The prose may be a bit bulky in places, but at least it doesn't lose any of the mood, tone and emotion in the scene. Adam Hunault's rewrite lacks any of those things, which makes it overly functional and nothing more than a transcription of events. His diction isn't as strong as M&M's. His word choice is bland. He doesn't set the scene like M&M.
What is the context of the scene and where does it fall in the novel? Is it the beginning of the book? A chapter? Or are we in the middle of a chapter after a line break? Hunault doesn't seem to take these questions into consideration.
If this is the first page of the novel, then we have started in media res -- the Enterprise and Colombia are in the middle of a mission, even if it is a seemingly boring one. From Archer's rumpled uniform to his resigned sigh (although, I would've just said "sigh" as the adjective seems a bit redundant), let's us know that the mission is taking its toll on Archer. There is banter between Erika and Archer (“All right. Who are you, and what have you done with Jonny Archer?") This gives the characters a specific manner of speaking and helps to establish a previous, ongoing relationship. Hunault's version vivisects all that. It's just the facts of the matter without any of the subtext.
Hunalt's dialog is worse: "That’s surprising, coming from you.” & "I’m an explorer. I don’t like babysitting freighter convoys either but there have been enough attacks over the past few weeks to justify it.”
It's bland and lifeless. His dialog, unlike M&M's, doesn't have a character behind it. They just deliver information like puppets.
Hunault quotes George Orwell, yet he ignores the advice. Hunault doesn't employ the right image, simile or metaphor. He just gives us stage direction and dialog. It might as well have been a page out of an ENT teleplay. Brendan Moody is right; prose must do more than be merely functional. The use of language, sentence structure and word choice helps to create pace, mood and tone. If he were truly a writer and not a critic, he would acknowledge that and be able to utilize those tools in his "revision."
Hunault seems to think that there is a mathematical formula for writers. That's deadly to think of writing as a formula. One word plus another word equals two words. He makes a generalized statement that the "longer you talk the more boring you are." (He needs a better copyeditor. One, he needs a comma between "talk" and "the." Two, he ended the sentence in a preposition.) That's not necessarily true. You can be verbose as long as your diction and language is snappy and interesting, a reader will keep with it. Does less mean more? Most times. But if a writer is attempting a slower pace, the longer sentences and dependent clauses, bring things to a crawl. If a writer isn't going for a slow pace and he/she continue to use ten-dollar words, complicated sentences then it could backfire on them. Yet, Hunault rants on the details of the scene rather than what I just mentioned. He doesn't understand that prose through those above means can create pace and hold reader interest.
The details Hunault mentions help to establish setting and tone, which he doesn't even take into consideration. I am interested in Archer's rumpled uniform because it tells us that he's had a rough day, or at least a long one. Porthos being there tells us that Archer is in his cabin. The treat activates Porthos in the scene. The crunch of it gives the reader a sense of the action and provides us with a nice sound.
Although, I have to admit that I agree with Hunault's view on the over use of adjectives but that's because my own aesthetic choices want to do otherwise. It is perhaps the only thing in the whole critique that may be helpful to other writers. The rest, however, does not take into account all the factors that he praises Orwell for pointing out.
Last edited:
Sounds like sour Grapes to me when it comes to this guy gripping about a book excerpt when the book hasn't even come out yet.Boy he sure went on a long winded rant didn't he . 
I liked M&M's description of Archer & Hernandez better than how this blogger changed it into flowery words.He's entitled to his opinion but I don't agree with him. I'm looking forward to reading this book.
