I wrote to the person and told him I did not want him doing any further work on the project.
HE replied that he knew it wouldn't work out because of my response to his initial comments on his first suggestions.
What I am wondering, is if he REALLY believed that from the start, WHY DID HE SEEK ADDITIONAL WORK ON IT AND WHY DID HE PROPOSE HE EDIT THE ENTIRE BOOK? It's a LOOOOONG book!
To his credit, he didn't want to be paid. He said it was just an 'exploratory discussion'. My guess is that he thinks if he doesn't push me to pay him, I won't complain to anyone about him.
Here's an example. This is one of his initial recommendations after reading the synopsis and first 20 pages:
The main character should have Stockholm Syndrome.
I said I wasn't interested in making that change, and he said, okay, but then make clear why he hasn't got Stockholm Syndrome.
I didn't feel that was necessary, because Stockholm Syndrome simply is not anywhere near universal or assumed in such situations. In fact, in comparison, the hostage situation that started the term 'Stockholm Syndrome' has often been contrasted to a similar situation (bank hostages) in which the hostages held the assailant up to a window to HELP the police shoot him some more!
It's almost a guarantee that Stockholm Syndrome will NOT occur if there is any physical violence against the hostages. And according to several psychiatrists I discussed the matter with, Stockholm Syndrome is actually rather rare! It is by no means a given when hostages or kidnappings or 'unlawful detainment' occurs.
The main character has a mental disability and was abused and exploited by a couple (this is not modeled on a specific crime, but such crimes are very common and there have been some particularly brutal and horrific crimes like this against people with mental disabilities). Since only one of the couple was beating him, editor felt the MC should be sympathetic toward the person not beating him.
That person was 'kind' to him (threw a piece of leftover pizza on the floor in his room every few days, that was all he got to eat...he was basically getting starved to death to force him to surrender the deed to his house).
But in fact, I made it very clear very early on that he despised both of them, including the more passive person. He stated clearly that he had already decided that if he ever got out of there, he would hate her the most. She didn't show him any kindness. She was complicit, she sat there and watched while he got beat up, she reinforced the rules the chief abuser laid down when the chief abuser was out of the house. The chief abuser told the MC that she was his 'eyes and ears' and he better not try anything while he was out of the house, or his partner would tell him about it and he'd be punished.
This parallels the rage that many abused adult children feel toward the passive parent. Many times, people are MORE angry at the passive parent who is complicit in the abuse.
There was no good place to add it early on, but I did find a spot to add, later in the story, some explanation from the MC's doctor as to why the MC was not sympathetic to the more passive person in the crime. Just a brief sardonic comment, really.
He also wanted me to add more 'suspense' to a scene in which the abuser attacks the MC.
I had conceived of this scene as being very similar to something I experienced...waiting alone in a room, and knowing I'd be attacked but not exactly when, then being attacked violently and quickly. To me this was like a whirlwind. The suspense was all in the room when the MC was by himself. He could sense something was coming, just not exactly when to the moment.
Well, editor wanted me to expand out the fight scene, presumably to add suspense, and have the MC NEARLY fall over a lamp, step over it, the attacker hit the LAMP with a belt, the attacker gets a pock marked face and an evil grin, and a lot of other things that I was just like...wow...this just looks like a cheap daytime movie.
In the story as it is, the attacker was high, he was fed up with the MC, he wanted to move on, and he was a brutal, vicious person anyway. He just screamed at him, jerked him around by the arm and lit into him. Threw him through a window, and then ran outside to stomp on him some more.
Later, it is found out that the attacker didn't just exploit the MC, either. Like many of these people in real life, he victimized many people.
And later in the story (this was in the story before I sent it to the editor), the female who was complicit in the abuse, finds the MC and tries to murder him, later claiming to the police that her partner 'threatened' her with harm if she didn't. She also claims she was merely trying to 'scare' them but the police point out that she shot a gun at a chair she believed to be occupied by the MC or someone trying to help him.
I have some experience with such people. They attack directly, swiftly and terribly. He's not going to pussyfoot around.
And I can certainly make their nature clearer. But I believe that the changes recommended aren't good for the story.
