But then I’d probably add, “Oh, but I do more. Much more. I can make your writing sparkle and shine!”
To which you might remark, “Ooh! Sparkle and shine. What does THAT mean?”
So, here’s a short exercise. Have a look at the piece below. What do you think is wrong with it? There are glaring errors, but other then those, what edits do you think would make this piece better?
Assume that it does not require SEO as it will be published in print only, and is, of course, entirely fictitious.
“When crafting, a non-fiction book, the importance of thorough back-ground research cannot be over-stated. To approach a subject without first delving into the existing body of knowledge is to risk redundancy, or worst, to misrepresent well-established facts. Research serves as the foundation upon which a writer builds; it reveals the contours of what has already been explored, allowing the writer to avoid retreading familiar ground without offering something anew.
Understanding what has been written, enabled the author to position their work within a broader intellectual conversation. Whether by uncovering overlooked nuances, presenting familiar facts in a fresh context, or challenging prevailing narratives with new evidence, the writer’s contribution becomes meaningful.
Background research transforms mere writing into a thoughtful dialogue with existing scholarship, ensuring the final work advances knowledge rather than echoing it. In this process, the writer is tasked with two possible pathways: building upon existing facts with fresh insights or reinterpreting known information to shed light on new dimensions. Both approaches our valuable, but both requires the same fundamental groundwork — the mastery of what is already known. Without it, innovation in non-fiction is impossible.”
I’ll publish how I’d approach editing this piece, in Part II.