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.

Book Talk with Lynda: Special Guest S.K. Anthony

Hey, everyone! It’s been way too long since I had a guest over for Book Talk, and there’s a really good reason for it. Actually, there are a couple good reasons, but the main one is because the book I wanted to talk about, the Book of All Books—yes, you all know it as The Chicago Manual of Style—released a new edition at the end of 2017!

I have to tell you, my heart went a-fluttering when I saw the 17th edition for sale. I sat on my back steps in the snow, waiting for the UPS guy to bring my Amazon box.

But—and I know you won’t believe this—I searched everywhere for someone who wanted to talk about it, and . . . well, you know how it is . . . everyone was busy with Thanksgiving. And Christmas. And New Year’s Eve. And then Valentine’s Day rolled around, and Easter, and—do you know how many people get swamped with having to shampoo their dogs or do their laundry and can’t spare the time to talk about the newest changes in CMOS? What on earth could possibly trump that kind of excitement, am I right?

So I decided to trick S.K. Anthony (Kat) by inviting her over for coffee (she'll do anything for coffee), and I left my beloved CMOS on the table. I know after her first sip she'll talk about anything, so here we are, having the time of our lives!

Kat: So, Lynda, I really appreciate you—

Lyn: Oh, I appreciate you too! [Grins.]

Kat: Umm . . . right. [Grins back uncertainly.] I mean, yes, of course! . . . but . . .  I also appreciate you having me over for coffee and book talk—oh, good God! Is this the book?

Lyn: YES! Isn’t it great?

Kat: [Wipes horrified look off her face.] Wow . . . I just have no words. Is there more coffee? I think I’m going to need more. I’m so . . . excited? I think that’s the word. What does the Chicago Manual say?

Lyn: [Pets the book lovingly.] Oh, pfft. What doesn’t it say? It’s . . . um . . . well, look how shiny it is! Isn’t it shiny?

Kat: It’s literally blinding me. It’s so shiny maybe it’s best you hold on to it and I’ll just ask you to check stuff for me. I have sensitive eyes, you know?

Lyn: Oh, I’m cool with holding on to it. I wouldn’t want to damage your vision. [Pulls book a little closer.]

Kat: Plus, it doesn’t seem like you’ll let go of it anyway . . . but since you have it and all, tell me—what’s new with this edition that has you so obsessed with it?

Lyn: There’s all kinds of exciting stuff! I can’t even list it all because you might be overwhelmed and then we’d run out of coffee. You seem to need extra today for whatever reason. But yeah, trust me. There’s STUFF. Lots of it. Like, did you know you didn’t need to put a comma after “etc.” anymore unless it’s confusing not to?

Kat: Oh my goodness! I didn’t know that. My only concern is I’m not sure when anything in that book isn’t confusing.

Lyn: But that’s why you have ME! I’m the queen of lack of confusion. Or something like that. The queen of . . . um . . . never mind, let me tell you some of the most exciting stuff. No longer will you have to capitalize the word “internet!” Did you hear that? I even said it without a capital letter.

Kat: That is such a time saver!!!

Lyn: And no more dumb hyphen in “email.”

Kat: Oh . . . I stopped that ages ago. But hey, is there any new rule that you felt happy they finally listened to you and made the change?

Lyn: I’d say getting rid of that hyphen and the capital “I” were more than enough to satisfy this gal. They even addressed the use of the plural “they” and “their” for singular stuff, but I’m still not keen on that. I’m sure I’ll get used to it. [Glares at the book, but only for a second.]

Kat: You have issues. I think it makes perfect sense to use “they” and “their” instead of he/she, or going back and forth too often between the two.

Lyn: I suppose you don’t want me to fan the pages so you can smell the new book smell, do you?

Kat: I was about to ask if you would . . . it might be the closest I get to it. You think the scent will upload any of the rules in my head?

Lyn: Definitely. It beats having to sleep with it under your pillow. [Fans pages front to back and then back to front. And then front to back again.]

Kat: Awesome. Hey, I had a question. Since all these books keep changing as the world progresses . . . or gets dumber, depending how you look at it, and none of them seem to agree on much and are based on preferences, why are they still so different? And why can’t they simplify things so years from now we won’t feel like idiots because we’ve used hyphens in “email” or capitalized the word “internet”?

Lyn: That’s an excellent question that I can actually answer. [Looks at CMOS for inspiration.] Something I’ve learned as I’ve mingled with my people, the editor-types, is that far from being the rigid taskmasters most people think we are, we are hyper-aware of language changes with each generation. It’s our job to know what’s new, when we should fight to keep it the same, and when we should chill the heck out and go with the flow. The goal of all the revisions—and it’s not just in CMOS, either . . . Merriam-Webster just announced a bunch of new words that are being added to the dictionary!! YAY!—ahem . . . the goal is to simplify the language and the process of editing it. Hopefully, each change makes things easier.

Kat: That’s all great from the perspective of editors, but again MLA, Chicago, and Associated Press are all different. I still think they should agree, for a couple of reasons. Naturally they’re all accepting  the new changes “we, the people” are asking for. So why not make them more simple?

Lyn: I have to say I agree with you: why does everyone have to have their own style guide? Why can’t newspapers and novels agree on whether or not to have spaces before and after an em dash? Or when to spell out numbers and when to use numerals? There’s really no good reason for some of these to be different.

Kat: My other reason, which is also another question for you: isn’t it possible the fact that they have made these rules so darn complex is exactly what is holding the rest of the world back from actually understanding and carrying out simple punctuation, spelling, etc? Like, maybe we’d make the world a little smarter if they didn’t make it all feel like we were working on nuclear physics?

Lyn: I love the idea that there are people who would rise to the occasion if the rules were not complex, but I think we both know we’ve seen enough oopses that already should be simple. Some people may never get it. And that’s okay, because maybe they’re terrific at other stuff. Like . . . I’ll never be a nuclear physicist, but doggone it, I can tell you when that apostrophe needs to GO.

Kat: Okay, but maybe that’s exactly because the language and its rules are so freaking confusing that even the style books can’t agree. [Evil laugh.] But also, I’m asking this and yet I know the truth: editors want to keep their jobs and so . . . they are all in cahoots to keep things the way they are.

Lyn: [Looks around nervously.] I’m not sure why you would even think that. Because that’s ridiculous. How would we—I mean, they—even manage that kind of thing?

Kat: By doing exactly what we’re talking about. And when we think, “Hey! I finally understand the hyphen rules!” they go and change the freaking thing.

Anyway, going back to things we see people not getting right . . . one of the things that get me, and I’m annoyed the rules have changed to accommodate it (yes, I’m on editors’ side here), is turning “all right” to “alright.” Are there any new changes that have also annoyed you?

Lyn: I can’t stand “alright” and will always change it. Always. And Merriam-Webster now lists “literally” to include the figurative sense. Seriously? It literally now means virtually.

Kat: WHAT?!?! Oh, my goodness, I had no idea. But “literally” means literally! I don’t know why this is making me feel sad, but I do. [Starts drinking straight out of the carafe.]

Lyn: I know. Makes me sick. Sick, I say. [Cradles CMOS a little tighter.] If literal is not literal, I don’t even know what this world is about anymore. At least they’re still taking the stance that irregardless, though a “real” word, is not accepted and not recommended.

Kat: I don’t know what to do with myself with “literally.” It’s throwing me for a loop and I can’t remember for the life of me what my other question was for you. I LITERALLY forgot. Not figuratively. Pffft.

Lyn: I’m literally sad with you. I think we need more—oh . . . looks like the coffee is . . . um . . . well, I can make another pot.

Kat: Oh, do you have another pot to use? You need to get your own. So I wanted to know, now that I’ve practiced a 30-second meditation session, what do you feel about the way social media is destroying proper grammar? If you could pick one thing for them to get right, what would it be? For me, it would be “their,” “they’re,” and “there.”

Lyn: Uggghhh, social media. If any of my other, non-editing, non-writer friends are reading this, please believe me when I say yet again that I do not waste my time critiquing your posts. If you’re not paying me, I try to shut that part of my brain off. However, if I could choose just one thing for the average person to get correct, it would be YOUR and YOU’RE. I’m not sure why that bothers me more than any other stuff, but there is something in me that snaps and makes a terribly unflattering judgment on people who misuse it.

Kat: YESSS! That’s another one that bothers me. I do have to say, I don’t mean family and friends, really . . . I was thinking more of the memes and pictures with captions that go viral and things of that nature.

Lyn: And that bums me out so much. There are some memes that would be hilarious, but they have a misspelling or bad grammar, and I just can’t “like” or share them. It’s the principle of the thing.

Kat: And I’ll sneak this in again . . . are you sure these people who are making the memes are not getting them right BECAUSE all the style guides are purposely confusing them? [Grins.]

Lyn: I’m not entirely sure. But I am certain that between Webster’s, Oxford, Chicago, Associated Press, and MLA, they ALL know how to use “you’re” properly.

Kat: That I agree with. I do wonder if the complexity of a few things makes them give up on learning everything. But that’s not our problem because you know your stuff and I know some stuff and we’re good in the CMOS’s eyes.

Lyn: [Sighs happily while petting the book again.] Yeah . . . and besides, if everyone gets grammatically smart all of a sudden, I’m out of a job.

Kat: Aha! That’s the conspiracy I was hinting at earlier. I knew I was right. And on that note— because it’s always good to stop when you find proof you’re right—I want to thank you for having me over and for my new personal coffee pot.

Lyn: If you allow me to have the . . . your . . . coffee pot back for a bit, I’ll brew us a fresh pot. What do you say?

Kat: No, I’m good. At this point I think I’m starting to have heartburn from all the coffee, but thanks for offering. You should get a Keurig for when you want some for yourself, though.

Lyn: I guess I’ll have to.

***

You can find S.K. Anthony at her own site, S.K. Anthony, where you can read all about her current series, The Luminaries, and find their Amazon links.

or

at Writers After Dark, where you can find everything writer-oriented, from podcasts to resources to just plain fun.

Follow on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram for more fun.

Why Do You Blog?

Bloggers tend to be a unique group. Introverts or extroverts, we somehow manage to talk online with strangers on a variety of topics.

We write because we love to write.

We write because we have something to share.

We write because we think you'll be interested in what we've learned.

And we comment because we want others to know we appreciate their efforts, too.

I love knowing that I have blogging friends all over the world. Some, I may never meet in real life, but interacting with them has opened doors to other cultures, other traditions, new ideas, education, arts, and more.

My last three posts have been intense book recommendations, so I thought I'd open up today's blog post to you, and ask the burning question: Why do you blog?

I blog in two places: here, and over yonder at Wordpress (my personal blog's link is in my sidebar if you feel like visiting—Life As Only I Know It). The personal blog is mostly a "dear diary" for me. I write whatever's on my mind when I sit down with my laptop. Something timely, like a family birthday; something I've been learning in a class; observations on regular life, happy and sad.

Here at ERE, I write about things that interest my readers—and that usually involves reading, writing, or editing. I mean, hey, that's what I do, so that's what I write about.

Why I blog is a whole 'nother animal, as we say in the backwoods of Pennsylvania.

I started this blog when I started my editing business almost five years ago, in 2013. I thought it would be a good way to get my name out there to drum up some work, and to explore the blogging community. I read a few blogs here and there, but I never commented because I didn't think I had anything worthwhile to say. After all, bloggers were Somebody and I was just me.

Two people broke my fear of commenting. The first person was S.K. Anthony, an author I'd started working with very early in my editing career. She introduced me to a lot of terrific bloggers by sharing her favorites. She taught me good blog etiquette (e.g. no "thanks for sharing!" comments, which we can all relate to) and shared my blog with her followers to help me get a leg up.

The second person was author Raymond Esposito. I'd run into him on some Goodreads threads and thought he was hilarious and sarcastic, so I followed his blog. I tentatively commented on a couple of his posts, adding that I felt like a pest by commenting each time, and I'll never forget his response: "You're supposed to comment. Otherwise, I'm talking to myself."

Well, needless to say, I took that advice and ran with it. And now the two of them are award-winning authors who are some of my best friends. They own a business together, Writers After Dark, and they work hard to provide essential resources for writers. I’ve also discovered over the years that they each have genius-level IQ, which could be intimidating except that they don’t rub it in my face. But I digress . . .

I now follow a number of blogs and try to thoughtfully comment on all of them when there's a new post, and I don't hesitate to comment even when I'm reading a post written by a complete stranger. I know, you're all gasping with shock and perhaps admiration, but this was a serious thing for me to overcome. I had to get past the idea that I didn't have anything to contribute . . . that someone would point me out for a fraud if I said something stupid enough.

Fast forward to today, when I say plenty of stupid things and don't look back. I own my words, good or bad, but in general I try to not start internet fights with strangers. I enjoy the blogs I follow and try not to overextend myself by following so many that I can't keep up. Confession: I will give up on a blog with okay content but no interaction. On the other hand, I will stick with a blog that holds dubious interest for me, as long as the blogger interacts with followers. I see it all as a community, and I don't want to spend time with those who don't care to spend time with me. I'm not offended; it's a busy world and no one has time to waste on pointless things.

Funny thing about the "why" when I started this blog: I've almost never gotten a client through it. People have found me in other places and have come here to contact me, but I can only think of two people, ever, who said they found me through my blog alone. So I guess all that community stuff really does matter.

I ask again, then: why do YOU blog?

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year, everyone!

It seems that January is the most common time of year to set ourselves up with a list of intentions that are supposed to make us better people. One of the podcasts from Writers After Dark tackled this very topic, and they did such a great job of it that I'm going to send you there if you click on this link. As they put it, "Why does the 'new you' have to come right after the 'old you' just enjoyed a few weeks of absolute decadence?"

[Hey, and while you're over there, if you really, REALLY want to start your New Year right—and I think you do—listen to my own podcast interview and get your first dose of editing inspiration for 2018. The three of us have a great time and actually discuss real things that might help you!]

Even so, I find myself each year with list in hand, breaking down into categories that which is my life, and trying to figure out how to make it better for me and those around me. One of my categories is professional growth, and a subcategory of that is education. I am of the opinion that the more I learn, the more I realize I still have a lot more to learn. This past year, I had some sort-of goals that got completely derailed for a while and then back on track when I received some incredibly useful advice from S.K. Anthony: "Let's just start 2017 over again. So what if it's June?"

And we did.

Over the past few years, I'd had to put much of my business on hold due to the intensity of my day job. As a result, what little time I had left for editing didn't leave any room for growth, and I found myself narrowed down to a handful of clients I scheduled around everything else. In fact, I'd had potential clients walk away because I couldn't fit them in quickly enough, and that was discouraging, to say the least.

When I rebooted 2017, I sat down and thought about my business goals and how I'd allowed myself to lose sight of them. Obviously, the lack of a plan—and pantsing it from week to week—was not working. So I started writing, and came up with a list of things I wanted to accomplish, and whaddya know, I've even gotten to most of them.

I have continued to blog regularly, both here and at my personal blog, and have met and interacted with a whole host of new acquaintances across the globe. Yes, it's time-consuming stuff, blogging, but I love learning more about the world through one-on-one interactions with people I wouldn't have run into otherwise.

I started loading my stuff onto Pinterest with regularity. I have to admit that I don't allow myself to browse Pinterest all that often because (for me, anyway) it is a black hole that sucks away hours of my life without me even realizing it. But I look at it as one more avenue to share my work for those who may or may not ever find my blogs or my IG account.

I started an Instagram account for my business, rather than trying to shove a bunch of business-y things on my personal account. That has proven to be a load of fun, and I've found some new authors to read. Instagram is where I share my fun stuff, where I run promotions like this, and where I can explore, two minutes at a time.

I got some new clients, I joined the Editorial Freelancers Association, became an active participant on a few editors' groups on Facebook, and got off my butt to make my own ERE Facebook page active and growing. Growth is slow, but it's genuine, with people who actually read and engage with my posts there.

Just in time for the end of the year, I had my branding redone by Rachel at Imaginary Beast, and I couldn't be happier. The new look is great, and now I finally have continuity across all my social media. It's professional with just a bit of quirk, like me.

I think the restart midyear was a good move overall. Thank you, S.K.!

What about you? Did you meet your goals? Did you get off track? Did you slam it out of the park? In my next post, I'll be discussing one of my sort-of goals from last year and reviewing the books that helped me achieve it. See you then!

Editor's Notes #37: Dialogue Part 2—Sounding Real

This is Part 2 in a series about dialogue. If you missed reading Part 1 where I talk about regional overkill and writing accents, feel free to check it out here.

I'm not sure how this happens, but for some writers, there is a major disconnect between conversing with people in real life and writing about people conversing. Why is writing dialogue so difficult for people who talk to others on a regular basis?

I think the major hurdle for many writers to overcome is making dialogue "proper" according to grammar rules. There's only one problem with that: dialogue rarely sounds grammatically correct.

Before you write dialogue for your characters, watch people for a while, and listen to them talk. Yes, I'm asking you to stalk a little . . . for research purposes, of course. I'm willing to bet you see at least a few of the following:

• Contractions—Most people use contractions when speaking, and yet so many writers are shy about using them for dialogue. "I do not understand" sounds a lot more stiff than "I don't understand." I did edit a novel once with one character who never used contractions (much like Data in Star Trek: The Next Generation), but that was used as a distinguishing trait for a particular purpose.
• Multiple Threads at Once—Any parent can relate to this. Or anyone who's looked at a chat window between S.K. Anthony and me. More often than not, there is more than one conversation going on at once, even if there are only two people involved. Somehow, we keep it all straight; conversation is rarely linear.
• Mishearing—Conversations happen in a variety of places, and not all of them are quiet. Is your character talking on the phone, or are children playing around those talking? Someone is bound to say, "What?" at some point. My specialty, according to my husband, is talking to him from two rooms away in our house. I get a lot of responses that sound something like, "I can hear you but I can't understand you," and "You're not talking to me, are you?"
• Getting Sidetracked/Self-Interruption—These two sort of go hand in hand. I get sidetracked all the time when I'm talking, and my kids make fun of me for it. I tend to be thinking of lots of things while talking, and this results in my sentence either changing midstream, or fading off altogether. Real conversation between me and my daughter in the car:

Me: I'm so thankful . . . [gets distracted by oncoming traffic]
Ellie: [waits a few moments, then speaks] . . . for . . .?
Me: [looks around] Four what? Where?
Ellie: Thankful. For. What. What are you thankful for? You never finished.
Me: Oh . . . I'm thankful someone's picking up your brother so I don't have to.

• Body Language/Movement—These are essential in conversations. People don't stand straight at attention, facing each other to deliver their scripted lines in a tidy order. They move, they fidget, they pace, they do the dishes or fold laundry or any number of things. Sometimes their bodies reveal more than their speech does. S.K. Anthony did a four-part series on Using Body Language in Your Novel that shows how many ways your body language can help you or give away all your secrets.
• Sentence Fragments—These differ from self-interruption or getting sidetracked, in that you don't need to be sidetracked to speak in fragments. People don't converse in the manner we all had to use in high school English tests, where we had to put our answer in the form of a full sentence. "What's for supper?" "Chicken piccata." You'll hear that as an answer far more often than "For supper, I'm making chicken piccata."
• Age is Relevant—Children don't sound like adults when they speak (though they do come up with gems every so often), so don't write the six-year-old's dialogue as if she has the insight and wisdom of a sixty-year-old. Kids are pretty simple: they want things and are happy when they get them.

These examples are a fraction of the things to consider. There are awkward silences. Sometimes when people talk, they can't always recall the facts, so their speech is peppered with uncertainty and fishing around in their brains for the right word. Someone might always say, "Ya know?" between phrases.

Something I hadn't considered when writing this post is the dialogue info dump. I'm so glad I ran across this gem in an article by Janice Hardy on NowNovel. Her number one tip on writing dialogue is "Stop using dialogue for information dumps." She points out that starting a conversation with "As you know . . ." is ridiculous. If the other person knows, then why is Person #1 repeating it all? Her advice on how to tell if you're info-dumping in dialogue or not:

When characters share information, says Janice, "If the information is for the reader's benefit, chances are you're dumping. If the information is for the character's benefit (or detriment), chances are it's fine."

In the situation above, I always think of the boss who talks to his employee while perusing through the employee's file folder. "As you know, Joe, ten years ago when you were just a rookie, you took down that laundry-laundering operation singlehandedly even though your dog's cousin was going through psychotherapy for his issues with the neighbor's cat. I know that caused your divorce, but you can't keep blaming yourself by refusing to go to the laundromat."

Don't be afraid to read your dialogue aloud after you've written it . . . to "speak it out." It may sound natural or you may come to the sudden realization that it doesn't. Picture yourself saying those words to a friend (or an enemy, depending on the dialogue). Think of those awkward homemade commercials—Hey, Susan, you're looking so fit and trim! What's your secret? Is it that new 24-hour gym, Fat2Fit, at 123 Barbell Street?—and . . . don't do that.

People don't speak perfectly. Dialogue is not structured the same as a prepared speech given to a crowd, and is more often than not grammatically incorrect. Just let it happen and don't stress the specifics.

Editor's Notes #28: Parentheses in Fiction: Do They Break the Fourth Wall?

Breaking the fourth wall: this stems from a theatrical term. The "fourth wall" is where the audience sits—they're basically looking "through" it when viewing a traditional stage with three sides. If an actor spoke a line directly to the audience, he broke the wall, removing that separation.

I think one of the toughest things for a writer must be finding a way to say everything he wants to say while keeping the reader entertained and not bored or overwhelmed.

Sometimes, however, an author needs to pop just a bit more information into the narrative here and there, and there's some disagreement as to the best method of doing this. The one I'm going to focus on today deals with a character's thoughts.

In a first-person POV, every so often I come across a writer who uses parentheses in the thought process, and I've got to tell you, it bugs the crap out of me.

I didn't understand. All my brownies were gone, and Kat was the only person who'd been in my kitchen. (I'd known her for years and couldn't imagine her doing something so unthinkable.)

Why are there parentheses in the first place? This is not really any different from the rest of the thought, and it follows through with the "why" of my confusion about the brownies.

I've also seen things like this:

He saw the officer coming toward him, and recognized his old friend, Jim, from military school. "How in the world are you, buddy?" (He remembered spending holidays with Jim and his wife, going to his children's birthday parties, standing by him during loss, and more. They'd had too many adventures to count, lost track of each other over the years, and now here he was, assigned to the same base.)

In the above situation, by the time the "buddy" responded with "Not so bad," I'd already forgotten what the answer was in reference to and had to reread. And what about this?

I knew I had to check the basement to find the source of the awful stench. (I had noticed the smell days before and had tried to pretend it wasn't there. Why did I buy this haunted house, anyway? And what made me think I could avoid the basement for the rest of my life?)

More often than not, using parentheses for thoughts in a novel can be a negative experience for the reader. It's almost like the author is physically tapping you on the shoulder, saying, "Oh, and I forgot to mention this, but . . ."

Parentheses can have a more "formal" feel to them, whereas an em dash—most writers' favorite form of aside—is slightly informal in nature. Em dashes feel more like when you're talking to a friend . . . let's say an Italian friend . . . and she can't quite stay on track because she feels the need to add the odd detail here and there. Not bad, because you can still follow the story. But parentheses remind me of when someone puts a hand to the side of his mouth and whispers, "She's completely crazy, you know," while talking loudly in positive tones.

Breaking the fourth wall can be jarring, a reminder that you're reading and thus a pulling from story immersion . . . unless you're a character in Jasper Fforde's The Eyre Affair or any of his Tuesday Next novels—in which case, the characters are fully aware that they're characters in a book but they need to keep living their lives anyway. In his case, though, that's the way the story is designed, so it's more a whimsical tool rather than a diversion, cleverly done and entertaining.

In Fix Your Damn Book! How to Painlessly Self-Edit Your Novels and Stories by James Osiris Baldwin, his view is clear:

"Brackets/parentheses should be avoided as much as possible in fiction. You can get away with it in some kinds of novels (expository, experimental, some first-person point-of-view books), but they tend to annoy readers and editors if used too often or at all. You especially should never use them during dialogue unless you're planning to break the fourth wall. Replace them with commas or em dashes. Brackets in non-fiction are fine (within reason)."

Brackets (parentheses as they are known more commonly in the US) are found more often in business documents, so that might contribute to the overall feel of wrongness in fiction. A happy skimming of the Chicago Manual of Style can give you a good idea of how many things are great in technical manuals or propaganda, but NOT okay in fiction writing. Parentheses rank right up there.

As I was working on this blog post, in fact, my hubby, who has read G.R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series multiple times, showed me a passage he just happened to be reading in the third book, A Storm of Swords, and said, "Doesn't this look weird to you? Why are these even here?" and he pointed to this:

Then came some strolling pipers and clever dogs and sword swallowers with buttered peas, chopped nuts, and slivers of swan poached in a sauce of saffron and peaches. ("Not swan again," Tyrion muttered, remembering his supper with his sister on the eve of battle.) A juggler kept a half-dozen swords and axes whirling through the air as skewers of blood sausages were brought sizzling to the tables, a juxtaposition that Tyrion thought passing clever, though not perhaps in the best of taste.

Is it just me, or did any of you also picture Tyrion looking away from the feast and directly into a camera (or the reader's eyes) and saying that line? That one line in parentheses pulled me away from saffron and peaches and feasting, and it took more than a few lines to get me back to the story, rather than my awareness of the writing.

One person describes it as such: parentheses "joggle" in the same way footnotes "joggle," like someone bumping your elbow to get your attention; it's also described by others as "intrusive" and "jarring." Who wants their writing to be intrusive and jarring?

The answer is: no one. Authors want to keep their readers engaged and lost in the world they created. Period.

Come and Visit Me Somewhere Else Today!

Hi, everyone!

My friends at Writers After Dark asked me to do a guest spot this week, so you can find my real blog post over there today.

It's called "Parentheses in Fiction: Do They Break the Fourth Wall?"

Some pretty exciting stuff, eh? I live a wild life.

I'll be putting the post up here on Wednesday so I have it in my own archives, but for the first couple days, I'd like to give them the blog traffic. If you've never visited Writers After Dark, you're missing out on a great resource for authors. There are terrific how-tos, there's news, and there are videos from our two wonderful co-hosts, authors Raymond Esposito and S.K. Anthony.

Show them some love today, and then don't forget to come back here in a couple days to read the exact same article all over again, pretend you've never seen it before, and leave me comments so I don't feel lonely and ignored.

Thanks, everybody!

Editor's Notes #24: Points of View Part 2—How Do I Choose?

My previous post began to explore points of view and how to choose which one is right for your story. Many of you said your characters dictated what POV they wanted you to write from. I'm not surprised. Though I suppose an author can have one that's more comfortable for his writing style, each story is unique and should never become a cookie-cutter presentation. Nobody wants boring and predictable, after all.

We've already explored the first-person point of view, with its advantages and limitations; the next step is to look at the third-person point of view—a commonly-used way of showing what's going on in more than one head.

The four major players are the same: author, narrator, viewpoint person, and protagonist. However, their roles are divvied up differently this time.

In the third-person POV, the author is still the author, but that's pretty much the only similarity. The narrator doesn't actually participate in the action this time. The author and the narrator in third-person POV are the same . . . but they aren't, which can be confusing. Whereas there's a clear line to divide the author from the narrator in a first-person piece (because the narrator is the viewpoint person), the narrator in a third-person story is seen by the reader in a different light.

Harvey Chapman (from the Writers After Dark link I shared last time) explains it like this:

The author of a novel is a real-life person who has made up the events and written the words. 

But in order to feel like what we are reading actually happened, [we] readers need to forget about the author and imagine instead that the words have been written by a kind of invisible witness to the events—a person with godlike powers, perhaps, who can look down upon reality from above and describe it to the readers. 

The crucial point here is that this godlike narrator, as unlikely as such a figure might be, witnesses something that actually happened—whereas authors merely write about events they have made up. 

And so readers will ignore the author's name on the novel's cover and imagine instead that they are being told about the events by someone who actually witnessed them firsthand.

Also unlike the first-person POV, the narrator is not the story's viewpoint person. The narrator in a third-person POV is basically someone who gets us from here to there: this happened, and let me tell you all about it. Otherwise, narrating is kind of a thankless job: readers care about the characters, not the narrator . . . so, dear Narrator Person, please don't give us your opinion. Just enough facts so we can picture it all in our heads, and then step aside so the characters can speak.

Next is the viewpoint character, but the third part of this three-part series deals with viewpoint, so I'll only touch on it here. In short, if you tell the story through one person's eyes, there's a single viewpoint. If you choose to write from multiple viewpoints, different sections or chapters will feature different eyes to see through—aka different viewpoints. This deserves a good deal of detail, so look for it in my next post in two weeks.

Finally, the protagonist comes into play. The protagonist in a third-person POV novel is the leading or central character. The character the book is written about. The main attraction. The big Kahuna. He or she is the entire reason we're reading this story.

The protagonist may or may not be the viewpoint character. If you have a single viewpoint, then the protagonist will most definitely be your viewpoint character. However, if you have multiple viewpoints, there's no guarantee that these two roles will mesh. Imagine reading a novel based on two of my favorite cartoon characters, Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy (yes, I'm an unapologetic fan of SpongeBob). Mermaid Man may be the protagonist, but perhaps his adventure is told through Barnacle Boy's eyes. Sidekicks come in handy that way. And since sidekicks typically idolize the heroes whose sides they're kicking, it might be a pretty good gig to have if you're the hero, because your story from his view will make you sound even better than you are. Unless you have a rotten, bitter sidekick who has always wanted to be #1 but you've never given him the chance to shine. In that case, "interesting" is probably the best you can hope for.

Until next time, I'd love to hear your thoughts. Not all of them . . . just the good ones.

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

I have this glass (from one of my favorite websites, Despair, Inc., home of demotivational everything), and in addition to always making me smile, it reminds me that different people can look at the same thing in a variety of ways. Often, this helps to fill out the bigger picture of an issue. Other times, it only serves to confuse things, like when writing a book.

It takes real talent to write from multiple points of view. Some people do it without even realizing it, but that's not what we're discussing today. Well, maybe we'll use those people as bad examples, but for now, the ones we're talking about today and next time are those writers who actually do it on purpose.

When an author sits down to put pen to paper—or fingers to keyboard, or crayon to napkin, or Sharpie to forearm—the story that flows usually takes on a voice that's easily discernible. Sometimes it's in the form of a first-person narrative, sometimes a third-person "outside voice."

There is no "right choice" that an author can make for every occasion. Each book's POV choice should be as individual as its plotline. It all depends on what you hope to accomplish, and that's where a few guidelines help.

I recently read an article featured on the Writers After Dark website, titled "The Complete Guide to Point of View," by Harvey Chapman. Not only did the post feature the two most common points of view (first person and third person), but it linked to another article (same author) which explained the logic behind the different choices. According to Chapman, many authors are tempted to skip the fundamentals and simply look at the pros and cons, but there are a few things which should be understood before choosing.

The theory and logic behind choosing a point of view boils down to the roles of four people: the author, the narrator, the viewpoint character, and the protagonist. Now of course, the author is the author, but the narrator (the one who tells the story as compared to the one who writes the story) takes on a different role, depending on the POV chosen.

In the first-person POV, the narrator is also the viewpoint character. We see what he sees, but only what he sees. This can keep things simple and focused, but can also be tricky in a few ways. Anything that happens "offscreen," so to speak, can only be learned through conversation or eavesdropping. In other words, if the main viewpoint character wasn't there, it didn't happen . . . unless the event is discovered through other means.

First-person narrative also has the tendency to give us a not-so-objective "truth" as we read along. Think of any occasion where there is more than one person. There will be, of course, more than one opinion, and each person is sure his is the right one.

Chapman's article points out another interesting aspect of the first-person narrative: because a first-person narrator/viewpoint person is retelling something that happened in the past, the viewpoint may change, depending on whether that action or event happened in the immediate past or many years ago. As he states, ". . . if a forty-year-old adult tells us something that happened to him as a thirteen-year-old kid, that makes the narrator twenty-seven years older than the viewpoint person. And which of us can claim to be the same person at forty as we were at thirteen?"

The first-person narrator/viewpoint person may also be the protagonist, but this not a hard and fast rule. The person telling the story may just as easily be recounting a tale that happened to his best friend.

The important part is to know why you're choosing the point of view you're working with, and the rest should sort itself out much easier as the writing progresses.

Part 2 of this post will explain these roles (author, narrator, viewpoint person, protagonist) in the context of the third-person point of view.

Do you have a favorite POV to write from, do you have to think about it at great length, or does each book just present itself to you with a POV already chosen by the characters? I'm curious.