Log in

No account? Create an account
bear by san

March 2017



Powered by LiveJournal.com
writing whiskey devil

it's time to see the world. it's time to kiss the girl.

Hey! There's a Booklist review of Whiskey & Water which is for a wonder very-nearly spoiler-free... but just in case, it's still

Seven years after Matthew ended the age-old war between the Prometheans and Faerie, matters are heating up again. Promethean archmage Jane Andraste is trying to rebuild her power, starting with some new apprentices. The Faerie queen rests uneasily on her throne, with both her son and the Cat Anna, queen of the unseelie fae, plotting to take her place. The devils of Hell grow tired of damnation, and play their own mysterious roles in the whole matter. A certain poet, lately of Hell, has left to seek personal revenge. As protector of New York, Matthew no longer controls his own power yet does what he can. After he's first on the scene at a murder that looks like a fae matter, he tangles with Jane again, trying to prevent her from using the killing as pretext for renewed war with Faerie. A byzantine plot, in which politics become ever more complex; and fascinating, occasionally infuriating, never-dull characters make this a worthy successor to Blood and Iron (2006).

I did add a semicolon to that last sentence, for clarity. But I'm not sure I put it in the right place. Seems like they, and Library Journal, either followed the changes better than the PW reviewer, or are less willing to admit that they got lost. ;-)

Sun's up. I might be trapped in the house waiting for the phone guy all day, but at least it looks to be a nice day for it....


Not happy with that semi-colon, because it leaves the fragment in front of it utterlly verbless.

I'd go with "A byzantine plot, in which politics become ever more complex, and fascinating characters (occasionally infuriating, but never dull) make this a worthy successor to Blood and Iron." There are a number of other possibilities in terms of breaking out the subsidiary qualifiers while avoiding a plethora of commafication.
Really, if it were *my* sentence? I wouldn't have written it that way at all. But that was the lightest change I could make that clarified the sense of it.
Sadly, if it were my sentence, it would probably have had three extra subsidiary clauses, and a whole bunch of unnecessary "pause" commas in it. I have a distinct tendency to the overcomplicated when it comes to sentence structre.
How many writers critique the punctuation of their critics? Seems a much better approach, whether the review is good or bad.

That said, the (parens) work better for me.
I wasn't attempting good grammar, just clarification.