I was talking with Thing Two yesterday - his sister is writing a book about her years working with the AIDS epidemic. I've read a couple of chapters and the chapter outline and they'd asked my opinion. I gave it, and he rejected most of it (notice: he rejected it, rather than passing it along to his sister). One reason? The in-house editor would catch these things if they were a problem.
HAH! What in-house editor? It's like asking for a fact checker these days: they just do not exist. Back in the day, yes, you had someone who'd work on your deathless prose, crafting that timeless work of fiction/non-fiction. But today? The art of editing is a dead one. I've read many a book that would benefit from better editing.
Take, for example, the book I just read, The Case of the Missing Books. It was remaindered, which is always a sign. Then there was the endless repetition. A good editor would have cut that in half, if not more. Why? Because it wasn't "charming" in quite the way that the author probably thought it was, it was just annoying. Within the first few chapters I heard way too many times about the main characters pudge, wrinkled suit, Jewishness, and other traits that just didn't really matter. Who cared he was vegetarian? Clearly, given the number of times it was mentioned, I was supposed to deeply care. I didn't.
Another couple of examples? The Lovely Bones and The Da Vinci Code. All other aspects aside, let's talk pacing. Both books proceed at a certain pace, and then in the last chapter or two, they speed up immeasurably. My guess? An editor told them that the book was getting a bit too long. Rather than tightening it up throughout the book, the last couple of chapters got slashed and the pace ruined.
In other words, Thing Two's sister hasn't a hope in hell of having some thoughtful person edit her work. That's too bad, because with good editing, this could be a very nice book. If it's allowed to go the way it is (or with little revision), I can't see reading it.