail on the head there. I do try to make my reviews personal in the sense that I'm not just ChatGPT summarising something.
Just out of interest, WHY do you love these posts? My aim in doing them is to help people think about how small changes can have big effects when it comes to writing. My hope is that writers will find them useful.
I like these posts because I learn so much by challenging myself (no: by being challenged by you!) to consider differences between two pieces of writing - it's a really good thing to ask questions of writing, of writers, or indeed my own thoughts. I'm learning a tonne, Terry!
Brilliant! Thanks, Rebecca. I think quite often a change in just one word can make all the difference to the tone of a piece.
I prefer the original because it is more direct about Stephen King and the disappointment of the maps being included — and is therefore more complete.
Thanks, Louis. That's kind of what I thought. The published version seems to me to play down the maps comment.
Yes, I was kinda blindsided by the map comment in the original. Took me by surprise a bit, whereas in your original I got a sense of what you thought before the final comment.
I just reread them and maybe that's not true about the map comment as it comes at the same moment, but somehow that's what I felt when reading them.
I know what you mean, Nathan. When I read the published version I thought at first that the maps comment at the end had come out of the blue, and that there had been no previous mention of the maps.
Peregrinations???!!!
!!!
I had to google that word.
Chortle 😁
'Under the impression,' said Mr. Micawber, 'that your peregrinations in this metropolis have not as yet been extensive, and that you might have some difficulty in penetrating the arcana of the Modern Babylon in the direction of the City Road, - in short,' said Mr. Micawber, in another burst of confidence, 'that you might lose yourself - I shall be happy to call this evening, and install you in the knowledge of the nearest way.'
Ah!
From David Copperfield, by Chas Dickens :-)
There are some lovely editions now of Dickens.
Oh, I haven't looked.
You must!
I shall be commencing upon a season on Dickens - eventually.
Me too. I've dipped in, and love some of some of them, like Bleak House, Hard Times and, indubitably, David Copperfield because of Mr Micawber
12 quid - does look like a good book though.
I enjoyed reading it. It's a great book for dipping into.
The first - the tone is more intimate - not in a creepy way mind you!
<Strikes Marple off Xmas card list>. Thanks, that's interesting. I don't think either version is especially intimate :-)
Wrong again - the first version has a warm tone whereas the second does not.
Well ain't that just dandy. I don't do warm tones on a Wednesday.
I reckon that heights of pointlessness is just plain incorrect and therefore alienating. But I had to think about it!
😂