[relictele]

Believe me I would not want any New York(er) criteria to dictate changes but an editor in the traditional sense may have pointed out to the author that the story included numerous dead ends even if the author chose to leave them in.

For better or worse, the science lauded by many as ‘realistic’ or ‘well-researched’ is faulty e.g. the thin atmosphere would not allow sufficient wind forces to cause the havoc described.

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

I've read many of the classics in the last few years and very few would hold up to the editors pen in today's demanding environment. The Three Musketeers by Dumas meanders along plot lines as it makes it's way to the final conflict with Lady de Winter. The Andromeda Strain flits from one dry block of exposition to the other. Huckleberry Finn suffers from all of the above as Twain seeks the point of the story.

But what all of those have at their core is a killer story with fleshed out characters. If the writing isn't as tight as a modern Hollywood movie, maybe that's because readers aren't as demanding about a book they can sink into as movie goers who demand to see 100% on screen for each of the 120 minutes they are in their seats.

I like to take my time with a book and consider some of the dead ends and unwrapped-up points at the end. To let the author take his deep steeping me in his world.