On Books: Olivia’s Kiss

My general policy is to review only books that I find exceptionally good (e.g., On Books: Promises to Keep are Promises Kept) or exceptionally bad (e.g., Truman & MacArthur & Why a Good Editor is Important) or that relate to language (e.g., On Books: An Analytic Dictionary of English Etymology). However, Olivia’s Kiss by Catherine Durkin Robinson, which is available at Smashwords and other ebookstores, is an exception.

Catherine Durkin Robinson’s Olivia’s Kiss is a book that should (and could) be exceptional. The subject is compelling (battered spouses revenged/avenged by a female professional assassin) and author is a compelling writer. In fact, as I read her book, I immediately thought of Dashiell Hammet and Rex Stout, occasionally even Ed McBain. Robinson’s writing style is the staccato, rhythmic style associated with the original hardboiled detective story writers of the 20th century.

If I have to rate Olivia’s Kiss in its current form on a 5-star scale, it gets 3 stars; it could easily be a 5-star book, however. Although self-published, this book does not suffer from the grammatical and spelling errors often seen. In this regard, the book appears to have been well-edited.

Yet editing of a book is more than grammar and spelling and punctuation. What Olivia’s Kiss desperately needs is a quality developmental edit. As it stands now, Olivia’s Kiss is an acceptable, mediocre novel. A reader won’t go too far wrong buying it and reading it (although I think the $3.99 price is high for this particular book; in its present form, I think $1.99 is a more appropriate price) because the writing is taut and the story interesting.

I think, however, with a good developmental edit Olivia’s Kiss could become a cinderella and go from acceptable-mediocre to great-outstanding, worthy of being picked up and published by a traditional publisher, deserving of great accolades from ebookers, and worthy of a significantly higher price. This is that rough diamond waiting to be transformed by a good polish.

The author describes Olivia’s Kiss as follows:

Olivia discovered a talent for killing men while in her teens, after shooting her abusive father in the head and watching him die. Now, a sophisticated young woman, Olivia travels the world pursuing bad men and making them pay. When Max, her longtime love, proposes marriage, Olivia dares to wonder: Can she really trade guns and glory for gold bands and bath towels?

The description is accurate as far as it goes (although Olivia pursues bad spouses regardless of gender, not just men). Unfortunately, the story is inadequately developed and much is missing in its current form. Characters are underdeveloped, especially the important parts of their histories that make the connections that are presumed in the novel; more character development/background is needed. For example, how did Olivia make the transition from killing her father to professional killer? How did the friendship of the 4 women that is central to the story develop? The friendship of the 3 friends who, along with Olivia, are the core of the story is taken for granted; it is insufficiently developed to support the ending. Why did Olivia confess her story to Sarah and why didn’t Sarah disclose it? (Yes, I know that Sarah is a nun, but that doesn’t solve the problem.)

Based on her Smashwords profile, it seems that this is Robinson’s first book. Hopefully, it will not be her last. Robinson clearly has a gift for communicating, but needs the guidance that a professional developmental editor can provide.

Should you buy and read this ebook? Yes and no. Yes, because it is well-written and there are no distractions caused by poor grammar, spelling, or structure. The story is compelling and interesting. By buying and reading the book, and adding your own comments and review, you will encourage the author to work more on this and future books, and Robinson is an author who should be encouraged. No, because it is unsatisfying because the characters and story are incompletely developed. Olivia’s Kiss almost seems as if it is a draft of what could be the next great novel.

Editor, Editor, Everywhere an Editor

A book has many contributors to its success. One contributor is the editor, and in some instances, several editors. Editors are the hidden resource that can help or hurt an author’s work.

There are many levels and types of editing, too many to address. In essence, I think all of the various levels and types of editing are divisible into two broad categories: developmental (sometimes known as substantive or comprehensive)  and copy (or rule based). Each serves a different role in the book production process, but each is important. (Disclosure time: I am an editor of 25 years experience. I am also the owner of Freelance Editorial Services, which provides independent editorial help to publishers and authors.)

A developmental editor’s role is multifaceted, but it is less concerned with grammar and syntax and more concerned with the manuscript’s overall structure. The developmental editor addresses these types of questions (and many more):

• Is the manuscript coherent, that is, do its various parts fit together as a coherent whole?
• Who is the author’s audience? Does the manuscript present its information logically for the target audience?
• Are the author’s ideas presented clearly? Will the audience understand what the author’s point is? Are the author’s thoughts clearly and logically developed or do they meander?
• Does the author present the ideas concisely, that is, is the author using a shotgun or laser approach?
• Does the material in chapter 5 connect with what went before?
• Is the author using jargon or technical terms in such a manner as to befuddle the audience?
• Is the work complete? For example, are sources cited where and when needed?

The developmental editor helps the author hone the manuscript for the author’s audience. It is not unusual for the editor and author to engage in multiple back-and-forth discussions to clarify text, find missing sources, reorganize chapters and parts, and the like.

Once the author and the developmental editor are satisfied with the manuscript, the copyeditor steps in. The copyeditor’s role, broadly speaking, focuses on the mechanics of the manuscript. That focus includes such things as:

• Spelling
• Grammar
• Punctuation
• Style
• Consistency

The copyeditor is the “rules-based” editor. The copyeditor is usually given a set of rules by the author or the publisher to follow when deciding questions of capitalization, numbering, hyphenation, and the like. It is the copyeditor’s job to apply and enforce those rules, and to do so with consistency. In the editorial world, consistency is the law, not the hobgoblin of little minds.

When appropriate, a good copyeditor also questions the text. For example, if the author has referred to a particular character as Sam but now seems to have changed the name to Charlie, the copyeditor will “flag” this change and ask the author about it. Additionally, if the name change is sudden but from further reading appears to be correct, the copyeditor might suggest to the author that a better transition is warranted so readers can follow more easily.

Unlike the developmental editor, the copyeditor’s role is not to help organize and rewrite the manuscript. It is to make the “final” manuscript readable by ensuring that it conforms to the language conventions readers expect. It is to ease the reader’s burden, helping author and reader connect.

The ultimate role of the editor — no matter whether developmental or copy — is to help the author connect with reader. A good editor eases that connection; a poor editor hinders that connection. An editor is another eye, another view for the author. A good editor recognizes pitfalls and helps the author avoid them. A good editor is an artist of language, grammar, and the mechanics that help a manuscript take the journey from ordinary to great. When asked to define my role as editor, I usually reply, “to make sure what you write can be understood by your audience.”

The final arbiter of how the published manuscript will read is the author. Editors give advice that the author can accept or reject. In the end, the manuscript is the author’s; the editor is simply a contributor, but a contributor with special skills and knowledge.

One last note: The above description of what an editor does is not a comprehensive description. There are circles within circles, levels within levels, and many more tasks that editors can and do perform. The above is merely a broad view. If you are an author looking to hire an editor, you should discuss with the editor the parameters of the work to be performed by the editor. There is no set, immutable definition of, for example, developmental editing; for any given manuscript, what role the editor is to play is determined by dialogue between the editor and the author or publisher.