On Editing -- a thing to keep in mind
Okay, I've been sitting on this one for literal years. But I think I finally have the language to take a stab at explaining it.
Not all edits makes sense for all narrative voices.
What the hell do I mean by this?
Take Tolkien, for an extreme example. The narrative voice in LotR, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion etc. is generally very formal and poetic. It intends to mimic the speech patterns of Old English epics like Beowulf. So sentences like **flips to a random page in Fellowship**
With that he jumped out of his chair, and with a bound took a candle from the chimney-shelf and lit it in the flame that Goldberry held; then he danced about the table.
This does many things that are often considered writing faux-pas. And yet, it works (unless your the kind of person that doesn't like Tolkien's prose, which is valid.) Most writers would write this sequence more like:
He jumped out of his chair. He grabbed a candle from the chimney-shelf and lit it with the flame Goldberry held out to him. Then, he danced around the table.
Or they might omit a few details:
He jumped up to light a candle with Goldberry's flame. Then, he danced around the table.
Tolkien's prose contains a filler words that most people would be advised to cut out, such as "with that". It uses several words where one will do, such as "with a bound" instead of "bounding". It uses archaic wording such as, "lit it in the flame," instead of "lit it with the flame," "took a candle from," instead of "grabbed a candle off," and "danced about," instead of "danced around." And it uses much longer sentences with multiple ideas strung together.
But it's not bad writing. It is giving off a certain effect, the effect of reading a epic 1000 year old poem.
I've started to become more careful about how I edit because each of the three examples given gives a very different effect and all of them are enjoyable to read. When editing, I've started asking myself
What is the effect the writer is going for? Does this add to it?
How casual or formal is their prose, overall?
A writer going for a more modern or casual feel will probably write like the second example, using modern word choice, cutting out filler words, and using strong verbs.
A writer going for a quick, snappy feel will probably write like the third example, focusing only on the most important actions and details.
Another example is "she stated firmly before exiting the room" versus "she said firmly, then left the room." Both of these are technically correct, but one might feel more awkward than the other. If the prose is really casual elsewhere, words like "stated" and "exiting" are going to draw unwanted attention. If the prose is more formal, "stated" and "exiting" may pack more of a punch than "said" and "left".
Grammar conventions can sometimes be ignored as well if it suits the voice. "He was hungry again," is technically more correct than, "he was again hungry," because adverbs should follow the verb. But more formal prose, or prose going for an archaic or Tolkienesque feel, might prefer the second option. The first might feel too casual.
So yeah, pay attention when editing that you are helping to bring the narrative voice out, rather than cutting it out just because writing advice says not to use long sentences, filler words, archaic language, too many words, formal language, slang, a particular word order etc.
