Support for Indie Authors discussion

I wrote:
Win was seeing more of the war in London than was Teddy in Stoke-on-Trent.
My copy editor suggests:
Win was seeing more of the war in London than Teddy was in Stoke-on-Trent.

I think I prefer the original, as a little more stylish.
Thoughts?
Thanks,
Peter

I think the second one is clearer. :)

Truth: I had to read them three times before seeing what is different. Both were clear enough for me.

The first is more stylish and would work better if the work in progress is fiction, especially if told in first person and this matches the speech pattern of the narrator. It also "feels" more British to me.

The second may be better if the work in progress is non-fiction.

As an American who watches/reads a lot of UK stuff ... the 1st definitely sounds more British. The second one seems more -- balanced? -- because you have the symmetry of "Win was" and "Teddy was".

Personally? I don't have a preference. I think it's a very minor thing.

The second is clearer. The first feels incomplete.

The second sounds much more natural to me. The first one might jar slightly with some readers, as it seems like a less common way of structuring the sentence.

I'm American which may be pertinent. I didn't like the first one at all. The second one didn't make me stumble -- preferred it by far.

Peter wrote: "I wrote:
Win was seeing more of the war in London than was Teddy in Stoke-on-Trent.
My copy editor suggests:
Win was seeing more of the war in London than Teddy was in Stoke-on-Trent.

I think I pr..."

Is your editor perchance American? I think the sentence works both ways. I'd just leave it the way you like it.

Here we are again, divided by a common language!

Thank you, all , f or your comments. It does seem to divide more or less US/UK.

You're right, Micah, it is minor thing. Both work. I just thought it might raise some opinions.

Peter

Both work for me. To me, the first sounds more old-fashioned, it has a slightly precise feel to it. That evokes both Britishness and also more of the mid-century (assuming you are talking about WW2) so might be more appropriate.

It is very subtle and depends on the voice you are trying to convey.

I'm not a good one for giving opinion on this one, but still. I like both. While the second sounds more common, something you might hear every day in speech, while the first sounds more 'correct'.

I agree with Ian and G.G.

The second one and I would still massage that line as well. The first one comes off as pretentious, but if that is was you are going for as a narrator or the character, that's fine then, but I still like the second iteration.

Each sentence depends on what comes before and after so to get a good feel you need the context (paragraph).

Genre is nonfiction, history for the general reader (WW2/SOE). Here it is in context:

Now Acting Sergeant Bisset, Teddy enjoyed a week’s leave in London with Win and other friends and relatives in August 1940. He had a narrow escape on his way back to Dorset when his train was almost hit by a German bomb. In mid-October, he was sent to act as liaison and interpreter for French sailors at Trentham Park near Stoke-on-Trent, an uninspiring duty but even less so after the French had departed; he was put in charge of the stores. His relationship with Win was his main focus. He had written to her parents in Australia and, two days before Christmas, he received their reply. They thought he might be running after their daughter because of the sudden passion ‘that takes everybody during wartime’, but he was determined to convince them that he was sincere. Win was dependent on her parents for financial support and became both worried and depressed about her situation. The stress of the bombing cannot have helped. Even though the Midlands were bombed, Win was seeing more of the war in London than was Teddy in Stoke-on-Trent. She was working at night with the Women’s Voluntary Service running a mobile canteen. She saw her share of destruction and death.

Peter

I think it's fine and it fits, style and voice. It sounds interesting too, a different and personal perspective on the war. Nice.

Thanks, all, for participating with your comments. I thought it might be an interesting discussion of a minor point.

Peter

Now 'Acting Sergeant' Bisset, Teddy enjoyed a week’s leave in London with Win and other friends and relatives in August 1940. He had a narrow escape when his train was almost hit by a German bomb on his way back to Dorset. In mid-October he was sent to act as liaison officer/interpreter for the Free French sailors at Trentham Park near Stoke; an uninspiring duty but even less so after the French had departed and he was put in charge of the stores.

His relationship with Win was his main focus; he had written to her parents in Australia and, two days before Christmas, had received their reply. They thought he might be running after their daughter because of the sudden passion ‘that takes everybody during wartime’ but he was determined to convince them that his feelings were sincere. Win became worried and depressed about her situation as she was dependent on her parents for financial support and the stress of the bombing did not help. Even though the Midlands were bombed, inevitably Win was seeing more of the war in London than Teddy in Stoke. Working at night with the Women’s Voluntary Service running a mobile canteen she saw her share of destruction and death.

The second was grammatically cleaner, but I liked how the first read! 😀

The second is better, particularly when put in context, and frankly as Katherine said, grammatically cleaner. I think Americans assume the English have a more 'proper' English because of how they sound, but they shake things up grammatically as well... :)