How to Conduct an Effective Peer Review by Gloria Barczak and Abbie Griffin (review)

Abstract

3. Germano notes, astutely, that ‘when writers on writing say something about what makes a book work, the first thing they emphasize is often the writer’s voice’ (157). Germano’s is a voice of someone I would delight in inviting to dinner. 4. With respect to copy-editing, readers can consult the grammar, spelling, and style guides of their choice. Or, perhaps closer to Haag’s method, see Claire Kehrwald Cook, Line by Line: How to Improve Your Own Writing (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985); or Virginia Tufte, Artful Sentences: Syntax as Style (Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2006). 5. I love what Haag offers about titles: All authors should aim to ‘distill in one elegant title the premise’ of the book (89). Given the misleading nature of perfection vis-à-vis revising, though, I was more predisposed to appreciate Germano’s masterfully subtitled book. 6. A book that falls midway between Germano’s and Haag’s approaches is Scott Norton’s Developmental Editing: A Handbook for Freelancers, Authors, and Publishers (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009). Norton successfully presents lengthier examples while engaging with macro-level issues; his book consequently requires more of a commitment from its readers. 7. Examples of Haag’s ‘trickster clichés’ include in their infinite wisdom, rear its ugly head, and fraught with peril (269). 8. Sixty-five considerations make for a lot of passes through a text! But similar issues can be addressed simultaneously, since the aim is to learn how to become a good self-editor. To that end, both Germano and Haag wisely recommend reading one’s text aloud. 9. But, indeed, as Haag points out, ‘Shortening a manuscript is challenging work’ (200).