THIS BLOG HAS MOVED!

easyreaderediting.com/blog

For those who haven't read the fine print under my banner:

I moved my blog in early 2019 so I could have my website and blog for editing services all in one spot. Most of my regular readers have found me there, but if you've ended up here and you're not sure how, please click HERE to be redirected to easyreaderediting.com, where you can find:

• editing services (includes line editing and copyediting packages)
• biweekly blog posts with writing tips for authors
• paid beta services
• partial manuscript evaluations
• proofreading services for blog posts, query letters, websites, newsletters, and more

You can also find a list of writing and editing resources and Amazon links to a selection of the books I've edited (fiction and nonfiction).

See you there!

Lynda

My 200th Post!

Ahem. Drum roll, please.

This marks my 200th post since starting my blog in 2013!

When I started this blog, I didn't have a clue about blogging in general, other than it functioning as anything from an online diary to a teaching or advertising tool. I've learned quite a bit along the way, and have made a number of online friends and friendly acquaintances through the experience. I've seen a lot of those original blogging friends fall off the map, so to speak, and I genuinely miss some of them.

I thought it might be fun to revisit the top posts of each year from then to now. If you're newer to my blog, please do check them out. They're a lot of fun! And if you were around back in the day, do you remember these oldies but goodies?

MyTop Blog Posts

2013

Green Eggs and Ham: A Fresh Look at a Dark Book AND Coffee Chat with S.K. Anthony

There were two top posts that first year, and they just happen to be two of my own favorites! The Green Eggs and Ham post was actually written by my Number Two Son, Jeff, then eighteen (he's now twenty-three and just got married last month). His "I don't know what to write" for a school essay tied with the original, very first, one-that-started-it-all Coffee Chat for the number one spot. This first Coffee Chat was special and fun, and in fact was so much fun that my readers asked for more, and CC became a regular feature for a total of twenty-nine posts full of ridiculousness, suspension of disbelief, and even good advice at times.

2014 

Coffee Chat 8.0 with S.K. Anthony: The Kidnapping of Janie Junebug

The number of blog visitors multiplied during 2014. Some of that was because we organized a huge giveaway, Share the Love, where four authors and I did the Rafflecopter thing. They gave away books, and I gave away an editing package. There was also talk of such dodgy prizes as an empty Thin Mints cookie box, "Pong" (the original video game), and a picture of David Hasselhoff holding an armload of puppies, but at the last minute, the authors involved decided to keep those special extras and only send books to the winners. That was also the year I first participated in the April A to Z Challenge, hopping all over the globe to other people's blogs while posting twenty-six times in April. However, those things aside, the real top spot went to Janie Junebug (who can be found at Righting & Editing). During one of the coldest winters in Erie, S.K. decided to kidnap a guest from Florida to "bring sunshine" to my kitchen. I'm pretty sure Janie has never really recovered.

2015

Well . . . the interesting thing about 2015 is that I didn't blog at all. Not a single word. And it just about killed me. Just as my blog was gaining all kinds of momentum, I had a job switcheroo happen (not quite my choice, and not a bad job, but just super busy on top of homeschooling) and by the end of 2014, I had to acknowledge that there was just no time to write for a while. In October of that year, I announced I was in need of a short break. And truly, it was intended to be only a few months off—just enough time to settle into a better routine and get my bearings—but a few months turned into a few more, and when I finally got to the point where I simply HAD to write, it was almost fifteen months later. But here's the cool thing. My post about taking a break ended up with tons of hits on it because some of you wonderful people kept checking in on me here and there. And I'm so glad you all didn't give up on me.

2016

Editor's Notes #23: Points of View Part 1—How Do I Choose?

Actually, all three parts of the POV series vied for the most-visited of 2016. Part 1 discussed the first-person POV, Part 2 talked about third-person point of view and the role of the narrator & viewpoint person, and Part 3 focused on how many points of view is enough, and when the line of "too many" has been crossed.

2017

Do I Have to Love a Genre to Edit It?

Reading for editing purposes is vastly different from pleasure reading. Whether I enjoy the heck out of a manuscript or not, the job still needs to be done well, because that's what I was hired to do. This post about the balance between enjoyment and duty ended up being the top post for 2017.

2018

Happy New Year!

Funny that a post on January 4 that talked about my previous year and the complete reboot halfway through it would be the most popular post of 2018, but there you go. The numbers don't lie. I think sometimes it's just nice to have a conversation with my readers, rather than trying to teach or inform, and I guess everyone else thought so, too. A close second was the first of my three-part series on Best Books on Writing and Editing, still worth taking a look at for the book recommendations.

2019

Editors: We Are Not the Grammar Police!

We're not very far into 2019, so there weren't many posts to choose from, but this particular one definitely wins for most views in 2019. Editors have such a reputation for negativity and pedantic behavior that every so often, it's important to remind others that we really aren't anything like the stereotype.

So What's Coming Up Next?

The Future of This Blog

It's only fitting that my 200th post will be my last "real" post here on Blogger. I've decided, after much thought, wasted time (I'm a slow thinker), and a hard look at the analytics that it's time to move my blog to another platform. My website is on Squarespace, and given that Google has shut down an avenue (Google+) that was a social media failure overall but that made it easy to follow Blogger blogs, I think it's best that I make the change sooner than later. 

I hope you'll all make the move with me, of course. The commenting on Squarespace is through Disqus, and you don't have to create an account anywhere to comment or use it—you can log in through Facebook, Twitter, Google, Disqus, or simply comment as a guest. I'm hoping this will simplify commenting, as I've heard from a handful of people that they've experienced trouble commenting on this blog more often than not.

So thanks for following along this far! And come to the new blog at https://easyreaderediting.com/blog so I don't miss out on catching up with any of you there. 

But Why Does Editing Cost So Much?

Photo source: Skitterphoto via Pexels

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

If I had a quarter for every time someone expected me to edit their work for free ("have fun with it" was my all-time favorite) or questioned the project's cost, I'd be . . . maybe not rich, but I'd probably have enough to cover a project.

Whenever I hear someone complain about the cost of things, I mentally go through a few scenarios. First, I try to find out the specific item and the dollar amount that's being discussed, and then I attempt to reason out what is being provided for the cost.

BUT WHY: THE VALUE
In some cases, I want to know what it's made of (is this desk pressboard or solid wood?) before making a determination of value. Is $100 reasonable for a high-quality piece of stainless steel cookware because I'll only buy it once in my lifetime, rather than replace a cheaper type every few years because it wears out or cooks unevenly? (Spoiler alert: this is a no-brainer for me. I'm a firm believer in good cookware.)

BECAUSE: THE VALUE
A well-edited manuscript has greater value to the reader than an unedited (or poorly edited) one. A reader doesn't want to slog through sentences that need a second look to make sense . . . or typos, bad grammar, and so much repetition that the story becomes tedious. Well-written books are cherished and reread, given as gifts, and recommended to others.

BUT WHY: THE TIME INVOLVED
If a service is being performed, I need to decide what's more valuable to me: the time that's freed up by having someone else do the task, or the money I'd save by doing it myself. It may well be worth paying someone to come to my home to vacuum, dust, and mop once every week or two if I'm extremely busy and the house is falling apart because we're all going different directions at once. On the other hand, if I'm home all day, am able-bodied, and don't have small children around, it might be difficult to justify that expense when I have the time and good health to take care of things myself.

BECAUSE: THE TIME INVOLVED
Editing an average manuscript for a novel can take me about 40 hours or more. If the edit is a heavier one, that number can easily double. I've logged in over 70 hours on just a first round of heavy edits before. If a book edit is going to take weeks of my time, then it needs to compensate for weeks of income because it's time I can't use to schedule anything else. This is why it's always a good idea to get your manuscript in the best shape possible before sending it off to an editor. A more polished manuscript means the editor can often work faster, which usually means a lower cost to you. It's fine to not worry about it and "let the editor catch that," but that will directly affect the price.

BUT WHY: THE SKILL/EXPERTISE
Face it: there is no possible way for a person to exhibit a professional level of skill in every area of life. Just ask anyone who's ever done a major home renovation. There's a reason that contractors hire out the specialty things like drywall finishing, plumbing, electrical wiring, and more. I may be able to change an outlet, but it doesn't mean I'm capable or licensed to rewire my whole house. I can create decent enough images for the editing quotes I post weekly on Instagram or Twitter, but I hired a graphic designer to create the branding for my business because it was important for my logo to not look like a DIY project.

BECAUSE: THE SKILL/EXPERTISE
There's a great quote I love by Amy Einsohn, author of The Copyeditor's Handbook:

In many ways, being a copyeditor is like sitting for an English exam that never ends: at any moment, your knowledge of spelling, grammar, punctuation, usage, syntax, and diction is being tested.

You can love to read and not know all the rules. You can get irked by other people's grammar mistakes and still not catch the ones you make. You can be a writer and still have to look up some of the usage and trends of our ever-changing language. You wouldn't want someone who made a birdhouse once to be the person you hire to put an addition on to your home. Let the professionals do what they're best at; we love what we do and will take care of things you didn't even know were in need of attention.

I'll leave you with a direct quote from an editor I know, because I've also been hired for those re-edits she mentions.

My own thoughts when someone says they can "find someone else to do it for only $200" usually run along the lines of "Yes, you can. A lot of my work has come from re-editing those $200 jobs, so I know those kinds of prices can be found."

Respect the value. Respect the time spent. And respect the expertise. You won't regret it. 

WRITING MISCONCEPTIONS: The Myth of the "Perfect" Edit

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." In the writing world this adage applies to the famed Perfect Edit™.

I'll be blunt right off the bat: the Perfect Edit is like a unicorn in that it doesn't exist. In fact, if anyone promises you a perfect job for your book, they're lying, because no one can promise perfection. Nor should they.

Often, new authors seek out a copyeditor and don't have a clear idea of the scope of the job. Sometimes they just don't know that it's common practice to hire a proofreader after edits are complete and the book is typeset. Whatever the case, there is sometimes a "situation" at the job's completion where an author is dissatisfied because they've found an error or two in the MS. Sometimes, they even demand money back in compensation.

Here are the facts:

1. Guaranteed perfection is an impossibility. Impossible for humans, impossible for grammar-checking software.
2. An editor is not suddenly an amateur or a hack just because something got missed. There should be no accusations of "You call yourself a professional?" bandied about.
3. The industry standard for error rate is 5%. This applies to Big Five publishers and everyone else, all the way down to the freelancer. Most editors, including myself, consider that more than fair, and in fact have error rates much lower, closer to 1% or so. The basic idea is that if there are 100 errors in the MS, an editor should be expected to catch 95 of them. When a manuscript has 2000 revisions, missing 100 of them is not likely to happen. Missing 5? Maybe. And we're talking actual errors, not style choices. What about those heavy line edits that end up with 13,000 revisions? If I've even missed up to ten things, I'd still be counting myself a success because of the job's scope of work, since—by the book—I could have over 600 misses and still get a 95% catch rate.

I suppose the biggest hurdle to overcome when dealing with an author who expects perfection boils down to asking a few specific questions:

1. What is an error? Often, a client will see what they think is an editorial mistake that is in fact correct usage. Real-life example: did you know that the process of rummaging through someone's belongings or the quick turning of pages in a book is called riffling? That's right, it's not a typo. There is an extra letter in that word and it's correct. But we've heard it called rifling, we've said the word with the long "i" sound, and we've spelled it with a single "f" without a thought. And why do I know this odd fact? Because I missed it on an editing test six-plus years ago. If I'd seen "riffling" in a book, I would have thought it was a misspelling and that the editor missed something.
2. Is it a rule or a style? This goes along with with the "what is an error?" question. A while back, I did an entire series on "The Rules" and showed how zombie rules are simply styles or tradition, but not genuine grammar or usage rules. (If you ever want to know more about zombie rules, all you have to do is visit any forum where grammar trolls abound, quoting . . . from somewhere other than their mouth, of course . . . what they think they know.) An author I worked with once got a scathing comment from someone on Amazon who told him he needed to learn what the word "decimated" meant. In the context of that book, the word was used to describe a city's destruction after a bombing. Historically (almost archaically) the word has meant "to select by lot and kill every tenth man" or "to exact a tax of 10 percent from," but the usage in my author's book was correct, drawing from the additional definition, "to cause great destruction or harm to." That's all according to Merriam-Webster and completely legit. But the commenter on Amazon was so intent on proving how much smarter he was that he ignored the changing language and its usage.
3.  Are we, as editors, somehow promoting the impossible when we point out trivial editorial glitches in published work? After all, we can't say perfection is impossible (beyond the occasional one-pagers) and then point out the missing punctuation we would have caught if we were the editors for a particular bestseller.

Really, how do we present the concept of "acceptable error rates" to a client without sounding like we're making excuses ahead of time for what we're going to miss? All I can tell people is that I do my very best to make sure their work is as error-free as I'm able to get it, and if they have questions about errors or perceived errors, I'm always open to take a look and discuss them.

Errors happen. We don't want them to, but they do.

It's considered a courtesy for an author to send their editor a complimentary copy of the book they've worked on. Probably half the authors I've edited for have sent me their signed, completed books, and I'm thrilled to have them on my bookshelves. But here's the weird thing: I am usually hesitant to open them, other than to read whatever personal message they've added. Why? Almost every week, an editor in one of my groups talks about making the mistake of opening the thank-you book and immediately finding an error they missed. This happened to me a few years ago, when I worked on a series of books that that author sent me as a set. The first book was misprinted, and started on page 30. When I opened it up to look for the acknowledgment, all I saw was a glaring error on that first page of narrative: Bob side. Not Bob sighed, as it was meant to be. Who even misses something that obvious? I was appalled. Thankfully, when I pointed it out to the author, he was gracious and said, "You went over that text and I rewrote things so many times. At some point, we have to call it 'done.' So let's call it done and don't worry about it."

Sometimes, you just have to let go and call it done.

And besides, we all know the best way to find those lingering errors is to hit "send." Right?

Editors: We Are Not the Grammar Police!

Editors.

We are a long way from what most people think we are. We are not the bossy know-it-alls who glory in telling authors how bad they suck. We're not J. Jonah Jameson, shouting at the writers who hand us their copy with trembling hands. We're not inflexible about THE RULES and how they should be followed.

We're not even the people who correct everyone's Facebook posts, believe it or not.

We're people who just enjoy polishing words and phrases. People who help to clarify meaning by adjusting structure. People who like to make sure the image a writer wishes to create is the image that comes across in the narrative.

One of the things that grows old fast for an editor is when someone calls us the grammar police. (Worse yet, a grammar Nazi, because only the Nazis were/are Nazis, and it's an abhorrent term that should not be tossed about lightly, comparing someone who corrects text with someone who committed genocide. But I digress.)

The term "grammar police" implies that editors lie in wait, hoping for someone to mess up so they can publicly shame them. Even the real police don't do that. Well . . . maybe the state troopers who ticket speeders on the highway do that.

But back to me.

I mean, other editors.

Okay, me. AND other editors.

We love a well-turned phrase, but honestly, the feeling of the fix and polish is more of a feeling of accomplishment for our own skills, not a feeling of superiority over the person whose work we're reading through.

I can't tell you how many times I've had acquaintances make a comment to me along the lines of "I'm so paranoid to write anything on your Facebook wall without rereading it a dozen times" or "Gosh, you're probably cringing as you read my post" or any number of variations on that theme. Let me set the record straight:

• I don't correct someone's writing unless they're paying me for it, or have specifically asked me to do so. 
• I don't always use proper English when I speak—just like everyone else when they talk. 
• I don't use proper punctuation (other than for clarity) when I'm typing in a private chat window or text with a friend.
• And I never EVER correct someone publicly on social media, especially strangers.

Those people who take joy in that type of overzealous behavior are jerks, plain and simple. Half the time, they don't even know the real rules (or the change in language that makes a certain style now obsolete) but simply want to show someone (strangers? and why?) that they're smarter than someone else. Quoting what we call "zombie rules," i.e. habits or styles that are/were popular but not actually rules that must be followed, is almost always done by those who have no basis for what they're insisting on. And yet the drive-by editors still do it with regularity.

Denise Cowle has a great blog post about why the grammar police aren't cool. When it was recently shared in an editing group, almost every editor in the group agreed that they don't like being viewed that way and don't behave that way. Again, it's always those who don't actually know what's what who shout the loudest. Where she reminds us that we need to be kind, she says, "If you're lucky enough to have benefited from a good education, and you don't have to wrestle with a learning difference such as dyslexia, be thankful and be gracious."

Graciousness and kindness never hurts. You never know when someone is writing in their second language, or with a disability, or whose speech-to-text program doesn't quite catch everything.

Another terrific post that addresses this is "4 Reasons Why Freelance Writers Shouldn't Be Grammar Police" by Linda Formichelli. It might be more aptly named "Why Grammar Police Make Boring Writers," because that's what inevitably happens when rules (or supposed rules) are adhered to without nuance or voice being considered: it's sterile and boring.

Grammar police? I think I'd rather be known as the Shiny Word Fairy or something like that. Since my goal is not to sterilize anything, but to make someone's work sparkle, I think it's fitting.

Thanks for listening, folks!

Love,

Lynda, the Shiny Word Fairy

WRITING MISCONCEPTIONS: We Don't Want to Steal Your Book

At least once a month, I see a question on writing or editing forums that sounds roughly like this:

"I am almost ready to hire an editor for my manuscript, but I'm scared of someone stealing my work. What legal measures do you all have in place to make sure this doesn't happen?"

I'm going to generalize quite a bit here, so if you don't feel this way or haven't run into this before, please don't get indignant. I understand that every writer doesn't think like this. However . . .

I've found that if there are only writers in the group, there are always at least a few who "have heard of this happening so often" and that's why they either self-edit only, copyright their work beforehand, or have a recommended editor sign a nondisclosure agreement.

If there are a lot of editors in the group, the general response runs more along the lines of this:

• I have never considered stealing someone's work.
• I have been in this business for over twenty years and have never heard of this actually happening to anyone.
• I have never met anyone who can give me a real name of someone they know who has had this happen to them.
• The people who need the NDA the least (e.g. new/inexperienced authors) are usually the ones asking about theft, and those who have the most experience typically don't ask. Those who insist are also the people who are generally difficult to work with and don't deal well with changes or criticism.
• I already have a confidentiality clause in my contract and if that's not good enough, I don't want to work with that person. An NDA request from an indie fiction author is often a red flag that they don't understand how the publishing process works.
• I'm a writer myself and have my own story ideas to worry about, and don't have the time or energy to redevelop yours . . . OR
• I'm not a writer. I'm an editor. Editors are not "frustrated writers" who need to steal ideas to feel validated in the writing world.

I saw it pop up again just the other day as I was working on this post. This time, the author was asking about beta readers and how a writer can feel safe, sending their work off to strangers who might steal it. Yet, he was having trouble getting friends and family to beta for him. (The whole "friends and family" thing is fodder for another post. No worries, you'll read about it here.)

The general concensus among experienced writers and editors is that some authors spend a lot of time on author-only pages, and the misinformation they come away with in regard to publishing is astounding. It reminds me of the Yahoo Answers boards where a bunch of people "answer" a question with "I don't know," or "I've always thought [fill in the blank]." There are no legitimate answer-givers and no one to contradict anyone with actual facts.

Here are some facts—from real editors I interact with—that will hopefully reassure any skittish writers:

• If I stole people's work, I wouldn't be in business very long.
• Anyone who knows anything at all about copyright and intellectual property laws knows it wouldn't be worth the risk.
• No self-respecting professional would even think about it.
• Most of stolen books are stolen AFTER they're published. They are stolen by people who have never had contact with the author, and who don't care about copyright.
• Even if you are the next Stephen King or J.K. Rowling, we would still not steal your work, but we'd be very happy to make your acquaintance and be your editor. VERY happy.

Book Talk with Lynda: Special Guest Darrell Haemer

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

Lynda: Hey Darrell, I found you some walkin’ music for when you’re telling the big crowds about your book! Can you believe Aretha Franklin—the Queen of Soul, Darrell!—sang about this before you were even born? She knew you’d need a theme song. [Sings loudly while beckoning Darrell to the kitchen table.] Chan-chan-chaaaaaaannnnngggggge, changin’ fools! Chan-chan-chayayayayayayannnggge, changin’ fools . . .

Darrell: [Moves his mouth but nothing comes out.]

Lynda: Whatever. I get that you might not be in a singing mood this early in the morning. Since you’re not a coffee drinker, I wasn’t sure what you’d want, so here’s a giant mug of Skittles. I’m not sure what the no-coffee people do in the mornings, but the artificial dyes alone in these babies should get you going. I made sure to give you the fifteen-ouncer—is that big enough?

Darrell: [Quietly sips his Skittles before answering.]

Lynda: I’m pretty excited to talk about your book, Changing Change, not just because I really liked it, but because it’s the first time I’ve discussed a nonfiction book on Book Talk. My love for The Chicago Manual of Style doesn’t count, of course. How does it feel to have written ONE WHOLE BOOK and released it into the wild? Or into the bookstores, anyway, which can be wild enough, depending on your introvert/extrovert balance.

Why, it's the book, of course.

Darrell: Well, first, thank you for inviting me on Book Talk; it’s a real honor! And on top of that, I’m excited to have authored the first nonfiction book on Book Talk as well! To answer your question, it feels exciting, surreal, unnerving, relieving, and proud to have written this book and released it into the wild. And I think “releasing it into the wild” is an excellent description, because for me anyway, that courage to put myself out there in the large public sphere was a tangible part of the overall challenge. It feels great though. I learned and grew so much throughout the process. I certainly have no regrets.

Lynda: It’s gotta be nerve-wracking to put so much of yourself into a book, and then allow total strangers to do what they will with it. Even when you know the content is good (and I know it’s good, because I’ve read it), there’s the statistical probability that not everyone out there is going to love it or resonate with it. But tell me, first things first: what made you decide one day, “I’m going to write a book”? Was it a single event, or a culmination of observations and changes in your own life?

Darrell and his lovely wife, Devon

Darrell: It was definitely a culmination of observations and changes in my own life. Through the process of writing this book, I realized I’ve been thinking about people’s resistance to change for over 10 years, and this is me finally putting some of that into words. However, I will also say that a single event (personal life-coaching that I received) did create a turning point for me that led me from thinking about writing a book to actually starting it.

Lynda: I love those moments when everything is suddenly clear, and the next portion of the path just opens right up. That’s when the words flow the best, I think. What do you think may surprise people who read this? Of course, I’m not going to tell you what surprised me the most until you share your thoughts, and then I’m going to do the “yeah, me too!” thing. But there was definitely something that really struck me on each read-through—a moment where I just thought, Wow. That’s absolutely true. I am friends with a genius! 

Darrell: [Laughs awkwardly while contemplating how to respond to . . . all that.] That’s a tricky one. I think this book holds a few surprises in store. Some people may be surprised at just how simple and fundamental change is once we get it down to the basics. Change has been defined as such a complicated, scary mess that many people may have no inkling that it’s one of the most basic concepts of life as we know it. On a “more practical” level, I think the relationship between change and our work, and particularly the work of leadership, might shock some people. We have definitely compartmentalized change in the work world to specific areas like entrepreneurs, change management, aggressive companies, and innovation, but change is a central part of everyone’s work. I’m sure some people won’t be able to believe their eyes when they first read that.

Lynda: YES! All that and more. I won’t give away any spoilers, but I really was inspired to . . . uh . . . change . . . the way I think about change. The way I respond to it, as well as the way I anticipate what it’s “supposed” to mean. And to remember that it’s everywhere—change is not lurking around the corner, waiting for a new boss, or a life crisis, or anything else. It just IS.

I think you’ve provided a really thorough roadmap as the book goes along. You talk about what change is, what it isn’t, what it should be, and how it’s perceived. And you give a lot of good talking points along the way. Being a thinker type of person, have you found yourself consciously pondering more often after working on the book for so many months? Or is it such a natural action for you that you don’t notice it anymore?

Darrell: I feel more conscious of change now after having written the book, and I’m still thinking and learning about change every day. I suppose in one sense, I can say yes, pondering change is natural for me, and therefore, I may not “notice” it, just like you might not notice the way you fold (or don’t fold) your socks; it’s just what you do naturally. On the other hand, analytical thought (including the topic of change) is important to me on a professional level, so I’m pretty intentional about investing time and energy into that work.

Lynda: Which is why the book packs such a wallop, in my opinion. It’s not some gimmicky Five Steps to Success, as you pointed out in the introduction. You actually take the time to make sure the reader understands why we currently view change the way we do before you show us the big and small ways we can adjust our thinking and actions.

So if there’s one message you’d like people to take away from this book (other than LISTEN TO ME, PEOPLE, BECAUSE I TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS DOWN FOR YOU), what would make you say, “Ahh, this person really gets it. Thank goodness,” when all is said and done?

Darrell: If I can choose only one message I’d like people to take away, it would be that change is not “the problem.” Change is not the villain we have made it out to be. It’s all a big misunderstanding! Ha ha. I think if a person comes away truly believing that, they’ll begin to see the positive effect of that in their life. That’s my hope for everyone who reads this book.

Lynda: So essentially, change is telling us, “It’s not me, it’s you.” Way to toss things on their head, Change. Thanks a lot. 

You can find Darrell in a variety of places! Unfortunately, that’s stalking. But there are legit places to find him, so here are the ones I can tell you about:

Well, let’s see here . . .

Amazon: Buy the book here!

Facebook: Haemer Consulting

Proximity: https://proximityerie.com/

Author website: Darrell Haemer

LinkedIn: Darrell Haemer

It's the End-of-Year Reflections Post!

The end of the calendar year signifies a particular thing to each person; it's a natural thing for people to reflect. It may mean the end of a nightmare year of bankruptcy for one person, or it may celebrate a major life change like having a baby or getting married.

It's a good habit to reflect as the year comes to a close, to learn what worked and what didn't, and to plan for the future. I like to do this personally, but in the past couple years I've been doing it for my business too. 

One of the big lessons I didn't start to learn until a few years into the business was that there is more than just working for the business. There is working at the business. Working to ensure that there will be more business, in fact—something I didn't have to think about in the first year because clients were somehow finding me. I was busy and didn't even have to try to stay that way. 

If I had to sum it up, I'd say this is the year I tried to make the best use of my time. I looked through my analytics to see what was working and what wasn't. I kept a spreadsheet of completed jobs and how much time I invested in them. I used a timer app to break down where, exactly, my computer time was spent. (I was shocked to know that sifting through and answering email was one of my biggest time sucks.) I decided to learn everything I could to make my work more efficient and to broaden my skills so I can provide a wider variety of services someday. I took some classes, and I read an awful lot of books. I'm proud to say that I'm a better editor today than I was four years ago, or even two years ago. 

The happy result of this has been that 2018 has been a year of growth, and I'm pretty excited to look over my job list and note how many new clients I've gained and where I've gotten them from. Some have become friends and others are simply clients I've enjoyed getting to know while working on their projects. It's been a lot of fun to work on a handful of nonfiction projects this year as well.

I've done beta reading for a few authors, numerous line edits and copyedits, worked on doctoral dissertation papers, and even proofed someone's website. All that variety kept me fresh.

So THANK YOU, J.T. Buckley, Marcia Caton, Ciofki, Raylene Demeester, Adam & Peggy Dresden, Darrell Haemer, Rhonda Denise Johnson, Heidi Love, Carol Mills, Kim Mower, Kristen Snarski, Jack Tyler, Kim Watt, and Stephanie Workman. You've helped to make this a great year!

Book Talk with Lynda: Special Guest Kim M. Watt

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.

I have a special guest today on Book Talk, and I’m really excited for a number of reasons. First of all, she’s a tea drinker, so I don’t actually have to share my coffee. That’s at least a little bit exciting. Second of all, she’s a versatile author who writes short stories and full-length novels and pulls them off well. The rest—well, you’re just going to have to read this and discover all of it for yourself. Without further ado, may I introduce to you author Kim Watt!

KIM: Hi Lynda and lovely readers! Thanks for the wonderful intro, and I’m so excited to have the opportunity to take part in a book chat. Especially as there’s tea. And, um, cake? You did mention cake . . .

LYNDA: Of course there’s cake! I honestly thought you might not come if I didn’t have some. I’m so glad to have you here today, and I meant to have French things to decorate with, but my house was suspiciously empty of French flags and berets. I’m not sure what that’s all about. But then I remembered that even though you currently live in France, you’re not actually from there. You seem to have lived just about everywhere but my house, from what I gather. And not all of your living has even been on land—but how many places do you call home?

KIM: I have to admit that I didn’t even come bearing French cheese and a baguette, nor riding a bicycle, so we’ve both let the side down. I hope they let me back in.

LYNDA: This is how they can tell you’re not a native, I bet.

KIM: And my terrible accent. As far as places I call home—that’s actually a weirdly tricky question! I’ve called a number of places home over the years, including Greece, the Caribbean, and Spain (I’m apparently very bad at committing to a country). I love living in France. And the Yorkshire Dales, where Baking Bad (and numerous other stories) is set will always be somewhere that has a lot of magic for me. But if I talk about home as somewhere that has a real hold on my heart, and where, when I come back to it, it fits me—then Tonga, where I spent quite a bit of my childhood. I also worked there as a SCUBA guide when I first left New Zealand, and it’s a place that I’ve never quite got over. And New Zealand, of course, because I was born there and I’ll always identify as a kiwi. That’s home, too. Although my accent is so mangled now that every time I go back someone is guaranteed to ask me if I like their country.

LYNDA: I can see how you have a tough time choosing a favorite. They all sound so exotic to me, and so explore-able. So out of all those places, what made you choose the Yorkshire Dales as the setting for the Beaufort Scales mysteries? Based on what I’ve read in Baking Bad and Yule Be Sorry, it does seem like the perfect setting for the characters.

KIM: That’s actually a really interesting question, and I had to think about it for a bit (I’m glad this isn’t live—it’s saved a lot of umm-ing . . .). The character of Beaufort actually came about while my dad and I were sailing from the Bay of Islands up to Whangaroa Harbour (New Zealand) and talking all sorts of rubbish. I was already living in France at the time, and hadn’t lived in the UK for quite a few years. But, somehow, when I realised that Beaufort was a character who needed to be written, it just made sense that he lived in the Dales. He immediately felt very English, and the Dales is an area that I’m both a little familiar with and have a lot of affection for. It’s a wonderful mix of still quite wild scenery, and little villages of the stone-built, picture-book variety. Not to mention all the dry-stone walls, beautiful fells, and lovely old market towns. It seemed like just the sort of place a small-ish dragon clan could stay undisturbed for generations.

LYNDA: And certainly a place where the ladies of the Toot Hansell Women’s Institute would be found. Now that I’ve gotten to know them, I can’t imagine them in any other setting. And now the world can get to know them, too, because you have written not only one, but TWO books about Beaufort, Mortimer, and the W.I. gals.

Did you plan both books before you started writing them, or did you just have too many good ideas that turned into separate stories?

KIM: Planning sounds very organised. I’m rarely that organised. I am, in fact, only just learning to plan out each story, and quite often once I get started my stories veer off in unexpected directions, so I have to re-plan as I go along.

LYNDA: I like to think of myself as a planner, but in actuality, I’m more of a lister. I love lists that I can read through and cross off. Making them is always more fun than executing what’s on them, though.

KIM: Lists! I love lists. I actually write things I’ve already done on my lists so that I can cross them off in a triumphant manner. It gives me a feeling of enormous satisfaction, even though it’s often a little thing, like "retrieve hair ties from the cat."

LYNDA: Oooh, like always starting the list with “make list.” That way you can cross it off before you even put the pencil down to start everything else. But . . . back to the books, I suppose . . . 

KIM: Right! I knew we were talking about something other than lists. Baking Bad began life as a serialised story on the website that was just a bit of fun. It was only later that I realised I could make it much better, and started reworking it, and it was very much a spring/summer story. Yule Be Sorry in its first version actually followed on very quickly after that, and when it came up it somehow had to be a Christmas story. Plus I couldn’t work all the bad jokes into just one book.

LYNDA: I hope you never run out of bad jokes, because the world needs more of them. And you know from my extensive margin notes how often I was just laughing and had nothing constructive to add. One of my favorite visuals is that the dragons have modernized to where they have Webers instead of constantly looking for firewood to stay warm in winter—and that they sell dragon-scale baubles on Etsy to fund their propane needs. It’s so practical and ridiculous at the same time that it always makes me smile.

So okay, you know I love Beaufort and Mortimer and the human people they interact with. Baking Bad and Yule Be Sorry are a great start to what I hope is a long series of adventures. BUT. But but but. You also know how much I love the characters who have only gotten short stories so far. I need to ask where these people come from. Do you have brainstorming sessions with yourself and think of the most unlikely situations, or do the ideas come from late-night conversations that just keep getting sillier until you realize they’re So Crazy They Just Might Work, and BOOM, there’s a story? Anyone who’s read “Glenda & the Horsemen of the Apocalypse” or knows a Grim Reaper named Gertrude who doesn’t deal well with fools who ruin her seaside vacation is instantly drawn into the fun. It’s addictive, really.

KIM: One of the best parts of this whole writing lark is that I’ve discovered other people are tickled by many of the same things as me. And that makes coming up with story ideas so much fun, because I can think of lovely readers like you, for instance, and all your side notes and wonderful comments. I figure that if it’s going to make you chuckle, it might make a few other people do the same. And while that may not be my primary goal in writing, it’s a big one. If I can write something that can take even one person out of their worries for a few moments and make them smile, I’m happy.

As to where the ideas come from, I’m a big believer in what-ifs. Glenda's a good example—I just woke up in the middle of the night and thought, Glenda and the Horsemen of the Apocalypse. I had nothing else. But I let that phrase sit for a while, and kept coming back to it—what if Glenda was a lady of a certain age? What if she had some unexpected visitors? What if they came in for tea and Jammie Dodgers? And what if they just happened to be the Horsemen? For me, writing is really just me sitting around asking myself questions, then seeing where they lead me. And if it gets a bit silly, well—all the better!

And I’m really trying to remember where the idea for Gertrude came from, but I can’t. Just cake and reapers, which I'm sure made sense at one stage.

This was a really long answer.

LYNDA: That's okay, it was a really long question.

KIM: Basically, I have no idea what I’m doing. I just ask myself questions and see what happens.

LYNDA: I know for sure that I rarely have any idea what I’m doing, so the asking questions thing works well for me.

We’ve probably given everyone a lot to think about for today. Readers, I can’t stress this enough: if you like humor and a touch of the unusual, you are guaranteed to enjoy Kim’s books. I’ve added links to Gertrude’s story and Glenda’s (both are free on Kim’s site, in addition to other short stories) so you can get a little taste of her style and the characters I’ve become so attached to. And there’s even a chapter or two of Baking Bad on her blog, and now the first chapter of Yule Be Sorry, too, to whet your appetite for the Beaufort Scales mysteries. And I mean whet your appetite in the most literal sense there . . . those people are always baking, and I even ended up making shortbread one night while editing because I couldn’t take it anymore.

Kim, do you have any final thoughts, or bits of advice, or an answer to a question I forgot to ask? I’d hate to have missed anything important!

KIM: I think I’ve rambled on for quite enough! Thank you so much for inviting me to do a book chat with you—it was an enormous amount of fun, and hopefully no one’s fallen asleep while reading . . .

And I think as far as final thoughts go, it’s just that we need to read and write what speaks to us, even if it is tea-drinking dragons and civic-minded gargoyles. As writers, we might not reach as many people as sparkly vampires do, but nothing makes me happier than people who can celebrate cake and wonderful oddness with me. And as readers, we should never have to be ashamed of what we enjoy reading, no matter how odd it may seem to others. Read on, lovely people!

~*~*~

An excerpt from Yule Be Sorry:


“Oh! Sorry, Beaufort. Are you alright?” Miriam was pink-cheeked in the soft light, hair escaping in all directions from under a misshapen wool hat.

“Just keeping an eye on things. It’s terribly busy out there, isn’t it?”

“Yes.” Miriam checked for eavesdropping customers before she kept talking. “I don’t think anything needs keeping an eye on, though. And you do need to be careful – we don’t want a repeat of the first Christmas market.”

Beaufort Scales, High Lord of the Cloverly dragons, veteran of more battles than he cared to remember and possessor of a most impressive set of age-yellowed teeth, looked suitably chastened. He sat down next to Mortimer, out of the way of the two women selling Christmas cake and chutney and hot drinks, and Mortimer’s own enchanted dragon-scale baubles and magical boats.

“That market was more fun, though, don’t you think?” he said to the younger dragon.

Mortimer snorted. “You made us wear dog suits, Amelia almost ate a dog, and then you caught fire. I guess it depends on your definition of fun.”

~*~*~

Here are all the places you can find Kim and her writing:

Amazon: Kim's Author Page

Website: Kim M. Watt

Facebook: Kim M. Watt

Instagram: @kimmwatt

Twitter: @kimmwatt

Special Edition: How to Write a Worst Seller!

In honor of NaNoWriMo, I thought I'd share what I've learned as a reader and especially as an editor.

So many people are intent on telling you (or selling you) advice on how to write the next best seller. To make millions of dollars. To make millions of friends. To make millions bow to your greatness.

I may not know how to get you there, but here are my top ten bits of advice that, if followed, will practically ensure failure. In other words,

HOW TO WRITE A WORST SELLER IN TEN EASY STEPS

1. Warm up by telling all the writers you know that it's not that hard, and that you can do it better. In your sleep. By typing with only one hand. This is as good a preparatory exercise as stretching.
2. Set yourself a publishing date of two months from the day you sit down to start. I mean, really, it's just like telling a story, except you're writing it down. It can't take more than a week or so to get it all on paper.
3. Use as much slang as possible. You gotta be real, right? That's just the way people talk, and people who read your book either have to understand or they don't deserve to read it.
4. There's no such thing as too many exclamation marks! No! Such! Thing! It's the easiest way to convey excitement! No! It's the ONLY way to convey excitement!
5. You may have to explain every plot point more than once. Your readers have no idea what's going on unless you tell them, and what if they forget?
6. As each character enters the scene, list out their stats so your readers can immediately picture them. It would be terrible if they had the wrong mental picture of your people.
7. All your world-building should be done in the first chapter. Or better yet, your prologue. That way, you don't have to interrupt the story flow later.
8. Only have your friends read it before publishing, because "they'll be honest with me." And what do professional beta readers know that my friends don't know? Are you saying my friends are dumb?
9. Editors are for losers! Real writers write well enough that they don't need those bossypants Cat Ladies telling them librarian rules.
10. There's no reason why you can't make your own cover. MS Paint can do just as well as anyone who puts a picture and a few words together. Or what about that picture of the seven-legged horse your daughter drew? That's adorable. Everyone will agree, and if they don't, they're coldhearted, evil human beings and you don't want them reading your book anyway.

Bonus points are added if you hurry up and publish before anyone can talk you out of it. Because you've just GOT to get that book out to the world! 

Besides, you can always make changes after your reviewers tell you what's needed.

HAPPY WRITING!

Tell Me Your Favorites

Today's post is going to be a cheater post of sorts. For all the planning I do and all the ideas I have running around in my brain, I somehow managed to not have a post ready for today.

I've been busy with edits, which is always fun. It means I'm honing my skills, getting to know new people, and expanding my horizons. Always a good thing!

This may seem a little early—and it in no way implies that I'm actually organized about it—but I'm looking ahead to next year and what it means for this blog and my business in general. As I plan out my weeks and months and seasons of 2019, I'd like to get a grasp on what interests my readers the most.

Honestly, I have no idea how many people read this blog. A look at my analytics tells me I have hundreds of followers. I have hundreds of views per month, on a variety of posts. But I have only about a dozen regulars who comment. And I love the comments, not just because you guys are loads of fun—and the comment section can often be more interesting than the post itself—but also because they let me know who is actually reading. For all I know, half the numbers are bots.

Are my readers experienced authors who already know what I'm writing about? Am I just confirming good information and reassuring them that they're doing it right?

Are there new writers out there who have never heard some of this stuff before? Am I a helpful resource for commonly tricky topics? Jack Tyler's blog, Riding the Blimp, has a huge variety of topics (depending on the day) but his advice posts are geared toward young/new writers who need basic guidance on how to start off well. I'm certain he saves a lot of newbies some relearning time in the long run. The IWSG (Insecure Writer's Support Group) blogs about writing and resources and publishing, and it's geared toward writers old and new. Writers After Dark has a library full of resources and checklists, a writers' podcast, blog posts from award-winning authors, and—if you just need a break and some laughs to refocus—a "Wit Without Wisdom" podcast that covers all the topics on the internet no one else will touch.

What would you like to see for the upcoming months? For next year? I have a handful of authors lined up for Book Talk, and I'm excited to introduce them to you. I'm sure I'll never run out of Circular File examples to share, where strangers ask me to work for them for free. I have a few multi-post series ideas up my sleeve. But what is interesting to YOU? Is there a topic no one else has covered, or something you struggle with in your own writing? I'd love to know.

Let's have your best ideas, folks! Tell me your favorites, if you've had any, and let me know what you'd like to see more of. I'm open.

Worst Writing Advice: Semicolons—Are They Even Legal?

I had planned on talking about semicolons in the same post as contractions, but when I started typing, I realized I had too much material for one post, and each piece of bad advice deserved its own spotlight, such as it is.

So without further ado, I bring you [insert your own musical soundtrack of dread here]

SEMICOLONS

The semicolon is a piece of punctuation that brings out strong emotions in people. I have never met anyone who feels ambivalent about them—either they love semicolons or they hate them with every fiber of their being.

Of those who hate the semicolon, the numbers seem to fall into two camps: the I-Don't-Know-How-to-Use-Them-Properly people and the Semicolons-Are-Forbidden people.

I get that some people may not know how to use them. Punctuation can be a tricky thing at times, and a punctuation mark that isn't really a full stop but isn't really a comma can get mighty confusing. Not knowing is perfectly fine, and provides job security to editors all over the globe. Semicolonially inept (semicolonically? nope) writers give me one more way to show how I can help to polish their work. And if I had to make up a statistic on the spot, I'd say that easily 70% of the writers out there are challenged by the seemingly innocuous mark. So it's really no big deal. Just ask your editor to fix it and you're golden.

But the other group of writers concern me because they are victims of the Worst Writing Advice. Every so often, in writer/editor groups, I see a post that goes something like this: "I read somewhere that you shouldn't use semicolons in fiction. What should I do with a sentence like this?"

So . . . once again, I'm here to tell you that a "rule" is not actually a rule. There is nothing anywhere that prohibits the use of semicolons. Ever. Not in nonfiction, not in fiction, not on a boat, not with a goat, not in the rain, not on a train. The most strenuous of the WWA-givers can only come up with such weak reasoning as, "I feel it's better," or "Author McFamous doesn't use them," or my personal favorite, "Semicolons make people have to stop and think." Commenters on a particularly fired-up thread tried to equate use of semicolons with not putting readers first.

To that, I say, WHAT? Seriously, whatwhatwhat? Let's think about this. If a reader doesn't really know what a semicolon does or how to use it properly, they're not going to be tripped up by seeing it in the narrative. That reader will see all commas, semicolons, periods, and ellipses as roughly the same thing: a pause of sorts. They don't give a rip about independent clauses, dependent clauses, missing text, list format, or speech interruption. They just keep reading and the whole thing is a non-incident. They're there to read, not to analyze the latest best-seller for its sentence structure.

Chalk this up to yet another guideline that has gotten misconstrued along the way. All punctuation serves a purpose. Sometimes the differences are more obvious (question mark vs. exclamation mark) and some provide a subtle nuance that serves a particular end. Bottom line: if you don't like semicolons, don't use them. No one is forcing you. But don't tell others they aren't allowed to, just because you don't like seeing them. 

A few very rough guidelines mention that semicolons are used less often in dialogue than they are in the narrative when writing fiction. That makes sense because of the way we talk and think, but again, it's not a hard & fast rule. Other editors have mentioned that semicolons are rarely used in marketing copy. Again, this makes sense because marketing is all about the shorter sentences and punchy impact. Shorter sentences don't lend themselves to a need for semicolons.

Other than that, I can't think of many situations where I'd recommend removing one that's used properly. I'll leave you with a quote that will hopefully inspire you to sprinkle semicolons throughout your manuscript without fear:

"We use semicolons for the same reason we replace cement floors with marble: cement floors are functional but are not as elegant, not as aesthetically pleasing as marble. [ . . . ] Business memos do not need semicolons. Creative writers do." —Noah Lukeman, The Art of Punctuation

I'm a Guest Blogger at IWSG Today!

Hey, everyone!

Today marks a first for me: I have been asked to write a guest post for today's Insecure Writer's Support Group, so you can find me over at their site.

I've been part of the IWSG for a few years now and have lurked, commented, and learned as the authors, designers, and publishers who make up the membership have shared their collective knowledge.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why they asked me to guest—maybe they thought I was someone else, or typed the wrong email addy, or they were just plain desperate, but hey, I'll take it. I love to do things like this, and the IWSG is a group of people I admire for their support of bloggers and writers all over the world. They promote each other, cheer for each other, and offer solid advice when writer's block plops itself firmly down on your keyboard.

So head on over to their site today and say hello! My post will be no surprise to those of you who have been following my Worst Writing Advice series—it sort of sums up rules that aren't rules and why we don't always have to follow them.

Here's THE LINK so you have no excuse to go back to your regularly scheduled lives without at least saying, "Great post. Thanks for sharing."

Just kidding. I'll hunt you down and punch you if you leave a lame, generic comment like that. We all know how that works.

Worst Writing Advice: Contractions Aren't Allowed

When I started writing about bad writing advice, I knew there was a lot floating around out there. I'd see it from time to time on forums through Goodreads, Facebook, and other places where writers gather to share encouragement and ideas. And yet, when I'd sit down to write my posts, all the oooh, this bugs me! moments would abandon me, making me wonder why I thought it was a good idea to do this series in the first place.

Not so this week. This post is all about contractions.

They seem to come up a lot when talking with fiction writers. For some reason I've never been able to track, many writers are under the impression that one should never use contractions when penning fiction.

I can't think of much that makes dialogue sound more stilted than someone who doesn't use contractions, unless it's Data from Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which case it sounds perfectly normal. Granted, there might be a good reason for it (like Data's programming limitations). A book I edited years ago featured a mage who never used contractions, and that trait set off his dialogue nicely, making his voice easy to identify. Or perhaps a character who doesn't use contractions is someone who is royalty, or more formal in their speech because of a class distinction. That's fine. Perfectly fine. More than fine.

What isn't fine is when someone tries to tell you that NO ONE can use contractions when writing. Scientific writing has a tradition of not using contractions, but this blog post by Stephen Heard discusses why even that is an irritation for him personally. He states that the use of contractions in scientific text is seen as "unprofessional or unscientific" but then points out that the reader's perception of that is circular in its logic: "we avoid contractions in scientific writing because they sound informal, but they sound informal to us only because we're used to avoiding them in scientific writing!"

Somehow, newer writers have taken the traditions of scientific writing and morphed them into some sort of unbreakable curse rule for all writing, fiction included. But let's face it, not only is this not a rule, it's ridiculous to attempt.

First of all, most people use contractions when they speak. (See my Editor's Notes post about dialogue sounding real.) And if a good work of fiction is supposed to reach people by feeling "real," what better way to give authenticity than by mimicking real-life speech patterns?

On The Write Practice, Joe Bunting discusses the fact that English teachers tell their students that contractions should never be used in writing, but he personally suggests it "only so you don't ruin your grade." His practical advice: ". . . if you're writing anything remotely creative, and especially if you're writing dialogue, you need to be using contractions. Real people use them and so should you."

Heck, even The Chicago Manual of Style says, "Most types of writing benefit from the use of contractions. If used thoughtfully, contractions in prose sound natural and relaxed and make reading more enjoyable." (5.105) If CMOS says it, you know I'm all in.

Contractions are not a modern gimmick. They've been around for centuries. Even Beowulf had contractions in it.

The important thing to remember is that the "no contractions" thing is NOT a rule. Fight anyone who tries to tell you it is. Sound natural. Sound relaxed. Make the reading more enjoyable, and live to write creatively!

Worst Writing Advice: Never, Ever End a Sentence With a Preposition

Have you ever worked somewhere that people are unwilling to change procedures because "that's the way we've always done it"? The way things have "always" been done may have worked well for a long time, but cultural or environmental factors changed and suddenly the "always" way is no longer the best or most effective way.

Language is no different. It's forever changing, and for every person who embraces the latest version of cray, gucci, fam, or finna, there are three or more who insist that groovy and hep cat will never go out of style. But let's face it: daddy-O from the 1950s does NOT mean the same thing as Daddy in 2018. Confusing the two just might get you a lot of strange looks.

One of the non-rules that is vehemently pushed by some is "never end your sentence with a preposition." This has led to writers making themselves insane, trying to restructure sentences to avoid the things, often causing more confusion by making the sentence "proper." Where on earth did this crazy idea come from, anyway?

You can blame 17th-centry poet John Dryden, England's first official poet laureate. His personal preference of believing sentence-ending prepositions to be "not elegant"—most likely based on his love of classics and all things Latin—somehow became an Unbreakable Rule for grammar teachers everywhere. (To learn more about this literary genius who was not a very well-liked individual, this article from Atlas Obscura is an enjoyable diversion.)

Or you can blame Joshua Poole, who, according to Merriam-Webster, was an "obscure grammarian" who was "concerned with prepositions being placed 'in their naturall [sic] order,'" though he doesn't specifically mention the end of a sentence as bad placement. Poole was spouting his nonsense decades before Dryden, but Dryden had the celebrity to popularize it. Webster's short article about terminal prepositions is actually kind of snarky and fun. I like it. You can read it here if you'd like.

Here's the most important part of this whole deal, and it's truly what causes the most mystery: for about a century now—100 years!—grammar and usage guides have been telling writers that IT IS OKAY to end sentences with prepositions, and writers are still telling other writers that it's not okay. And people are believing the wrong thing.

I have found that some of the most persistent rule-pushers are those who have never actually looked up the putative rules to see whether they're valid or not, why they are or aren't, and whether the language has changed (and therefore changed their valid-or-not status). They believe and enforce things they've heard but never checked into.

I'll be honest: before I became a copyeditor, I was unaware of a good number of rules that needed to be in place, even though my grasp of grammar, spelling, and general usage was excellent. After copyediting dozens of novels over the past five-plus years and getting to know groups of editors from every walk of life, I've come to realize a few things:

1. I must always keep learning so I can deliver my best work to those who trust me with theirs.
2. The language is constantly changing, and it pays to keep up with the times.
3. When in doubt, "best practices" is a good default—some rules are more liquid than others because clarity and comprehension are the ultimate goal.
4. It's not about what we know, or think we know. It's about knowing how to use what we know. The difference between knowledge and wisdom, you might say.

I hope you're enjoying this series and perhaps learning something new. Maybe I'm simply confirming things you've already known, and it makes you feel better to have something to point to when you say I told you so!

Let me know if you have any bad writing advice peeves, or have been the recipient of some of these. I'd love to hear your stories!

Worst Writing Advice: Get Rid of ALL the Adverbs!

If you've ever gotten a group of writers or editors together, you are probably aware that there are as many opinions as there are people. Sometimes the number of opinions actually outnumbers the people present, which should defy all logic but somehow doesn't.

In the editor groups I'm part of, it's generally agreed upon that there are rules that shouldn't be broken. It's also agreed upon that there is something called "best practice" that is subject to circumstance. The thing about best practice is that it can vary from editor to editor, depending on a number of factors. The important part about best practice is that it has to make sense.

Take adverbs, for example. Please. Take them all. Take them far away. In fact, anything that ends in -ly should be banished from the language entirely.

Is that what you've been told? Stephen King even says in On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, "I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops."

I tend to agree with Mr. King, but not for the reasons you may think. I've done posts about adverbs on this blog, including "What's So Bad About Adverbs?" in a previous Editor's Notes, so some of you are already aware of my views on this.

Here's the thing: there are many convincing reasons why you should get rid of as many adverbs as you can, and many convincing reasons why they are not, in fact, from the devil himself. The most important thing to remember is that this falls under the "advice" column and not the "nonnegotiable rules" column. So what is the best practice for adverbs?

The advice, when followed sensibly, reminds writers to get rid of the types of adverbs that create redundancy.

He shouted loudly across the field. She ran quickly to the door. He pounded forcefully on the table.

All these adverbs are redundant. Shouting is loud. Running is fast. Pounding shows force. "Quickly" might be used if the sentence read "she made her way quickly to the door" instead, but in this case, the verb used gives a different feel to the movement.

The other reason writers are so often advised to get rid of their adverbs is because they're using them to write in a lazy fashion. It's easier to say "Oh, no!" she cried despairingly than it is to describe what she looked like in her moment of despair. What about "Oh, no!" She choked out the words as her gaze darted back and forth from one family member to another, looking for a different answer than the one she'd been given.

Which one gives a visual to the reader? The first tells us how the character reacted. The second shows us. This is where the "show, don't tell" advice comes from, and is what prompts so many writers to panic if they find a sentence that tells.

DO NOT PANIC. Listen to me here, because this is important. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TELL. You are even allowed to tell with an -ly adverb if you so choose. Sometimes you want to say "she walked quietly to the door" because she didn't creep, or tiptoe, or sneak. She simply walked quietly and that's that.

The important thing to keep in mind is that advice like "remove adverbs" becomes advice because in a lot of situations, it's sensible, removes redundancy, and helps to keep the writing interesting. But it's not a rule, and there is no need to make yourself crazy with a search & seizure of anything that ends in -ly. Adverbs are a legit part of speech that can be used to great effect in the right place at the right time.

Just like good food, fine chocolate, or necessary medications, a little is good, but that doesn't mean that a lot is necessarily better.