|
|
Re: Revision
by Monolycus on Jul 14, 2003 - 11:48 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I agree with most of the points you raised (except about Jane Austen... try reading Pride and Prejudice in a funny voice, it is a hoot!), although my defense of the original submission was motivated by the following:
a.) the original piece was bland (from my perspective, but I am not into much "gothness" as a general rule in my reading selections), but certainly didn't warrant criticism as harsh as it was getting. One has got to be pretty delicate if that is all it takes to makee (sic) one's eyes bleed. I thought a more circumspect and balanced comment was necessary for perspective.
b.) I thought that the clean-up changed not only the tone of the original, but also the content in many places. I can not speak for the author of the piece, but this kind of revision could sacrifice some of what they are trying to say. I know that you mentioned that you saw it as clarification, but it seemed to me to deviate in faithfulness and ended up speaking more about the revisionist than the original author (It reminded me a bit of that game we briefly played where Ick posted a truly godawful piece from someone and a few of us rewrote it in our own images). An editor is always faced with those tough decisions; namely, how much of their work is "editing" someone else's vision and how much is inserting themselves into it. It's a very, very fine line and in this case I think that line was crossed a bit.
c.) While I agree that idiomatic language, such as faux-archaic ( I did my living room in faux-archaic and it didn't work at all. I scrapped it in favour of neo-colonial post-processual), should be practiced until one is "fluent" in it, I was actually fairly impressed that the author took a stab at something "different". What I was impressed with was not the finished piece, but the bravery to attempt to work in a voice which was (presumably) unfamiliar to them.
In addition, I felt it was a brave attempt because historical fiction is probably the biggest and baddest of the frigid bitches to write in. No matter how well written or thoroughly researched a piece is, there is always a wise-ass sitting at the corner of the bar who will remind an author that Crusaders in the 12th century didn't really wear lacey brassieres and crotchless panties under their tunics. The important thing to remember about fiction (historical or otherwise) is that it is made up. The "historical" tragedies of Shakespeare will always say more about Shakespeare himself (or herself, depends on who you ask) and the mores of Elizabethan England than about the founding of the Roman Empire, seventh century Scotland or ninth century Denmark. I can say with authority that the 12th century Crusaders in my fictional world actually went to battle in strapless, sequined evening gowns.
Anyway, to reiterate, I am in agreement with most of your observations. What I am applauding is the author's risk rather than their result. I'm sure that Anthony Burgess went through a lot of trial-and-error before his experiments with language paid off, and I would hate to put someone off of writing at an impressionable stage simply because an early attempt didn't come off as polished as a more veteran writer's work did. Your observation about grasping the fundamentals first is a valid one (and the author might have been trying to run before they could walk), but it certainly wasn't the worst I've seen by a long shot. Hopefully this author will keep plugging away and get better instead of hopelessly discouraged.
I will also toss out that I am more than willing to proofread potential submissions if someone is feeling insecure about their spelling or grammar. Anyone can feel free to drop me (and many other members of this site) a note, and I will be more than happy to take a peek and offer my thoughts. I do not promise to be any less brutally honest than the editors themselves, but a wider range of available perspectives couldn't hurt anythin
Read the rest of this comment...
|
|
|