In my novel, the main character saw a robbery. In the text I say the following: Since Bill got the best view of the thief, the police decided to question him. . .. . . . My editor hates the word "got" and changed it to: Since Bill garnered the best view of the thief, the police decided to question him. . . I hate the wore "garnered" in this context. It sounds too contrived and not the way people talk or think. What do you think of my using the word "had" as a compromise? . . . . . Since Bill had the best view of the thief, the police decided to question him. I would much prefer using "got" than "garnered" but I could settle for "had" . . . . .I welcome your thoughts.
Proper word question
- Thread starter Umgowa
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Messages
- 1,532
- Reaction score
- 417
Yeah, that. I like "got", "had", and "caught" just fine. Go with any of those that best fits your narrative. Your editor has big word syndrome, and since your character didn't actively collect anything, "garnered" is spectacularly poor usage.
Last edited:
"Got" would be wrong. This is past tense, and Bill's view of the thief happened in the past of the past, before the police decided to question him.
The correct (and probably best) choice would be "had gotten."
Since Bill had gotten the best view of the thief, the police decided to question him.
Garnered? Really? Garnered? That just sounds weird. Had works. Had gotten works. Rearranging the sentence would work, but garnered . . . sucks. 
That practice drives me absolutely bonkers.
One editor I had a while back made numerous word-choice suggestions (for dialogue no less), which made my high-school dropout automobile mechanic sound like a Rhodes Scholar. Not saying that auto mechanics can't be Rhodes Scholars (or vice versa), but it was patently obvious that this particular supporting character wasn't supposed to be the sharpest knife in the drawer, and he was clearly not one who would be familiar with words like pedantry or ubiquitous.
"Got" doesn't seem appropriate to me. It suggests an action. "To get..." "I got the job" or "He got here at five" or "He got a good look at the thief."
Whereas "had" suggests that Bill already possessed it. "To have..."
Had a view says he possessed it. Got a view says he actively sought it. You either go get or you already have.
So it would depend on the context. Did Bill actively seek out a view of the thief or was he simply in the best place to view the thief? If it's the former, use got; if it's the latter, use had.
Whereas "had" suggests that Bill already possessed it. "To have..."
Had a view says he possessed it. Got a view says he actively sought it. You either go get or you already have.
So it would depend on the context. Did Bill actively seek out a view of the thief or was he simply in the best place to view the thief? If it's the former, use got; if it's the latter, use had.
Last edited:
sesquipedalianism can be good fun in the right places, but in dialogue from a high school drop out; I don't think so.
You guys are great !!! I love your comments, and thank you for validating my suspicion of my editor's poor advice. I like the idea of "caught" . . . . I will use both "had" and "caught". Thanks again.
"Since Bill experienced direct acute personal visual observation evidence pertinent to the actual physical identity of the thief, . . ."
There. That oughtta fix it.
caw
There. That oughtta fix it.
caw
I vote for "caught." It has more flavor than 'got' or 'had,' and is less horrifying than 'garnered.' I find that many times a reader (be they editor or wino off the street) can identify what the problem is, but not the most effective way to fix it. Using a more dynamic word is a great choice, just not garnered.
I also think Blacbird is hilarious.
I also think Blacbird is hilarious.