The breadth of this tome is incredible, as are the hundreds of pictures of classic Marvel memorabilia, much of which I never knew existed. Unfortunately, the clunky page layout and awkward, unedited writing are endemic of the most amateurish fanzines. Ah, the perils of self publishing.
3 comments:
I'm familiar with this book and do not consider it unedited at all. I would like to see an example of what you consider "awkward, unedited writing" from it.
Well, the entire book is rife with awkward syntax and repetitive words and phrases, but here's just one example: "This set of 66 cards is the first Marvel card set ever. And there have been many sets of Marvel cards over the years." An editor would've surely reworded these two chunky blurbs into something more succinct like "Donruss' Marvel Super Heroes Bubble Gum series from 1966 marks the first of many sets of Marvel trading cards over the years." Again, I think the book is well worth getting, I just wish the writing and layout would've been better.
Your point is well-taken, and I appreciate you taking the time to reply, but what you're talking about is a stylistic preference, not writing that is awkward and unedited. Awkward and unedited implies lack of clarity, grammatical mistakes, spelling errors, etc. When I read what the book says and your rewrite of it, in both cases, the meaning is clear, so clarity is achieved in both cases. As any grammarian knows, the sentences could be juggled a dozen different ways, each of which could be equally valid. In the book's version, I can see the importance of separating the ideas into two sentences since two important points are being made: it is the first card set, and many other card sets would be made in the coming years. Separating the two ideas into two sentences I think emphasizes the historical importance of the Donruss set. What you're calling redundancy I would call emphasis. My point being, the way it is written in the book is not incorrect, awkward, or unedited. At no point when I was reading it was anything unclear, nor were there editioral distractions in the way of spelling or punctuation or word choice. I'm not trying to be argumentive; all I'm saying is that I thought your phrasing was a bit harsh.
Post a Comment