Kate quotes me: > put your finger on the fault in a > > conscious, "cerebral" way? More than that, can you ever identify it as a > > "rule > > book" flaw? > And she responds: > > No. There's no ping,there's no rhyme or reason for why not. Just doesn't do > it,even if everything's > bang on. There are some very "bad" drawings in a rule book sense that do > it > just fine. > KAte Sullivan > I agree with that last line. In the book I say rule number one is, if the novel is well, don't go near it with these diagnostic tools I've just given. No editorial diagnostic tool, no "rule book" guide, can prove a novel must be ill. But if sensibility tells you it IS ill, saying why isn't always as easy as it seems.
Now, accepting that, you've never looked at a WOA and felt it was "wrong" and were sure you could see why? Behind this activity you'd have to have a description of what you have in mind with the word 'wrong'. Editorially, you could reasonably call something "wrong" if you can discern it is having an effect that you know the writer does not want, and you'd have to be convinced it would have that effect not just on you but on the almost all the writer's "ideal intended readers". If the writer's chooses, knowingly, to alienate all his readers, then you the editor can choose, knowingly, not to publish his book if you want. You might still call him "wrong", but not because he has made a mistake in his writing, only in his reputation. ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
