Speculation, Fact and Fiction

Been reading assorted crime novels over the past few weeks, this being my preferred relaxation reading. These included Dead Simple, and Looking Good Dead, by Peter James. I found them fit for purpose if not spectacular reads - apart from one thing.

Reading the second, I found certain descriptive passages, most particularly of places, covering physical detail and atmosphere, had been lifted wholesale from the text of the first. I'm not just talking similar - I mean identical paragraphs.

Now, consistency is important - I have post-it markers constantly shifting in my reference copies of my own earlier books as I make sure new descriptions of people and places that have cropped up before all tie up. But I take just as much care to ensure the words are fresh, looking at things from a different angle, highlighting key aspects in a different way.

So this doesn't impress me, as a writer myself. And as a reader, it undercuts the whole book, because I wonder, if the author's been so sloppy here, what else has he been slapdash/negligent over?

To be fair, while this is the worst example of this kind of thing I've seen lately, I can think of several other authors who have overused a pet phrase. Kathy Reichs's test readers really should point out she's had all the mileage she can reasonably expect out of 'couldn't be less interested if she was on lithium' as a comment on some unhelpful functionary. But at least that's only one line.

Test readers and copy editors are so crucial for catching things like this - and I don't claim to be a sainted innocent here. Every book I've written has had a few words that have got stuck in my brain - one, I can't recall which, had stupid quantities of things 'gleaming' and recently 'turbid' was cropping up with tedious frequency. I'm lucky I have supportive pals to slap me round the head with the offending copy at first draft stage.