Hypocrisy? Guilty. Inconsistency? I plead Walt Whitman.
Too many words, too much description, too many details. Novice writers hear it all the time. Even a prolific, best-selling author like Joyce Carol Oates is guilty of purple prose and repetition and verbal excess.
I wince at the thought of all the red ink I've inflicted on others. When my own words are drenched in red, I feel the impact of someone else telling me I could tell my story better. E.g., I wrote:
The scent of gas and burnt oil was always faintly lingering, like the sweat of an engine hard at work.
The authoritative editor wrote:
The gas and burnt oil scent always lingering faintly like a sweating engine working hard.
Why does he think this sounds better? He explains:
Always look to replace a passive verb (to be) with active verb. So I'd rework to:
The gas and burnt oil scent always lingering faintly...
like the sweat of an engine hard at work.
Weeding prepositions out of text -- particularly short ones -- can
often tighten it to something stronger. So I'd tighten this to:
like a sweating engine working hard.
So your sentence becomes:
The gas and burnt oil scent always lingering faintly like a sweating
engine working hard.
Fifteen words instead of twenty with more active verbs and tighter syntax. Less is more.
Less is more. Yes.
But rhythm and momentum, narrative voice, may be sacrificed for the sake of word economy, and then all that's left is sawdust.
I'll ditch "was always lingering" for a more active verb tense. But when fiction workshoppers line-edit almost every paragaph of my novel, I just shut down, crawl off, and go outside to pull more weeds.
Well said.
And I'm in the same boat. I usually find advice on the style the most useless.
What I'm looking for from workshops is:
Is my meaning clear?
Are my characters' motivation understood?
Is it engaging?
Does it read true?
Pointing out technical mistakes is always appreciated.
But to have it re-written line by line is kind of missing the point.
I'm glad you posted this because when it comes to being part of a workshop, I'm always afraid that I'm not making useful contributions.
So to have a conversation about what does and doesn't help is great.
I think a lot of critters get caught up on their own pet peeves and don't think about what state the current draft is in. There is no point nitpicking grammar if there are big worries about content, characterization, etc. I generally refuse to line edit for free--a real quality line edit takes a LOT of attention. And there is no point line editing a book still undergoing major revisions. It is better to focus on recurring issues (like if someone uses passive voice extensively) than really specific examples. If you can help someone fix their recurring issues earlier and learn what i wrong, there will be less line edits needed later.
But unless they are getting close to final draft state, it is better to focus on the stuff you said. Also things like whether the author misplaces characters, contradicts the characterization, etc.
I sure wish I had the energy and time to get back into more of this stuff right now. I tend to have a knack for it, but if I get too many things to do, I start stressing about doing enough back.
We need more people like you in writing workshops, @cmdrago! I'm with you all the way on this.
I have no doubt that your contributions are useful, btw!
If they scare you then I'm even more petrified. The joys of being a writer.
Native English speakers, I don't see any difference at all... but writing is always fun and painful. You need to find an editor that works well with you I think. In my humble opinion it's like choosing an adviser for a thesis, you want something critical, but not someone who will send you home crying or you can't understand what he wants from you or you will fail.
Finding the right fit in an editor is harder than finding shoes to fit a narrow heel with wide toes (and hammer toe, just to ratchet up the challenge)!
That correction does not sound good to me. It also isn't passive. In passive, the doer of the action is not the subject. But the subject (scent) IS the doer of the action here (it lingers). It isn't passive voice, just a different verb tense, but I don't have the brain power anymore to name them all. I would make it simply "The scent of gas and burnt oil always lingered faintly, like the sweat of an engine hard at work."
I object even more to the variation "like a sweating engine working hard" -- it isn't parallel... or however the right way to say it is. Like I said, my brain isn't what it used to be. But it doesn't point intelligently at any part of the sentence. You are comparing the scent to sweat. Although even that has me itching to have a more functional brain... Maybe something like The sweat of an engine working hard is a lingering scent of gas and burnt oil. Or A hard-working engine has its own sweat, leaving a lingering scent of gas and burnt oil.
But of course looking at it out of context makes it more difficult to provide intelligent feedback.
I also haven't read enough of your writing to know your voice. There is no skill more important in an editor than the ability to hone a writer's own voice, rather than replace it with the editor's voice. I need to read more volume to be able to comment within your voice.
Thanks - I agree with you and will use your suggested edit (which I had been thinking) -
Very well said, Carol.