posted
I've heard when a writer reaches n level of success the influence editors and publishers have on him/her diminishes. They just want to sell books so, in the spirit of keeping the cash cow happy, mistakes and prose weaknesses are allowed to sneak through that may otherwise be caught.
This is, at least, the best explanation I can find for why Brisingr (which I am choking through) is so insanely full of grammar mistakes. Most distinctly, the use of "if only he was an elf" instead of "if only he were an elf" subjective tense thingy. I bet the average is once per page!
Thoughts on this? Paolini's writing and the idea that a "super-star" author might be less edited.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited August 25, 2009).]
posted
Maybe they figure that most readers don't know subjunctive from a hole in their heads?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I was you, I wouldn't be worried about subjunctive mood.
And stop looking at the hole in my head.
In all seriousness, I think Zero is onto something here, though I think it's more of just not reading closely enough as opposed to "allowing" mistakes to slip through. Once a writer can make a certain amount of money off his/her product, there's less scrutiny 'cause the product will make money regardless of what a proofreader/editor fixes or doesn't fix.
I mean, I continue to buy Dan Simmons and Stephen King even though I haven't been impressed with either writer's work the last few years. (Though this may be due less to grammar issues, and more about story issues. Sorry for the thread drift.)
posted
Well, if it "were" any other writer who has sold really well, I'd be inclined to think that the story must be so great it makes up for the bad grammar. I haven't read his work, though, so I really couldn't say if the stories are great or not.
Less than perfect writing didn't hurt J. K. Rowling or Stephenie Meyer, probably because the great storytelling made the readers forget about any writing problems. And that probably applies to King and Simmons as well.
posted
"Best-selling" doesn't mean either "good" or "correct."
On the notion of best-selling writers not scrutinizing their work...well, I'm inclined to agree. I think Stephen King passed beyond scrutiny fairly early on---a lot of his stuff seems extremely bloated and strangely plotted and written---and he tends to turn out better stuff when he submits to some kind of discipline (say, the "serial novel" format of "The Green Mile.")
On the other hand...I read somewhere that Dean Koontz, before word processing, started retyping and revising his work seven or eight times before he was done with it, and carried this kind of revision on into the abovementioned word processing era. Some guys will discipline themselves.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
