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. 

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

Worst Writing Advice: When the Rules Aren't Rules

Not all writing advice is created equal.

That sentence above is a prime example. It's not the perfect construction, but I like it and since my blog is written the way I'd speak if we were face to face, that's how I wrote it.

It's not a big deal, but there are people out there who twitch at sentence structure that's not "perfect" according to the rules. They wag an index finger at the offending writer and tout THE RULES to prove their case.

Rules are great. I won't deny that. We can't have anarchy in the grammar world, after all. But there are times when rules are broken effectively—as long as they're purposeful—and other times when the rules need to be the rules and that's that.

The problem arises when a rule isn't exactly a rule; i.e., when something is thought of as a rule, but is merely tradition—or worse, tradition based on misinterpretation or misapplication.

Can you end a sentence with a preposition? Can you begin one with a conjunction? Can you use contractions in dialogue? What about fragmented sentences? Are you allowed to split infinitives?

Does the passive voice always, always have to be adjusted? No, it doesn't, and there's a passive sentence for you right there. I wanted "passive voice" to be first in the sentence so you'd immediately know what the sentence was about, rather than adjust it to say, "Do you always have to adjust the passive voice?" Sometimes we don't want to wait for the end of the sentence to find out what it's about. What if I fell asleep while typing and only wrote, "Do you always have to adjust the" but when I woke up, didn't remember what I'd been thinking? ADJUST THE WHAT? I get interrupted far too often to remember these things.

Over the next few posts, I'll be looking at rules that aren't really rules. Some of them are worth listening to, and others . . . well, I can guarantee you that some are not the hill(s) you want to die on just to prove your point.

If you have any "rules" you've wondered about (yep, the scare quote kind), let me know and I'll look them up and feature them. I've heard a lot of bad advice out there and would love to help you sort out what's what.

What do you think, people? Got some bad advice you'd like me to debunk? Lets hear it!

G = Grammarly Is Not Enough

Welcome, A to Z bloggers, visitors, and of course all my faithful regular readers! This year's theme for my A to Z:

Short & Sweet Reasons Why You Need an Editor

So without further ado . . .

Grammarly is not enough. Not by a long shot. In fact, many (most?) editors will argue that it's possible to do more harm than good to your work when relying on Grammarly. And it's not because we like getting paid, because . . . duh. Everyone likes getting paid.

The problem with any grammar program is that artificial intelligence can only take you so far. It will never pick up on the same nuances a human being will catch. (And don't even get me started on MS Word's grammar suggestions that are guaranteed to destroy you AND your gray cells.)

Grammar checkers will consistently point out things that aren't actually wrong, trying their best to convince you to change whatever you've written. They may be an okay starting point, but for someone who doesn't know better, sole reliance on any grammar program may lead to disaster.

Trust a human being who knows not only the rules but the language usage as well.

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 #29: Apostrophes v. Plurals

I think apostrophe placement is sort of like spelling: you either have the gift of it or you don't. This is not to say it can't be learned, but let's face facts and say that most people who don't "have it" will probably struggle their entire lives with whether or not to use one—and if so, how.

Here's the basic rule:

The apostrophe's primary job is to form a possessive

or

to stand for missing letters in a contraction.

Why do so many people get it wrong?

I firmly believe—and this is based on zero scientific evidence, mind you, but you are likely to agree with me here—people who misuse apostrophes figure they're going to add a little flair to their words to . . . "fancy it up," so to speak, in the same way some try to speak more formally by using the word "I" instead of "me" in their sentences, regardless of whether it's correct or not. This usually results in such conversation as, "It's been a splendid time in Paris for her and I." The written equivalent for these fancified people would be something like We drank many fine wine's and went on numerous tour's.

While looking up information on this phenomenon, I saw it mentioned as the "greengrocer's apostrophe" more than once. (Picture BANANA'S on sale.) Perhaps grocery stores are the ones who made the error commonplace for so many others, because many people are under the assumption that any printing posted for public use is automatically correct. Many of us can attest to this being false as we look around our cities and towns and shake our heads in dismay. My city, in fact, has a bar which advertises itself as YOU'RE NUMBER ONE NIGHT SPOT, right up there on an expensive, lighted sign for all to see. Well, I'm flattered, but I was unaware that I was the number one night spot. Don't tell my husband.

We can't base our apostrophe use on things like "I think it looks good" or "it seems to me that I've seen it this way" when we should be weighing in with the "because it's correct" factor. There are hard and fast rules that need to be followed.

• When forming a possessive, the apostrophe goes at the end of a noun, followed by the letter "s":
• The girl's coat fell to the floor. [One girl, one coat.]
• If the possessive is a plural noun, the apostrophe goes after the "s":
• The girls' coats fell to the floor. [More than one girl, more than one coat. Notice that "coats" is a plural and has no apostrophe.]
• When forming a contraction, the apostrophe takes the place of the missing letters:
• The girl's coat's dirty from falling on the floor. [One girl, one coat, and the apostrophe is used in the contraction for "coat is" dirty.]
• Or how about this?
• The girls' coats' mud was falling off in clumps. [This is a ridiculous sentence, although it is technically correct. More than one girl, more than one coat, and the mud that belongs to the coat. You're best off rephrasing the entire thing for clarity.]
• Never use an apostrophe for a plural, especially when dealing with abbreviations or numbers:
• The 1920s were a roaring good time for all. [All the years included in that decade.]
• There were so many CDs to choose from and only so much cash in his wallet. [It bears noting that Blogger keeps trying to force me to put an apostrophe here, much in the same way MS Word will "correct" your grammar to the point of gibberish. But that's for a future post.]
• Feel free to use an apostrophe with numbers or abbreviations if they're possessive:
• The DJ's speakers had too much high end, making them painful to listen to. [The speakers belonging to the DJ.]
• I have to say, 1987's recording artists were a mixed lot. [The recording artists "belonging to" the year 1987.]
• Also feel free to use an apostrophe with numbers or abbreviations if they're part of a contraction:
• The DMV's known for taking some awful photos. [Used here for "DMV is."]
• Overall, 1989's a year I'll never forget. [Used here for "1989 is."]
• There are some tricky areas, though, and here's where a nice, thick Chicago Manual of Style comes in handy:
• No apostrophe is needed in the word "how-tos," even though, once again, Blogger and MS Word will try to tell you otherwise.
• No apostrophe is needed in the phrase "dos and don'ts" other than the apostrophe in the contraction for "do not."
• No apostrophe is needed for "ins and outs" and other similar phrases.
• Aaaaaaaannnnnd it would not be the English language if there were not exceptions to the rule that seem completely in opposition, such as this gem:
• It's = it is. Simple enough, because it's a contraction. But . . . 
• Its = the possessive form of "it." A possessive which does NOT use an apostrophe, which seems to fly in the face of all we've been talking about. Just memorize it and you'll be fine.

Use these examples the next time you're in need of a little help when using apostrophes and plurals, and anyone who reads your writing (including your editor) will mentally shoot you some instant credibility for your diligent work—and a huge "thank you."

Happy writing!

Editor's Notes #20: What Makes You Stop Reading a Book? Part 2 of 2

So in Part 1 of this topic, I told you all how I never allowed myself to stop reading in the middle of a book . . . until I started reading some really horribly written stuff when I got a Kindle a few years ago.

Now that I've given myself the okay to JUST STOP, I've found my tolerance level has gotten lower with each passing year and each subsequent novel. The hours in any given day are much too precious to waste on a bad book. I read for money when I edit. I read my Bible each morning. I read and correct my daughter's writing assignments. I read for my day job when my boss gives us a book for the management team to discuss, chapter by chapter. IF there is any time left between editing jobs or assigned books, I read for the sheer pleasure of it. Needless to say, if there's no pleasure involved, I'm not going to bother reading for long.

Here are a few things that will make me put a book down and never look back (unless I'm physically throwing it over my shoulder in the trash):

• No edits. This is a nonnegotiable item for me. If there are grammar/spelling errors, poorly constructed sentences, misuse of words, or worse (though I can't imagine what "worse" would entail), that book practically shuts itself.
• Characters that are caricatures or stereotyped. The bad guy who has no depth because he's always bad, and not even interestingly bad . . . just "B" movie bad. The protagonist who's good at everything: sports, school, parents love him, no zits . . . you get the idea. The mysterious stranger who's not even mysterious for a good reason. The wise elderly person. The clumsy beautiful girl with low self-esteem.
• If I have no desire to read beyond the third chapter. I need to care about someone—anyone—or something that happens in those first few chapters, or I'm done. If I find myself skimming to see if it gets better, then why continue?
• Unrealistic dialogue. If an author writes a seven-year-old child into a book, that child should act and speak as a seven-year-old child, unless it's a creepy book where the child is possessed by an ancient being who speaks like . . . um, an ancient being . . . and everyone knows this isn't the way that child would normally speak. 
• Plot inconsistencies. If I am confused, I tend to think that's everyday life. However, if I'm confused while reading fiction, I'll flip back through what I've read to see if I somehow missed a major plot point. If I haven't missed anything and I'm still confused, then I'm going to assume the plot somehow went from A to C without a Point B in the middle. This happens when an author makes major structural changes from draft to draft but neglects to look at the work as a whole to see if it still makes sense. Every detail matters, and that's where a good beta reader will be indispensable prior to a book's release.
• Believability. Even the craziest fiction has to have some degree of believability or the reader will be drawn out of the story time and again. I always think of Martyn V. Halm (whose Amsterdam Assassin novels are pretty terrific and incredibly well written, by the way) talking about verisimilitude and his insistence that things at least seem like they could be real in order to keep the reader immersed in the created world, no matter how out-of-the-box that world may be.

I'm sure I have many more peeves that cause me to be harshly judgmental* about a book someone may or may not have worked hard at writing, but these are the biggest ones that come to mind easily. *Let's face it: I'm only kind and tactful if I already like the person.

What makes YOU stop reading? Do you look for things I haven't listed here? What's your number one deal breaker that causes you to shout, "Enough!" I'd love to know so I can add it to my own list of things to gripe about. And if you've read the list above and recognize something you do in your own books, then my best advice is STOP IT. Stop it and get a beta reader to politely and tactfully tell you all these same things, only for money.

I've placed a good guideline below. If you get "BINGO" from any of your manuscripts, it's time to start rewrites so others won't stop reading.

Editor's Notes #14: Do I Have to Listen to Every Suggestion?

Editors are paid to fix things.

Whether it's a misplaced comma, a misspelled word, or a complete overhaul on sentence structure, if we see a wrong, we need to right it or we can't sleep at night. My blog's tagline sums it up nicely:

I read books. I correct books. I read more books.

One of the beautiful things about self-publishing is that the author has creative control over every aspect of his work. Overall, this is a wonderful thing. He won't have a publishing house hacking his book to pieces or changing the story line because they think it would sell better if his hero was a twentysomething woman living in the city rather than a grizzled sixtysomething man who lives a reclusive life in the wilderness of Washington state. He won't have a cover designed for him that has no real connection to the book's contents or his own vision—though a quick look at lousybookcovers.com will show you why an expert is still needed, regardless of how you choose to publish. He won't lose the rights to his own work (or in some cases, his own profits) for a period of time.

The flip side of this is that some self-published authors don't see the value in constructive comments when it comes to their work. When designing a cover, an author may have an idea of what is desired, and the cover artist can present choices based on the author's vision, with tweaks here and there. Ultimately, though, if the cover artist says (just pulling a random example from nowhere), "No. Zebra stripes would NOT look good on this cover," then the author should trust that his cover artist has the eye and experience to know what he's talking about.

It's no different with an editor. The type of editing I do most often, copyediting, is pretty cut and dried when it comes to what gets changed and what doesn't. The punctuation is either correct or not. The subject and verb either agree or they do not. If something might be questioned, I make good use of margin notes to explain myself. The bottom line is this: I either know the rules or I look them up when in doubt. I'm paid to know.

I often dip my toes into the other end of the editing spectrum, though, and here's where the lines blur. I can't see something that needs changed and ignore it. I don't have the attitude that says, "They're not paying me to make the ideas flow; this job is a punctuation-only gig." I want the book to be seen favorably by the readers, and I would like to think it's a help to the author as well. If a character isn't staying true to himself and it's not part of the plot, I'll point it out and perhaps suggest an alternative. There have been times when I've said, "I know what you mean here, but I don't think this passage is conveying it very clearly. Maybe you could rephrase it this way . . ." or "This person is reacting pretty calmly, considering x and y just happened."

I'm happy to report that the authors I've worked with actually listen to me. Imagine that! They don't take every suggestion and run with it, and I try to only give ideas that are necessary, rather than changing things because that's how I would have told the story. But I've read an awful lot of books, and I can usually spot a cliché or overused plot device a mile away. If I tell a writer he may not wish to go a certain direction because too many people have done that same thing lately, I've done my part and he can choose to accept or reject that bit of advice.

That's the terrific thing about self-publishing: you can take or leave those suggestions and still come away with a product you're happy with. Rules are rules, and there aren't many ways of getting around them. Advice, though . . . if you trust the person offering it, you just might end up with something even better than you started with.

K = Know the Rules in Order to Break Them for Effect

Knowing the rules doesn’t mean they have to be followed stringently. Most dialogue doesn’t follow Ze Proper English, and shouldn’t have to, unless you’re writing a book called How to Speak Uncomfortably to Others. Come to think of it, I’ve read books that should have carried that title.

You can use slang if you want to get jiggy. (And okay, now I’m laughing pretty hard, because that is SO not what I would say and I suddenly feel 100 years old while typing it.) Prepositions are sometimes all right to end sentences with. And you can begin a sentence with a conjunction. You can apply the oft-misused Random Capitalization. If you wish, use clichés until the cows come home. Even . . . yep, incomplete sentences. You can do all these things, as long as you are using them for a particular reason, and you are aware that you’re breaking rules.

It’s the unsuspecting people who need to be careful. The phrase, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” attributed to George Santayana (and repeated in various forms by Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, and others), can be changed to the literary version: “Those who do not know the rules are bound to break them.”  

It all goes in order: learn them well, then break them sparingly. You don’t want to be breaking so many rules that your readers begin to wonder if you ever learned any to begin with. 

E = Editing Comes in Many Forms

Someone who's “looking for an editor” is most likely referring to the need for a copyeditor. There are, however, a few types of editors to choose from, and it’s best to know what you’re looking for if you want to get your publishing budget set up accurately.

Developmental editors work with you from the very beginning. If you have a concept or a great story idea but aren’t sure how to execute it, a developmental editor can help you organize your thoughts, give suggestions to aid your research, and help you get a handle on the big picture. They’ll spot when your writing isn’t clear, your characters are weak, when your plot has holes, and when timelines don’t add up properly.

Line editors/copyeditors come into play when the text is nearly final—or as final as an author can get it on his own. This type carefully reads each sentence, correcting structure, typos, spelling, punctuation, word usage, and grammar. They’ll alert you to stilted dialogue and inconsistent character details.

Proofreaders take the final look at your project. They ensure all the copyeditor’s changes were implemented, and fix any typos that may have been missed during the initial copyedit.

Each type of editing comes with its own price structure, so it’s best to know what you need before rushing right out there. Many authors think they only need a "light proof," but actually need a developmental editor for a manuscript that’s not yet ready for even the copyeditor. Know your strengths, but also recognize your weaknesses and set your budget accordingly.

Stop, Drop, and (Eye) Roll

What pulls you out of a book? Are you able to stay immersed in the fictional world no matter what happens, no matter how farfetched?

I love a good book. I love losing myself in a mythical world, becoming the heroine in an adventure, being scared out of my wits, or remembering the whole falling-in-love process.

What I don't love is when my fictional-world-immersion is brought to a screeching halt by bad writing, whichever form that bad writing takes. This can happen in a variety of ways.

1. The obvious: mispeelings, badly grammer, and punct'uation issues. Ugh. That even hurt to type. I'll bet it hurt to read, too. "Then" and "than" are not interchangeable. People don't "shutter," nor do they keep their eyes "pealed" for danger. Your girlfriend's "bear" arms are not sexy, trust me. I see it once? I hope it's a typo. More than once and I'm closing the book.
2. Characters who don't stay true to their personalities. A tough-as-nails FBI agent melts into a puddle of goo when her apartment is broken into. A young girl gets pregnant, has the baby and raises it alone while putting herself through medical school, and yet falls right back into the arms of the deadbeat boyfriend as soon as he comes back to town, years later, even though he's still a jerk. A tough guy suddenly can't make a decision, eat, sleep, or work because a hot girl came into his life for one night and disappeared. A snotty teen who is suddenly comfortable with the geek gang at school because . . . oh, I don't know why. The list goes on. People change, but they don't change instantly and it should actually look like a struggle if they're trying.
3. Impossible scenarios. Two people "in love" have a misunderstanding and somehow, one of them manages to move out of town without the other knowing it—in a small town where everyone knows everyone else's business (and everyone assumes, of course, that Person A knew about Person B moving away SIX MONTHS AGO). Two people hate each other for decades but get locked in a building of some type overnight—implausible enough—and suddenly realize they love each other deeply after eight hours of conversation.
4. Emotionally abusive/stalker behavior portrayed as intense love. Sorry folks. Not love. Not even close to love. This is even worse when it's in YA novels and intense jealousy and controlling behavior are played off as protectiveness. Don't teach young girls this is what to look for in a relationship.
5. Finding "true love forever" . . . at age eleven. When characters fall in love only to have circumstances separate them, and then meet up after twenty years apart, I expect those characters to be older than thirty. I can't count how many NA books I've read that employ this plot line.
6. Too much street slang. It's dialogue. It's "real." It's gritty. I get it, I do. But if the dialogue is so slang-y that I can barely decipher it, I'm quitting. I want to read, not struggle with a foreign language. What's the point of being so "real" that nobody knows what the heck you're talking about?
7. No research done by the author. If you're writing about high school kids, know that the football captain doesn't have practice in April. iPhones don't "snap" shut. People in Victorian times didn't use phrases like, "Oh, crap." Someone who is failing every class with a month of school remaining is not likely to graduate on time. Children in medieval times didn't make parchment paper airplanes during playtime. Well . . . maybe DaVinci did, but that's why he was a Renaissance man and not stuck in the Middle Ages.

I've seen all these things and more (in published books), and they've jarred me out of a book as effectively as my alarm clock drags me from sleep.  The only way to survive is to follow the drill:

STOP reading.

DROP the book.

ROLL your eyes and move along.

Coffee Chat 8.1 with S.K. Anthony: The Kidnapping of Janie Junebug, Part Two

For those of you who missed last week's excitement, you can find it HERE. Janie Junebug came to my house for a . . . visit, shall we say. Yes. A visit. I'm sure she would have come on her own, had she known how much fun it is to be at my house.

As it stands, she's been enjoying herself so much that she's reached out to hundreds of friends to tell them all about it! Well, actually, she's been asking for coats, hats, mittens and blankets, and my house is now filled with donations, but I'll take it. When she returns to Florida, everything will go to the city mission.

Ahh, so where were we? We were just getting ready to discuss how every writer has trouble areas, and S.K. had just given me permission to share hers.

[Fade to scene in my kitchen . . .]

ER: I will admit, S.K. has some trouble areas, but they have nothing to do with her writing. The woman is a coffee fiend . . . although I can't say that upsets me. And I can't work unless her twins are napping. Hmm . . . that seems to be my trouble area. Let's see what I can come up with . . .

Well, she does like commas. But her comma use is not as bad as she makes it out to be. Really, S.K. is the type of writer I really like. And S.K., I'm not just saying this because you're here and I want you to pour me another cuppa. You rewrite and rewrite until you're satisfied, looking at the manuscript for something different each time you go through it. I like that kind of thoroughness, because it makes my job a lot easier.

I think my own pet peeves stem from those writers who either don't take the time to revise, or who won't listen to good advice when it's given. I have no stake in whether you sell one book or five thousand books. I will get paid for my edits. So why would you think I'd waste my time suggesting something that wouldn't improve a book? (Not you, S.K.—you always listen to me.)

Janie, have you ever had someone reject perfectly sound editing you've done? I don't mean when an author wants to keep his/her "voice." I mean, if someone says, "I don't think I need to capitalize anyone's names. I don't care what The Chicago Manual of Style says. I'm not doing it." Would you have your name omitted in the book's editing credits?

JJ: S.K., you had me at "affect" and "effect." Lynda, my efforts have been rejected or ignored a couple of times. I think it happens to all of us. One writer had a terrible title for a book. I came up with a new title, but the writer had to "improve" on it and insisted that the book not be published without the desired title. A reviewer said that the only thing wrong with the book was the title, and, specifically, the author's change. The author then asked the publisher if it was too late to change the title. Yes, it was.

ER: I would be torn between feeling bad and wanting to say, “I told you so.” It’s the twelve year old in me, I know.

JJ: Some authors have to be the know-it-all. One author attacked me, verbally (we never met in person—thank you, God), and accused me of ruining the book because, supposedly, I had inserted a misspelled word. I never knew what the word was, but I pointed out that I had corrected numerous mistakes, that the author had the opportunity to make changes, and the book would be edited again. When it was published, I planned to present it on my blog and did a brief interview with the writer. The person attacked me again while answering the questions. Needless to say, I've had nothing more to do with that book, but I still love it and think it's one of the best books I've edited.

I have never been in a position to remove my name from a book. I don't know if I would. It would have to be a truly horrific situation for me to say, "I don't want to be associated with this book." Most of the authors with whom I work are very nice people who are eager to take advantage of my help. Sometimes I have to be tough with an author and say, "Look, this is the way it's done. Do you want it right or wrong?" But that doesn't happen a lot. I have very friendly relationships with a number of authors who have sent me gifts, or paid me more than I requested.

Lynda, don't you ever ring for the servants? I still want my frozen mocha peppermint coffee.

While I wait, I'd like to know if you've ever had your name removed from a book, Lynda?

ER: Um, yes. I'll ring for those servants again. [Runs out of the room, hisses to one of the kids that he needs to throw a few scoops of snow into the coffee and bring it to Janie while wearing a butler's outfit.]

I enjoy the authors I'm working with and have a great time when we chat, keeping in touch with them in between jobs. I feel we have a good relationship, and honesty is a big part of it, which makes the trust level pretty high on both sides. I've never had my name removed from a book, although Stephen Fender played a trick on me with his most recent book and purposely misspelled my name, nice and big, in the editing credits on the title page—for only my hardcover. He knew it would make me laugh, and now I have a collector’s edition.

On a serious note, however, I did free evals for someone who didn't want me to change things I knew were wrong. I eventually said no to the job, because I didn't want someone to judge my editing abilities on what that book would end up looking like. I've also wondered, because I mainly do copy/line edits, if someone will "blame the editor" for bad writing even if the technicalities of spelling and punctuation are done correctly.

S.K., what do you think about the advice you've been given? Is it easy to sift the good from the bad?

SKA: Of course it’s easy. If I agree with you, then you’re giving me good advice. Obviously. 

Seriously, though, it depends on what it is. If it has to do with storyline, I have to think it through before making a decision. If I want to keep things as they are, then I have to clear some things up. To my way of thinking, when something is questioned, something must be off somewhere. If it’s grammar, punctuation, or sentence structure I will most likely just agree. I’m working with a professional I trust. Otherwise, why bother working with this person? At the same time, I have to be able to feel comfortable enough to ask questions if I don’t understand the changes. 

Besides, nothing stops an author from doing her own research, right? The Internet is there. Merriam-Webster's dictionary is available online. Heck, I own my own Chicago Manual of Style. Answers are always close by, if we want to look hard enough. So advice is always welcomed. 

If you ladies could give one advice to your writers, what would it be? To help make your job easier, I mean.

ER: Ooh, I'm going to let Janie take this one first. And then I can say she stole all my good answers.

JJ: Work with me, not against me. I'm not your opponent. Feel free to ask me questions. Suggesting a change doesn't mean I hate your writing. It means that your writing can be better. I'll do great work for you if you are open to another point of view, and I will encourage the hell out of you. I'm on your side.

ER: Oh my goodness. You really did steal everything I would have said.

SKA: Janie . . . I think she’s serious. How could you come into her home and steal her words? Err . . . ignore the fact that you were kidnapped. That’s neither here nor there.

I do like that advice, though. I think both the author and editor owe each other the courtesy of making sure the other one shines in the best light possible. It's a team effort, no ifs or buts about it. We support each other and we must work together. So kudos, Janie . . . and Lynda for the wise words.

JJ: Good! This has been more fun than I thought it would be, but I would like to return to the land of fresh-squeezed orange juice and people who wear winter coats when it gets down to 60 degrees. I love the coffee. Please ask the butler what he added to give it such a special flavor. What gives it the yellowish tinge?

S.K., if you ever want me to visit again, then please ask me first. It doesn't seem very smart to wear Lilly Pulitzer shorts and a tank top when it's snowing, and The Queen of Grammar does not like to look stupid.

But thanks for the kidnapping and conversation! It's been real.

SKA: Well . . . I, hmm . . . I just thought you could use an adventure, that's all. Please tell your therapist I said, "You're welcome." But I will call and place an order ahead of time for our next dose of The Queen of Grammar. I promise.

Thank you, Janie, for being a great victim!

Now that I'm done with this kidnapping, I have to figure out my next mischievous move. While I do that, Lynda and I are opening up the stand to YOU, our readers. 

We thought it might be fun (to us, anyway) to allow you to ask us any burning questions you might have. Want to know who taught Lynda everything she knows? Probably me.

ER: It's true.

SKA: Want to know why I ramble so much? Because I can.

ER: Also true. I have no way of stopping her.

SKA: Any other questions, please ask in the comment section here or email us at Lynda's address (lyndadietz4@gmail.com) and tune in next Thursday for answers.

Janie can be found at http://dumpedfirstwife.blogspot.com/ where she has the loveliest blog, and on Twitter @JanieJunebug. 

As always:

You can find S.K. Anthony in a number of places. She's on Twitter @SKathAnthony, her website is www.skanthony.com, her Facebook page is S Katherine Anthony, and on occasional occasions, she'll be right here with me, drinking coffee and laughing it up over our latest plans and schemes. And possibly even talking about books and writing. 

You can find me here. I'm always here.