Not objective errors?

[Ludovica Peruzzi]

Hello, an author I just reviewed sent back the list of typos I'd provided, saying none of them are objective errors because "every English-speaking country has its own language and every writer has his/her own style". I definitely allow a margin of error for personal style, which is why most of the issues I had with punctuation I put down as an uncounted error rather than an objective error. However, I do think personal style can only allow for so much, otherwise nothing could be reasonably counted as an error, so I'd like to know what you all think before responding. There are also phrases that sound nonsensical to me, but since I'm not a native English speaker it's possible I'm just not acquainted with this sentence structure or with the specific regional variety, if that's indeed what's going on here, so I'd like your input on that as well. I definitely don't want to come across as too harsh and knowing stuff like this will help me do better with my future reviews.

I'll start with the ones I'm willing to be more flexible on:

While early on in younger years if she had lived there in Prairie Village - if she would have had time to think - she might have found this neighborly spontaneity a bothersome lack of privacy. Now, in her fifties, she loves this place and the midwestern populace who go nowhere.

My first thought was that the first sentence was left hanging, and that the period should be replaced with a comma, like this: "While early on in younger years if she had lived there in Prairie Village - if she would have had time to think - she might have found this neighborly spontaneity a bothersome lack of privacy, now, in her fifties, she loves this place and the midwestern populace who go nowhere". Now I'm wondering if the author was using "while" as in "While [she was] early on in younger years", which is the only way I can make sense of it.
On a similar note:

It was not clear whether the villagers knew what they were eating, but since the story spread through the DNA of everything and everyone the way it did. The flies had feasted too.

I think this could make sense if we take "since" as "ever since", but I didn't read it like that initially and took it as a causal subordinating conjunction. The sentence still sounds wonky to me, but I'll admit it makes more sense than my original reading.

But now adding to the desire for revenge was the unanswerable question of how much had Kevin’s mistake influenced his brother to kill himself this year.

Now, what I know is that when it comes to indirect questions the word order should change, so it should be "how much Kevin's mistake had influenced his brother". If this had been a dialogue I wouldn't have counted it as a mistake, but it is narration, and every website I can find tells me indirect questions should be phrased without inversion. I'm willing to acknowledge it as a matter of personal style, but I can't find anywhere that tells me there's a margin of error there, so again, I'd like someone to weigh in.

The women at the table looked at each other as if to figure out whether to even respond and, if so, who?

I see now that the author probably meant "and, if so, who should do it". The sentence still reads weird to me, like there's something missing, and again I would have been more forgiving if this had been in a dialogue instead of narration, but at the very least I know it wasn't a typo of "how" as I previously thought.

Now for the ones I'm genuinely unsure about, which might just have slang/structures I'm not familiar with:

On day two, Linda, Carl, and Beth walked the streets in central Hamilton, which, according to Gerry, were monitored by police cameras and that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate “slammer” time.

No matter how I put it, I can't make sense of this sentence as it is. Replacing "and" with "so" was the only solution I could find, because otherwise "the streets in central Hamilton [...] that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate 'slammer' time" just doesn't make sense to me. Am I reading it wrong?

Joe forked the over-easy eggs onto one of the two pieces of dry toast, saving the second piece and the fries to last.

I have never heard of the expression "saving something to last" instead of "saving something FOR last", and Google didn't help there because it just shows results for the latter anyway. Is this a regional variety people use?

The ones I'm most convinced are objective errors are phrases that have a comma in what I think are objectively wrong places, such as between subject and verb or in a way that doesn't correctly highlight the relative clause:

The ocean light and an all-night twilight, all added details, minutiae, concepts, and emotions that had previously never been in her realm of comprehension.

I have summer boaters, fall sailors, beer socializers, and sometimes occasional daughters of the yacht owners, who without much competition, gravitate to me [...]

Mostly, I go out of my way to deal with people and their sailing vessels within the tight quarters of the docks and, out to sea within the tighter quarters of their boats and their minds.

For context, these are all narration, though the latter two are first-person as opposed to the third-person narration which most of the book is written in. The reason I specify that is 'cause the author also said I shouldn't mark down errors that occur in dialogue, which none of the mistakes I marked down were.

Sorry to make such a long post, but I'd really appreciate any insight you might have on any of these since apparently the author's style was a bit too confusing for me. I also always marked wrong commas like these down as objective errors and I never had any problems, so I'd like to know how I should act moving forward. Thank you in advance.

[Alissa Nesson]

Most of these look like objective errors to me. The first example you provided looks ok to me, though it is awkward and could definitely be improved. The second one is not a full sentence, so that one is objectively incorrect. The third example is also incorrect, but it would be ok if the author moved the word had from where it is to “how much Kevin’s mistake had influenced his brother to kill himself.”

I won’t go through all your examples, but most of these are objective mistakes and it was totally valid and necessary to submit them as such. The author’s assertion that none of these errors are objective because they’re her style is ridiculous. You’re right when you say style can only go so far. When sentences are grammatically incorrect, we’re instructed to write them down.

Comma errors are frequently subjective so it’s generally a good idea to mark those down as uncounted to avoid arguments about whether they’re stylistic. Some of those comma placements are bizarre and objectively wrong, but if you decide to cut down your list of errors, I would start there. Your grammar errors are completely valid.

It’s a real pain to have a dispute with an author and I think this site is frequently biased towards the authors, but you have followed the rules here and a lot of your written errors are valid. I hope you get somewhere with your dispute. I usually try to compromise with authors if they’re making a fuss because I just don’t wanna fight for a long time about it. It’s up to you how you handle this. I wouldn’t completely erase your list of errors though, as the author really is being ridiculous with this one.

[Ludovica Peruzzi]

Most of these look like objective errors to me. The first example you provided looks ok to me, though it is awkward and could definitely be improved. The second one is not a full sentence, so that one is objectively incorrect. The third example is also incorrect, but it would be ok if the author moved the word had from where it is to “how much Kevin’s mistake had influenced his brother to kill himself.”

I won’t go through all your examples, but most of these are objective mistakes and it was totally valid and necessary to submit them as such. The author’s assertion that none of these errors are objective because they’re her style is ridiculous. You’re right when you say style can only go so far. When sentences are grammatically incorrect, we’re instructed to write them down.

Comma errors are frequently subjective so it’s generally a good idea to mark those down as uncounted to avoid arguments about whether they’re stylistic. Some of those comma placements are bizarre and objectively wrong, but if you decide to cut down your list of errors, I would start there. Your grammar errors are completely valid.

It’s a real pain to have a dispute with an author and I think this site is frequently biased towards the authors, but you have followed the rules here and a lot of your written errors are valid. I hope you get somewhere with your dispute. I usually try to compromise with authors if they’re making a fuss because I just don’t wanna fight for a long time about it. It’s up to you how you handle this. I wouldn’t completely erase your list of errors though, as the author really is being ridiculous with this one.

Thank you so much for your input, Alissa, 'cause I was honestly starting to doubt myself and my English knowledge. As for the second sentence, I think it could make sense if we read it as "but the story spread ever since through the DNA of everything and everyone the way it did", though I still find it a bit awkward. And as for the third, that was exactly my commentary - I just suggested to swap the word order, and then the sentence would read just fine.

I'm willing to erase the first four sentences I mentioned off my list because I can see why someone would defend them as a matter of personal style, even though I don't personally agree, but I'm honestly not sure I can compromise on the other six. Unless I'm missing something, the sixth sentence doesn't make sense to me at all, and while most commas are subjective - like in the case of the Oxford comma - there are misused commas which are objective grammatical mistakes, and those are the comma errors I marked down. You could even claim creative license for a comma between subject and verb, but I really can't explain the comma after "and" in the last sentence, which isn't even followed by an aside. There are more examples of misused commas which I didn't even mention because I was already past 10 counted mistakes. If everything can count as personal style, then what exactly are we evaluating when we're asked to mark errors down?

I don't want the author to get mad or for an admin to potentially strike me, and I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if someone comes along and explains how these sentences are actually correct, but there's only so much leeway I can give.

[Claudia Angelucci]

Hello, an author I just reviewed sent back the list of typos I'd provided, saying none of them are objective errors because "every English-speaking country has its own language and every writer has his/her own style". I definitely allow a margin of error for personal style, which is why most of the issues I had with punctuation I put down as an uncounted error rather than an objective error. However, I do think personal style can only allow for so much, otherwise nothing could be reasonably counted as an error, so I'd like to know what you all think before responding. There are also phrases that sound nonsensical to me, but since I'm not a native English speaker it's possible I'm just not acquainted with this sentence structure or with the specific regional variety, if that's indeed what's going on here, so I'd like your input on that as well. I definitely don't want to come across as too harsh and knowing stuff like this will help me do better with my future reviews.

I'll start with the ones I'm willing to be more flexible on:

While early on in younger years if she had lived there in Prairie Village - if she would have had time to think - she might have found this neighborly spontaneity a bothersome lack of privacy. Now, in her fifties, she loves this place and the midwestern populace who go nowhere.

My first thought was that the first sentence was left hanging, and that the period should be replaced with a comma, like this: "While early on in younger years if she had lived there in Prairie Village - if she would have had time to think - she might have found this neighborly spontaneity a bothersome lack of privacy, now, in her fifties, she loves this place and the midwestern populace who go nowhere". Now I'm wondering if the author was using "while" as in "While [she was] early on in younger years", which is the only way I can make sense of it.
On a similar note:

It was not clear whether the villagers knew what they were eating, but since the story spread through the DNA of everything and everyone the way it did. The flies had feasted too.

I think this could make sense if we take "since" as "ever since", but I didn't read it like that initially and took it as a causal subordinating conjunction. The sentence still sounds wonky to me, but I'll admit it makes more sense than my original reading.

But now adding to the desire for revenge was the unanswerable question of how much had Kevin’s mistake influenced his brother to kill himself this year.

Now, what I know is that when it comes to indirect questions the word order should change, so it should be "how much Kevin's mistake had influenced his brother". If this had been a dialogue I wouldn't have counted it as a mistake, but it is narration, and every website I can find tells me indirect questions should be phrased without inversion. I'm willing to acknowledge it as a matter of personal style, but I can't find anywhere that tells me there's a margin of error there, so again, I'd like someone to weigh in.

The women at the table looked at each other as if to figure out whether to even respond and, if so, who?

I see now that the author probably meant "and, if so, who should do it". The sentence still reads weird to me, like there's something missing, and again I would have been more forgiving if this had been in a dialogue instead of narration, but at the very least I know it wasn't a typo of "how" as I previously thought.

Now for the ones I'm genuinely unsure about, which might just have slang/structures I'm not familiar with:

On day two, Linda, Carl, and Beth walked the streets in central Hamilton, which, according to Gerry, were monitored by police cameras and that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate “slammer” time.

No matter how I put it, I can't make sense of this sentence as it is. Replacing "and" with "so" was the only solution I could find, because otherwise "the streets in central Hamilton [...] that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate 'slammer' time" just doesn't make sense to me. Am I reading it wrong?

Joe forked the over-easy eggs onto one of the two pieces of dry toast, saving the second piece and the fries to last.

I have never heard of the expression "saving something to last" instead of "saving something FOR last", and Google didn't help there because it just shows results for the latter anyway. Is this a regional variety people use?

The ones I'm most convinced are objective errors are phrases that have a comma in what I think are objectively wrong places, such as between subject and verb or in a way that doesn't correctly highlight the relative clause:

The ocean light and an all-night twilight, all added details, minutiae, concepts, and emotions that had previously never been in her realm of comprehension.

I have summer boaters, fall sailors, beer socializers, and sometimes occasional daughters of the yacht owners, who without much competition, gravitate to me [...]

Mostly, I go out of my way to deal with people and their sailing vessels within the tight quarters of the docks and, out to sea within the tighter quarters of their boats and their minds.

For context, these are all narration, though the latter two are first-person as opposed to the third-person narration which most of the book is written in. The reason I specify that is 'cause the author also said I shouldn't mark down errors that occur in dialogue, which none of the mistakes I marked down were.

Sorry to make such a long post, but I'd really appreciate any insight you might have on any of these since apparently the author's style was a bit too confusing for me. I also always marked wrong commas like these down as objective errors and I never had any problems, so I'd like to know how I should act moving forward. Thank you in advance.

You are right, Ludovica, "to last" is not correct in this context. The correct term is "for last." The sentence should be: "Joe forked the over-easy eggs onto one of the two pieces of dry toast, saving the second piece and the fries for last." This is an objective mistake.

This is also objectively incorrect: "It was not clear whether the villagers knew what they were eating, but since the story spread through the DNA of everything and everyone the way it did. The flies had feasted too." It can be solved by changing the full stop to a comma.

This one also is an objective grammatical mistake: "On day two, Linda, Carl, and Beth walked the streets in central Hamilton, which, according to Gerry, were monitored by police cameras, and that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate 'slammer' time." This can be fixed by eliminating "that."

The other mistakes are arbitrary. I would have marked some down as "uncounted errors" because they sound awkward and unclear to me as well. Maybe other readers won't find them so, though.
However, I had the same issue as you twice.
All the best!

[Shirley Ann Riddern Labzentis]

I have stopped even mentioning commas in my review, whether they are objective or subjective. I have done close to 75 reviews and found that it's not worth the hassle of arguing with the authors or editors. There have been some books that OMG have so many errors as far as commas go. At the end of my error report, I wrote, "there were numerous missing and misplaced commas." No one has complained about it or gigged me for it. My life has been easier, and I'm not stomping around angry because I know I am right but lose the battle anyway.

[Ludovica Peruzzi]

Thanks, Claudia and Shirley, I really appreciate your help! I've cut the list down to five counted errors and I'm now hoping the author doesn't request a second recheck, because I've never had to deal with this before and have no idea what an admin might think about it.

[Ludovica Peruzzi]

Hello, little update on this. After I cut the list to five errors and then to four, the author sent back the typo list with no further info or explanation added (like which errors exactly aren't errors and why) so I got an admin involved, and they told me this sentence is correct:

On day two, Linda, Carl, and Beth walked the streets in central Hamilton, which, according to Gerry, were monitored by police cameras and that any drug trade caught on camera meant immediate “slammer” time.

I have no problem removing it from the list if it's actually correct and I'm just reading it wrong, but I just don't see how that could be ascribed to a matter of style. I know the people who've weighed in so far also thought the sentence was objectively incorrect, so if anyone else sees it differently and can explain why I'd really appreciate it! Thanks!

[Alissa Nesson]

There are some issues with the sentence. It’s cumbersome and awkward and the structure is overly complicated. Even if the sentence is technically ok, it just sounds wrong. However, I think you should do yourself a favor and just take it off the list. It isn’t worth the headache. Was the admin ok with the other sentences you had on the list? And also, are you comfortable sharing the book you reviewed? I would love to never deal with this author!

[Ludovica Peruzzi]

There are some issues with the sentence. It’s cumbersome and awkward and the structure is overly complicated. Even if the sentence is technically ok, it just sounds wrong. However, I think you should do yourself a favor and just take it off the list. It isn’t worth the headache. Was the admin ok with the other sentences you had on the list? And also, are you comfortable sharing the book you reviewed? I would love to never deal with this author!

Yeah, I already took it off, I just wondered again if it really did make sense and I just wasn't reading it right (like some of the sentences I'd previously marked as errors here). The admin only mentioned that one sentence being correct, so I guess the other three were fine? I hope I can just get this over with 'cause I've been fighting with this author for the past two weeks and ngl it's making me very disillusioned about reviewing as a whole. I can send you a PM if you want to know what book it was because I don't want to make it look like I'm slandering anyone