WRITING MISCONCEPTIONS: The Myth of the "Perfect" Edit

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

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

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

Here are the facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Editors: We Are Not the Grammar Police!

Editors.

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

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

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

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

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

But back to me.

I mean, other editors.

Okay, me. AND other editors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for listening, folks!

Love,

Lynda, the Shiny Word Fairy

Book Talk with Lynda: Special Guest J.T. Buckley

It’s been a while since I had a guest over. Part of the reason is that summers are busy for everyone. The main reason, though, was that S.K. Anthony (our dear Kat) took my carafe last time she was here, and it took me a while to get a replacement. Did you know it’s not safe to just put your face underneath the pot while it’s brewing? Me either. I scoured that instruction book from front to back and there was NO warning about it. Of all the dumb information that’s in there, you’d think they’d consider putting in something useful.

But hey, I’ve invited J.T. Buckley over today, and not only does he like coffee—and he’s a registered nurse, so any burn-related issues can be taken care of swiftly—but he’s an author.

So welcome to my kitchen, J.T.! [Pours a large mug of coffee, sits down, remembers guests should be served first, and reluctantly pushes favorite mug across the table. Heads off to find second-favorite mug.]

JT: Lynda, come back to the table—I brought my own cup. [Pulls a large mug from his bag that says “I am a writer I tell lies to people for money” and pours himself a cup while pushing the other one back. While her back is turned, he pulls out his Chicago Manual of Style and sets it on the side of the table.] I want to thank you for having me over. Your house is quite lovely, although not as I pictured it . . . Oh yeah—brought you presents! Here’s a coffee cup from Florida, and a new carafe for your coffee pot. With S.K. coming by, it never hurts to have a spare.

Lynda: Thank you so much! A person can never have too many coffee cups, I always say! And gosh, the carafe . . . you’re right. Having a spare is a great idea. And I’m really glad you could come up from Florida on short notice. The grape smell in my backyard will hopefully make up for any disruption to your schedule.

JT: Hey, it’s no problem, we have a hurricane passing close, so there’s less rain this way. The grape smell is quite nice. That reminds me. [Pulls a bag from the other one.] Fat-free muffins. No frowning until you taste them. I hope you have grape jelly.

Lynda: Muffins are muffins. If you brought one of your creations, I’ll eat them. [Spots the Chicago Manual of Style.] You brought your copy! Let me get mine so we have some great decor while we talk. I really feel like that lends some class to the atmosphere. [Grabs her own copy.] CHEERS! [They clink books high in the air and settle in.]

So. You have a couple published books under your belt, and I know what you have coming up for release soon, so you know I have to ask you: you don’t seem to stick to one genre. Do you actually have a favorite, or do you write what the voices in your head tell you to write, and don’t argue with them?

JT: Well, if I had to pick, my heart is in science fiction and fantasy. Authors like Heinlein, Clarke, Norton are who gave me the desire to write. Then of course I was a role player from way back, so those two genres are well represented in role playing games.

Lynda: Working with science fiction authors opened my eyes to the RPG factor. Many of them use a lot of those elements to determine what comes next in a space battle, or an action scene: a roll of the dice will tell whether you’re hit by a photon torpedo or you have an engine down, for example. I think a lot of it (role playing) prepares you for the “what if” factor that’s needed when writing sci fi.

JT: Urban fantasy is a new love; books like Piers Anthony’s Incarnations of Immortality brought me into that genre. So the Terra Rising series is a work of passion for me. I was tired of all the whiny dystopian society SF out there so I decided to create a space opera series with happy endings. But the voices do control what I am working on at the time.

Lynda: I like that Terra Rising has a happier tone to it. I don’t mind dystopian but I get a little irritated when every author of sci fi seems to think the future is all doom and gloom.

What prompted you to write Blood and Steel, then? It’s definitely not space opera. Trying to stretch your writing muscles? Something you couldn’t shake from your mind? A dare? Lose a bet?

JT: I hated the way vampires were portrayed and how inconsistent their concepts were. I knew that vampire novels were a fad, but I had a new thought about it. What if vampires were hidden among us? What if they were like regular people? What if they were treated as a minority that everyone was afraid of because they didn’t understand them, so they had to hide who they really were? Blood and Steel started out as a vampire-bashing story but turned into an urban fantasy with a romance subplot. Kind of the mortal-enemies-fall-in-love kind of thing. Then there is the internal conflict when Rick not only becomes a vampire but loses his identity at the same time. I also wanted to try something current day yet extraordinary. Voilá! Urban fantasy. It is also part of a bigger group of books I will be introducing in the near future … Plus as a history buff, I can weave my characters’ histories into past events.

Lynda: A lot of dark fiction writers get really ticked at monsters not being monstrous, like the “sparkly vampire” crowd. The idea is that if a character is scary enough to be a monster, then they should be more bad than good. I’m not sure what side of the fence I’m on where that’s concerned. I kind of like both ideas but not in the same book.

JT: I am not into the sparkly vampire crowd; my “good” vampires just want to be human again and my bad ones are definitely bad and create real monsters as is plain in Blood and Steel: Awakenings.

Lynda: Have you ever thought about combining genres to have a fantasy set in space? I’ve been reading lately about science fantasy, or space fantasy. It seems to blur the line, much like the Star Wars universe.

JT: Strangely enough, I actually do have a short story that is an idea start for something much bigger. Faster-than-light travel is facilitated by wormholes created by mages between areas of space. The story starts with a mage on his “final exam” and his professor dies in the middle of the transit and he has to take over. He successfully completes the transit but because of the microseconds of lost concentration between the two, the fabric of reality doesn’t close, generating a “tear” in reality. Magic is used throughout the ship with magic-augmented weapons, scrying navigators, etc. The story is going to be the mage trying to seal the rift caused by his dead master.

Lynda: Whoa. I really like that story idea! I’m partial to anything that messes with time/space and wormholes. I love the different ideas writers come up with for what could possibly happen (fictionally) in a black hole or a wormhole, or with the stretching of time’s fabric, so to speak. So please make sure I’m still your editor when it comes time to getting that story ready. I’d hate to miss out on seeing it before everyone else. I’m nosy that way.

I have to ask you this because everyone always wants to know these things. [Looks over at the cat, who blinks twice and avoids further eye contact.] Yes . . . um, everyone wants to know for sure. Do you consider yourself a plotter or a pantser? Or a plantser? Or some other made-up name that still describes a combination of those two extremes?

JT: I am a combination. I write a skeleton story as my outline then flesh it out. So I guess I am a panlotser. Ha! Got that out without too much trouble. [Looks in his cup and frowns.]

Lynda: Got it. You wear lots of pants. I think. And you write while wearing them. That’s a good habit, you know. Not everyone gets it right. And it looks like you need more coffee, and I know I need another muffin, because I’m pretty sure fat-free means calorie-free, so I can have extra. And the coffee will taste better if it’s not lonely. [Fills both mugs and is astounded that JT’s mug actually holds 24 ounces of coffee with room to spare.]

So do you have a favorite part of the process that you’d consider your sweet spot? Some people hate rewrites and others love them. Some like the concept portion but hate the execution of it. Others are happiest when they send it off to someone else.

JT: I love the whole process of creation and writing until after the second rewrite, then it becomes a drudge until it comes back from you and I get to go over it with fresh eyes. Then it becomes a pleasure again. So I guess the main writing part and the first pass with the finalizing are my favorites. Does that make sense? This is really good coffee—does AndyAndy like it?

Lynda: AndyAndy would love it if he hadn’t had to go to rehab and swear off the stuff. He had a lot of chill-out time with catnip therapy that helped him get back on track. Now the coffee is all mine. I mean, ours. For today, anyway, and then it’s back to being mine.

I recently found a quote about the whole writing/editing process by Samuel S. Vaughan:

“Why isn’t the manuscript ready? Because every book is more work than anyone intended . . . By the middle of the writing, the book has become, for the author, a hate object. For the editor, in the middle of editing, it has become a two-ton concrete necklace. However, both author and editor will recover the gleam in their eyes when the work is completed, and see the book as the masterwork it really is.”

It describes so well what I’ve heard authors mention. It also describes how I’ve felt on occasion when an edit is much more involved than I expected, or when a story has that “once through is enough” feeling but I still need to go through it a second time. Thankfully, those times are few. Over the years, the quality of the writing I’m willing to accept has gone up—I’m not so desperate for work that I’ll take anything and then be sorry I said yes. The result of taking the better-quality work is that I’m happier while I’m working. No one should ever dread working on a book.

JT: I am surprised you haven’t asked for my advice to new writers . . . well, since you didn’t ask, here it is anyway. Remember that a first draft’s job is to exist. Nothing else.

Lynda: I can’t believe I didn’t ask that either. I think I was distracted by the muffins, even though I’ve only eaten three of them. But I’m glad you remembered to give good advice anyway. So many newbies forget that the whole thing is one step at a time.

JT: And that is the key, one step at a time.

Lynda: So I know you have the next book in the Terra Rising series, Manifest Destiny, coming out, because I have the manuscript in my grubby mitts right now. What else do you have brewing for next year? I know you writer types always have at least three books going on in your brains, even if only one is actively getting written.

JT: Well, I have Blood and Steel 2 coming out in the winter, and the first book in my new fantasy series. It is called Feren: Rise of the Mage King . . . and several more are in the works but they are top secret.

Lynda: Top secret stuff is always my favorite. I can't wait until I'm in the loop on those, too.

After J.T. leaves my kitchen, you can find him in a multitude of places. His house is one of them, but I won't give you the address because he's all out of muffins. Here are the other places to look:

Amazon Author page: amazon.com/author/jtbuckley
Facebook JT Buckley page: https://www.facebook.com/authorjtbuckley/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AuthorJTBuckley
Website: www.jtbuckley.com
Blog: www.jtbuckley.com/blog
Facebook Terra Rising page: https://www.facebook.com/bookTerraRising
Facebook Blood and Steel Series page:
https://www.facebook.com/Blood-and-Steel-773903689365731/

Worst Writing Advice: Semicolons—Are They Even Legal?

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

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

SEMICOLONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worst Writing Advice: Contractions Aren't Allowed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Worst Writing Advice: Get Rid of ALL the Adverbs!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writer's Block and Getting My Groove Back

One of my favorite Calvin and Hobbes comics
by Bill Watterson

I found myself having a hard time coming up with a post for this week. Actually, I realized—too late, of course—that I should have had a post ready for last week instead, according to my "post every other week" pattern. Oops.

Better late than never, right? Except that I have too many ideas and no ideas, all at the same time. I have at least nine drafts in my folder, and none of them appeal to me right now as things I want to write about. "Drafts" is sort of a loose term, too . . . some have a couple paragraphs, and some are a single sentence with a main idea that may or may not still make sense to me now. (Think goat—shoes—apostrophes—passive voice and you'll get the idea of why I'm writing this blatantly generic post.)

I blame the AtoZ Challenge. Yes, that was back in April . . . and I wrote the posts in March so I could preschedule them . . . and now it's June . . . but somehow, the month of May threw me off my groove. I've been crazy busy with editing jobs, which has been wonderful, and if everyone who's booked ahead comes in on time, I'll be crazy busy with editing jobs through the summer months.

I've also taken some editing classes over the past couple months and have started a six-week course this week to improve my copyediting skills. It pays to keep up the skills I have and to learn new ones. The language is always changing. I work in a variety of genres, both fiction and nonfiction. Authors and their writing skills vary from client to client, and I never know what skills I'm going to need until I start a particular job. Am I doing a simple copyedit? Am I making major structural changes? Am I coaching as I go along so the writing improves for the next book? Am I fact-checking?

I'm encouraged by the number of good writers I'm working with, and I'm encouraged by the humble, teachable attitude of the newer writers I've worked with recently—those whose work has "good bones" and simply needs a little elbow grease. It's a good season and I'm happy for the way Easy Reader Editing has grown and continues to grow.

One of the changes that is on the horizon is that I'm moving the "business" end of this site to an actual website instead of trying to mold my blog into a do-it-all spot. The blog itself will stay the same, and it will remain here on Blogger, but it will link through my new site, and all the pesky details of services and pricing will be moved so it doesn't clutter up the works here. If all goes well in the setup, it should be almost a non-event for blog readers.

So hey, I guess I had some things to say, even if they rambled a bit. In the event that you'd like to see a blog post about something other than goats, shoes, and apostrophes, let me know in the comments, and I'll gladly do some research to accommodate you. I love to answer the burning questions that no one else cares about can.

Editor's Notes #43: Best Books on Writing and Editing Part 3—More of Your Thoughts

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more here.

In Editor's Notes #41, I told you about some of the books I read over the past year to further my knowledge of writing and editing. In Editor's Notes #42, I provided some recommendations I've received from others, and in today's post, I'm rounding out the list of books that author & editor friends have mentioned repeatedly as their go-tos. In fact, I had to cut books off the list because there were simply too many to cover effectively. If any of you are like I am, too many recommendations at once quickly become overwhelming, and I won't acquire any of them. And what's the use of recommending a bunch of things people are going to ignore, right?

So without further ado, here are three great recommendations. In fact, the last one can be heard on YouTube and will take less than twenty minutes of your time. You won't regret it.

The Sense of Style by Steven Pinker—Described as "more contemporary and comprehensive than The Elements of Style, Pinker's wit and clarity make this one a favorite I've seen recommended over and over. In his own words, "Good writing can flip the way the world is perceived." In my opinion, that makes for some of the best writing.

Stein On Writing by Sol Stein is highly recommended. Sol Stein is not only an author, but an editor too. He explains, "This is . . . a book of usable solutions—how to fix writing that is flawed, how to improve writing that is good, how to create interesting writing in the first place." Most who have recommended this book mention that it has many unique ideas and really has a little bit of something for everyone, whether you're a new writer or have been doing it for years.

Make Good Art by Neil Gaiman is actually a book created from the transcript of a speech given by Gaiman as a commencement address at Philadelphia's University of the Arts. Many people point out that the message is full of the WOW factor: even if you're unsure of your path, when your future seems uncertain, take what you've been given and make it into something better than what you started with. That being said, even those who love this speech really don't have a lot of good to say about the book. According to many reviewers, the book is so poorly designed that it is difficult to read . . . not "good art" at all. If you want the full effect of what Gaiman had to say, look up the video on YouTube and listen to the man himself. It really is an incredible speech, full of wisdom, humility, and humor, that I found to be time well spent.

So that's what I have, folks! As always, let me know if you've read any of these, and what you thought. Happy reading!

Editor's Notes #42: Best Books on Writing and Editing Part 2—Your Thoughts

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more here.

In Editor's Notes #41, I talked about one of my personal goals from 2017 that I'm continuing in 2018: reading one non-fiction book on writing and editing at all times, regardless of whatever else I'm reading for work or pleasure. I listed a few of my favorites and then asked about yours. I also read through a handful of threads in my editing groups to see what they recommended. There are so many wonderful books out there that it's hard to know which ones to prioritize, but I'll make an attempt here to list the ones that seem to get mentioned over and over again, and you can let me know if you've read any of them, or if you'd recommend something completely different.

Here are four great books to start with, as recommended by others in the field. As I began to work on this post, I realized there were TOO many good books to cram into one place, so I'm going to add a third post to this series and will share more with you next time. Too many recommendations at once will all start to blur into one another, I think, and then you may not look into any of them due to being overwhelmed.

The Best Punctuation Book, Period by June Casagrande—In my last post, I told you about how much I liked Casagrande's style. One of the editor admins of a group I'm in said she bought this because "the author was so nice" to her on Twitter. It pays to be kind, people. But I digress. The book covers punctuation for all sorts of styles, from Chicago Manual of Style to Associate Press, MLA (Modern Language Association) and APA (American Psychological Association). Having the conventions of book publishing, science and other academic journals, news media and more presented side by side makes this almost a one-stop shop.

Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life by Anne Lamott—I've seen this recommended multiple times by writers and editors alike. As if she read my mind, author Kim Watt posted a video review of it recently, calling it "encouraging" and filled with "lovely humor." She even reads an excerpt from it about supportive people at "Zen and the Art of Making Mistakes"

The Emotion Thesaurus: A Writer's Guide to Character Expression by Angela Ackerman—I believe S.K. Anthony (Writers After Dark and her own book site) recommended this one to me years ago. This is only one book in Ackerman's series, and it's full of page after page of helpful ways to show emotion in your writing. I do own this one, but since it's not a book that one reads from front to back, I didn't list it in the last post. I follow this author on Instagram, and she is all about helping writers to be their best . . . even the name of her IG account is writers_helping_writers_angela. Her website, One Stop for Writers, has a nice selection of helpful checklists, idea generators, templates, and more. The other books in the Thesaurus series include Emotional Wound, Positive Trait, Urban Setting, Rural Setting, and Negative Trait.

The Marshall Plan for Novel Writing by Evan Marshall—Author Jack Tyler (Beyond the Rails) mentioned this in the comments of my previous post, so I forced asked him to write a little bit about it. Jack says, "Like so many people, I had plenty of ideas for stories, and always wanted to write, but had no idea how to put the elements together. I went through scores of books that gave me such priceless information as "always have an engaging story in mind," and "strong characters need deep backstories." Good advice, but marginally helpful at best.
         "Enter Evan Marshall, a New York superagent, and his Marshall Plan for Novel Writing. In this book, he details the concepts that everyone else seems to assume you know, items like how many viewpoint characters you need, who these characters are, their roles, how many scenes to give each one, when to drop twists and surprises, all those things that are vital if you're going to construct a compelling story.
         "The Marshall Plan isn't for everyone. I have tried and failed to write without a plan. I needed to know how that plan should be constructed, and The Marshall Plan delivers the goods thoroughly and understandably. I bought that book new in 1998, and became an effective writer shortly thereafter. I've always been able to construct the pieces, but thanks to Mr. Marshall's insights, I now know how to use them to build the finished product."

***

There you have it. A handful of books to look into until next time. If you own or have read any of these, I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether they've been helpful to your writing journey or not. If you have something you like better, let's hear about it! I have at least six more books others have been telling me about, and I'll be posting the ones that have been recommended the most often.

Until next time, happy reading and happy researching!

Editor's Notes #41: Best Books on Writing and Editing Part 1—My Thoughts

As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more here.


Now that the first couple weeks of January are a tired memory of back to work, back to school, back to healthy eating, a wee bit of self-care and readjustment to routine, I'm ready to get things rolling again here. I have a lot of things I'm excited about this year, and one of them deals with my reading life, of course.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I had a few sort-of goals for 2017 that were more in my head than written anywhere, but since I had so few of them, they were pretty easy to remember.

For my professional growth, I set out to have one non-fiction book—related to editing or writing—happening at all times. This one yielded some fun reads. And before you say that there is nothing funny about grammar and "How to Write the More Better Stuff" books out there, I need to stop you. There are some terrific books that are instructional but far from boring (even for those who hate grammar rules). I firmly believe that reading books geared toward the writing craft helps my editing.

Copy editing deals with the hard and fast rules more often than not—the nonnegotiables, as I think of them—so a quick search through The Chicago Manual of Style, Merriam-Webster, the Associated Press Stylebook or similar books will yield answers without much fuss. Commas, punctuation, common spellings, even UK v. US styles . . . all very black and white.

However, line editing is slightly different and involves sentence structure, POV inconsistencies, awkward phrasing, clichés, verb tense, ambiguity, and more. This is where the writing books come in handy for me. The more I know about why sentences are constructed in a particular way for a particular purpose, the better I become at spotting when something is "off." This not only makes the editing itself more thorough, but it also speeds up my work process as I become more adept, and errors sort of jump out at me. I also may or may not get a teeny thrill when I catch something particularly tricky.

One of my favorite books from 2017 was It Was the Best of Sentences, It Was the Worst of Sentences by June Casagrande. This is, as the subtitle claims, "a writer's guide to crafting killer sentences." The book is practical but filled with good, sarcastic, wicked sass, and that's one of two reasons I loved it. The second reason is that the writing advice is as solid as they come. It covers a lot of ground but never gets boring. Casagrande has a handful of books out there I plan on working my way through, including Grammar Snobs Are Great Big Meanies: A Guide to Language for Fun and Spite. I'm a sucker for a great title.

The New Well-Tempered Sentence: A Punctuation Handbook for the Innocent, the Eager, and the Doomed by Karen Elizabeth Gordon is also a favorite of mine, though not technically one I read in 2017. Again, like Casagrande's book, it's filled with humor while not compromising on solid information. Where else can you find a chapter on serial commas that includes the following example?

She attended the wedding feast in her Buster Brown collar, her water moccasins, her spring-loaded pelvic girdle, and her coiffeur's interpretation of Medusa at the Mardi Gras.

I also own another book by Gordon, The Deluxe Transitive Vampire, which looks promising but which I've not yet gotten through. It is set up as a gothic narrative with a cast of characters that includes a vampire (of course), bat, wolf, pizza chef, mastodon, and more. I don't see any reason why this book shouldn't be a win.

I finally got around to reading Stephen King's On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft, which has been read by probably every writer out there, and a great many non-writers who simply like Stephen King. I didn't know what to expect from this and was almost overwhelmed by how much I enjoyed it. I used to love reading his books when I was in college and then somehow got away from them as life got busy, marriage and kids took over, and my reading tastes shifted. But the autobiographical portion of this one rekindled my desire to read his stuff, and the writing advice portion of it was just so practical and no-nonsense that it made me want to write a book. If you happen to be in the .001% of the population who has not read this gem, I suggest you get your butt to the bookstore.

I'm currently in the middle of Building Great Sentences: How to Write the Kinds of Sentences You Love to Read by Brooks Landon. This one is slow going for me, probably because I've now become spoiled by funny, entertaining writing/editing books like the ones mentioned above. However, I'm persevering through this one, because it's actually good. It's just not entertaining, which doesn't diminish the kind of writing advice it includes. At first, I found it ironic that the subtitle talked about the kind of sentences I "love to read" but the sentences I was reading in it were not as lovable as I'd expected. I don't agree with 100% of his advice, because he seems to be a lover of longer sentences, and I imagine his more devoted followers might lean toward purple prose if given the opportunity. However, I have to admit the sometimes-tedious detail he goes into when deconstructing sentences for analysis is helpful when all is said and done. He even says, at the end of an exercise on page 93, "We do not actually think like this when we write! This is a highly artificial and arbitrary exercise, but there is no better way to internalize the various logic patterns available to the writer who knows how cumulative sentences work." So let me say that I do recommend this one, but know what you're in for when you pick it up.

I've shared some of my favorites with you in this post. Part 2 will be focused on your favorites, and the books I've seen recommended over and over again in writer and editor groups. So if you would, please drop me a line at lyndadietz4@gmail.com and tell me what your favorite writing books are, and why. I'll gladly include them.

Memories of Christmas Vacation with S.K. Anthony

As most of my longtime blog followers know, S.K. Anthony and I have had a good number of adventures over the years. One of the fun things we used to do was our Coffee Chat series. Life has intruded with the busyness it's famous for, and we don't have the time to do those chats anymore (not for public consumption, anyway—no one would want to read our daily conversations), but there are a few favorites that make me laugh every time I reread them. This one is appropriate to share before Christmas, even though it originally posted in March of 2014. You'll see why as you read on.

Enjoy this little blast from the past, and I'll see you all back here in January!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Today’s Coffee Chat is where we finally answer some of the questions our readers have asked. I can’t believe how many there are! I’m really overwhelmed, considering how many people there are who don’t follow my blog. But hey, S.K. dragged in a huge mail bag yesterday so we could have it all ready to go for this morning, and I have coffee brewing, homemade cinnamon rolls in the oven, and my laptop ready to type out our answers.

While I wait for her to arrive, I want to remind all of you that we’ll be taking a Coffee Chat vacation during the entire month of April since we’re both participating in the Blogging from A to Z Challenge. We’ll have short posts on our blogs each day except for Sundays, and don’t want to bog down the blogosphere with extras. It’s funny . . . ever since I got my posts ready for the A to Z, I seem to only be capable of doing certain things in alphabetical order. I tried to pack my bags for our vacation and found myself filling my suitcase with an accordion, a bullhorn, coffee, dog biscuits, earplugs, French fries, grease remover (because of the fries), a hammock, icicle lights—

SKA: He-he-heyyyy everyone! I’m in such a good mood, I’m ready to go through our fan mail, Lynda. Wow! [Stops and looks around at the mess in Lynda’s house.] You’re packing all of this? What on earth would you need a bullhorn for?

ER: The bullhorn is for anyone who doesn't like my accordion playing. It comes in handy more often than you'd think. So how do you want to do this? Take turns reading the questions to each other?

SKA: Oh, well, okay then . . .  Why don't I read the questions and you type?

ER: I don't mind taking turns, but—hey! [S.K. grabs the letter.]

SKA: So first question, Lynda, for you: “What do your elves . . . ah . . . kids . . . do for fun?”

ER: My kids are musicians, so they spend a lot of their free time with guitars in their hands. If not that, then they're . . . I don't actually know what they do. Maybe I should actually pay attention to them once in a while.

SKA: Eh, I say let them be. Ooh, this one is for me: “I love you! You're awesome! What do I get if I was both naughty and nice?” Oh, dear fan, thank you. I'm blushing. I think if you are both naughty and nice, then you live a balanced life. You get to read my books, that's what you get!

Next one is for you, Lynda. “Why didn't you bring me—” Umm, okay, let's skip this one; we have too many to answer anyway. Here: “Why do you always wear red?”

ER: I wonder how our fans know I love to wear red. Huh. I guess it's just a good color on me. It went well with my hair when it was brown, and now it goes nicely with the grey. These are kind of . . . interesting questions. I thought they'd be asking about our writing or something.

SKA: Oh, you know fans. They’re out there. Okay this one is for both of us: “What brought on your passion for making and giving away toy—umm, drinking coffee?” Our passion for drinking coffee, Lynda. I read that wrong, sorry.

For me it was lack of sleep and low energy, to be honest. When I started college, I realized staying up late doing homework, watching TV, reading, and studying for tests gave my body a need to start an addiction of something. I chose coffee. I did ease up a bit after I graduated . . . but then I became a mother and the addiction took a whole other level. It has a life of its own, I think.

ER: I started drinking coffee at a young age; and the only change is a better quality of coffee now. I can get by without it if I have to, but I really enjoy the taste. Caffeine is a bonus, but there's just something about coffee that tea drinking can't replace. I like the ritual of walking around with the mug, and sitting around with my hubby in the morning, catching up over a cuppa.

Are you sure you don't want me to read some of those letters? They're all on such colorful paper. They look like fun!

SKA: They . . .  are colorful and pretty, but they’re in Spanish. I’m translating them for you. [Clears throat.] So . . . this next one wants to know why you skipped him last year, oh . . . okay these people are weird. Let me try another one. [Shuffles papers around.] This one is asking what we do the rest of the year. [Frowns.] You know, maybe one last try or we give up. Hey! What–

ER: [Grabs bag.] Give me those. Hey! These are letters for SANTA! They’re not even in Spanish. What in the world are you doing with a bag of letters to Santa Claus? I thought these were from our fans!

SKA: Umm . . . those who love Santa love us too! Fine. Let’s just answer the real questions then. :(

ER: Do we have any real questions?

SKA: Yeah. [Slumps down on a chair.] You have them . . .

ER: Sigh . . . well, let's get on with it, then. This one's for you: “If you could write a book with a social message, what would it be?”

SKA: Good one! A little tough, but good nonetheless. I can stay general and say, “Make love not war,” or be specific and say, “No more bullies!” But in my opinion, I can write just one small message that can make the same impact for one or both: Believe in yourself. I think changes start with and within a person, but unless he believes he can achieve his goal—like bringing world peace, standing up for victims, following dreams, or just promoting love—he will simply not get too far. I think you have to be passionate to stand up for something. I’m not even sure this counts as a social message, but I still believe you can’t achieve much unless you set an example for anyone who wants to follow. First you start with yourself.

Don’t even ask me how I would go about writing this message in a book . . . this caught me off guard. I was mostly prepared to answer questions that were directed at Santa.

ER: I'm not knocking the Santa questions. It would be pretty nice to be that popular. The question for me is asking what my favorite books are to edit. I can honestly say I don't have a favorite so far. I've done paranormal, science fiction, horror and urban fantasy and have enjoyed them all. Of course, I will always enjoy the books more if I don't have to adjust as much, but even that is fun, knowing I'm helping an author to say what he or she intended in the clearest manner possible.

All right, now we have a riddle. This one's for you. “If you're in a house and all the windows face south, what color is the bear outside your window?”

SKA: Oh that’s easy! The color of the bear is scary. I don’t discriminate against bears and their colors, I’m scared of all of them equally. [Laughs.]

All right, seriously, white. If all the walls face south, the house is at the North Pole, so the bear is polar. A polar bear that is, not a bipolar bear. Though, it might be bipolar . . . I’m not finding out.

ER: Bipolar bears end up at the South Pole with the penguins. You know, two poles? Bipolar? Don't let anyone tell you they're not there. Now here's a twist on the final riddle. The answer is: an egg. What is the question?

SKA: Don’t act up, Lynda. These riddles are for us; I take one, you take one. So . . . what IS the real question? ’Cause my question would be, “What did you cook to go along with my bacon?”

ER: But I already answered it, so if I ask the question, I'll . . . oh, forget it. Question: “A box without hinges, key, or lid. But inside, a golden treasure is hid.”

Um . . . hmm . . . this is a tough one. I'm going to guess the answer is . . . six lines above this one. An egg. No surprise there. I guess that worked out for the best after all.

SKA: I knew because of The Hobbit, but you asked me the question and I didn’t think it fair I give you the question/answer/question after giving the last answer, even though you gave me a question and then an answer . . . wait, what just happened? Where is my Dear Santa bag?

ER: I kind of liked the Santa ones better . . .   So this is our last Coffee Chat until April is over, right?

SKA: Sadly, yes. We’ll be taking a Coffee Chat Vacation. A forced one, I have to say. Before we sign off on our last chat until May, here’s the last question of the day: It’s from a “fan” and it’s directed to you, since this is your blog. “What’s wrong with you people?”

ER: That . . . that is an answer for another post. Maybe a series of posts.

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.

"Sticker Shock" and the Cost of Edits

Put a group of editors and authors together on any online forum, and not only will you get five helpful suggestions for every three people involved, you'll get a large number of opinions on editing, what it means, and of course the dreaded C-O-S-T.

I recently joined a group called Ask A Book Editor, and have enjoyed the interactions and information exchange. Self-promotion is strictly forbidden, so it's simple Q&A with authors and other editors. Someone recently asked about free evaluations, cost per hour v. cost per word, and costs in general.

After participating in a lively discussion of "if you charge X, you're not charging enough," I thought I'd check out the Excel file that lists all the editors who are part of the site so I could explore some of these people and their pricing structure—just to see where I landed on the spectrum.

And . . . wow. I'm a cheap date.

I knew from talking with authors I've worked with that I charge about half of what many freelancers do. In fact, when I started working with Raymond Esposito, he said he'd paid exactly twice as much with another editing house before working with me—and I ended up re-editing the two books that other business had worked on. But what an eye-opener to see what some of these people rake in! My cost per word is, at best, half of that charged by others . . . but in the majority of situations I found that these people were charging three times what I do, sometimes with an hourly rate added on. One editor quoted rates "starting at .018 per word plus $45/hour," which sounded outlandish to me. And yet, these people are all working steadily.

Funny thing: there were those who were almost pricing snobs. Their opinion was that editors who charged x amount (actually, what I charge, though I was a little embarrassed to admit it to them) were either incompetent or trying to undercut the competition. I am neither. I like to think of myself as realistic with what the average indie author can afford and is willing to spend. I've given what I think is a reasonable estimate after a free evaluation, complete with discount, and have had people say, "Oh, I had no idea it would cost that much, to be honest."

What do I say to that? "Um, did you look at anyone's prices prior to contacting them directly?" comes to mind, even if it sounds incredibly snarky. Because if it were me, and I looked at someone's site to get their contact information, I would check out the pricing, calculate what my particular MS would cost, and then shop around to come up with three to five editors of varying rates for evaluation. The cheapest estimate is not always the lowest quality; nor does a higher rate guarantee better quality. In general terms, these things may hold truth, but the work itself needs to be considered.

In another online group, an author was looking for an editor, and many people in the group mentioned Reedsy. One author said it was "expensive but worth it" and when asked about cost, she mentioned about $2,000 for a typical-length novel. I can understand that for developmental editing, but for copy editing & proofreading (the type she was quoting), I can tell you that most indie authors can not afford that—nor will they pay it. They'll either go cheap and hope for the best, or they'll publish without professional edits and will continue to promote the stereotype of self-pubs putting out subpar work. This is why I offer more affordable pricing with options. I hate the idea that talented work is out there, unedited. In all other aspects of life, we manage to find the money and time for things that are important to us—and yet when it comes to editing a novel into which you've put your time, sweat, imagination, and future writing reputation, there's an attitude of "It's more than I want to pay, so it's okay to go without this step."

I can't compete with Reedsy, and thankfully I don't have to. The authors I've worked with are determined to put forth the best product they possibly can, and I help them to do so. Is a big name like Reedsy worth it? I don't know, since I'd have to compare their work side by side to my own. I do know the editors I've spoken with (who have been approached by Reedsy) say they prefer to work as freelancers because Reedsy doesn't pay well. One guy posted a status update last night, saying, "That time when you took a low-paying job with a big publishing house, hoping it would lead to bigger, better jobs . . . and six months later, I got another from them, at half the rate they paid last time. Never again. I much prefer working with the author directly."

It makes me wonder if, when all is said and done, their [Reedsy's] editors—and perhaps those employed by other large editing/publishing houses—aren't making a whole lot more than I am. Except in this case, the author is paying the difference.

Read that last sentence again. If we're making about the same, why not cut out the middleman—the one who isn't doing the work—and pay the freelancer directly? I may be biased, but it sure seems more cost-effective to me.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And now a shameless plug from our sponsor: 

For the month of October, I'm running a special on editing packages for 2018, and it's pretty doggone good, so you may wish to check it out on my "Special Offers" tab. Plus you get to see a kickin' photo of an old, happy guy playing the accordion with one hand while holding a large mug of beer in the other. (Yeah, that'll get you running over there . . .)

Book Talk with Lynda: Special Guest Brandon Ax

Hey, everyone! Today marks the beginning of something special, and I’m glad you’re here to share it. Back in the day when free time was in abundance (about three or four years ago), S.K. Anthony and I used to get together for coffee on a weekly basis and talk about all kinds of things bookish. Pure intellectual stuff, it was. Or something like that.

[Side note: If you ever have time—and brain cells—to kill, check out my Coffee Chat tab. But start at the beginning or it will never make any sense. Um . . . and starting with the first one doesn’t actually guarantee the subsequent ones will make sense, but it helps.]

Here I was, missing the days when S.K. used to break into my house (before she had her own key made), take over my kitchen, and chat with me awhile about everything relating to writing and reading. So I decided to invite someone over today to talk about book stuff. I thought about who would be too polite to say no, and chose Brandon Ax because he’s from the South, and we all know how polite southerners are. Right? Not only did he say yes (I knew it!) but he just so happens to have a new book coming out in a few days, so I won’t have to pull out my 3x5 index cards of Conversation Starters for Awkward Moments.

[Heads toward the kitchen.] Hmm . . . he’s actually waiting outside the door. How odd. I guess I’ll have to get used to guests waiting for me to let them into my house.

L: [Opens door to let him in.] Hey, Brandon! Welcome to the very first Book Talk with Lynda. Make yourself comfy and I’ll grab you a cup of coffee.

B: [Walks in and takes a seat at the table.] Oh thanks! Actually a glass of water would be great.

L: [Pours cup of coffee and plops it down in front of him.] Here you go! Drink up; I made plenty.

B: Um . . . thanks.

L: So hey, I’m pretty excited that the third book in your Light Bringer series is coming out on Monday. I’ve actually read it and I’m still excited because that means it’s official, and everyone else can enjoy it too. Are you feeling any sadness at saying goodbye to the characters?

B: [Nudges the coffee cup around.] There is a bit of sadness. Although who knows what the future holds. They have been a part of my life for so long I don’t know that I can truly stop telling stories about them. However, I am really excited about the things I am working on now. [Waits for Lynda to turn her attention to the oven, where something smells wonderful, and promptly pours coffee in the cat’s dish.]

L: I’m excited about homemade cinnamon rolls for breakfast! They go so well with the coffee, and they’ll cheer up your sadness. [Hands over full plate.] So of course I have my favorite characters—seriously, Zander is my fave—but I loved the addition of new characters in Light Bringer. Some of them, I wanted to punch, but I’m sure you may have felt the same way. Have you ever had a bad-guy character where you were like, “Ooooooh, if you weren’t essential to the plot I would kill you so fast . . . better watch yourself, mister . . .”

B: [Takes a soft, warm roll from the plate and tries not to make too many “mmm” sounds as he bites in.] Well, I try not to write villains as much as antagonists. As such I get into their heads and find their motivation. In the end, although I don’t like the things they do, I understand where they are coming from. Having said that, there is a Weaver in the first book who made me contemplate interesting ways to kill a character. She was particularly vile and her motivations were pretty self-centered and obnoxious.  

L: She really was. I was hoping she’d get it good. And what if Lynn or Sidney or Connor or any of the gang starts talking to you again? Would this particular storyline continue somehow, or would you come from a completely different direction?

B: That’s the thing, right? They never really stop talking to me. There may or may not be a document. In this possible document, there may or may not be the beginnings of something. I will just have to wait and see what happens. I do have a prequel in the works mostly geared around Aiden. Also there are a few side characters in this last book who are screaming for a spin-off.  

L: What a tease. I would love any or all of those, so write as quickly and as often as you can. [Looks to the side as something whizzes by.] Whoa! Check out AndyAndy! I don't know what that's all about . . . that cat never moves that fast! But anyway, I know you're also an artist . . . does art have anything to do with what you're working on right now? And let me refill that coffee for you.

B: I'm really not that much of a—

L: Here you go! [Places a steaming mug in front of him.]

B: [Sighs.] Thanks . . .

L: So, those other interests and projects . . .?

B: [Watches the cat run laps around the table.] Yeah, I do a lot. I have always drawn, but I also love to paint and make clay figures. I have illustrated a book for someone and even dabble a bit in writing songs. Writing is my first love and will always win out, but I figured I could use some of those others here as well. So one thing I am doing as part of the giveaway is painting pictures so I can give away some prints. Would you like to see them? [Goes to grab another roll and promptly pours the coffee in a house plant.]

L: Are you kidding me? YES. I’ve seen some of your clay figures in the past, and think the book you illustrated has an adorable cover. Of course I’m a big fan of songwriting, too, and taking a peek at your paintings is naturally the next step. Doing a giveaway of the paintings is a phenomenal idea and I think your readers will really love it. What are you waiting for? Gosh, you’d think those two cups of coffee would have kicked in by now. Let me refill that cup while you grab your paintings.

B: But I—

L: Bottoms up, my man. [Lifts mug to “cheers” him.]

B: [Clinks mug in despair.] Thanks . . . Oh, by the way, can I have a glass of water, too? Because . . . coffee makes me . . . thirsty. Yeah, that’s it.

L: There you go. [Hands over a tall glass of water, almost dropping it as Brandon grabs frantically at it.] Hydration is the key, right?

B: Right!

 

L: Wow, these are great! Connor, Lynn, and Zander. But I thought you said you were bringing four with you.

B: I did. But now I can't— [Cuts off abruptly as AndyAndy races by with a painting in his mouth.] Never mind.

L: Uh . . . sorry.

B: [Sighs.] So I was thinking, it may be cool for people to read an excerpt from Light Bringer. I mean I wouldn’t want to spoil anything big, so some stuff may be redacted. In fact, it's in that file right behind you. [Waits for her to turn and pours full cup into her nearly empty one.]

L: That was . . .

B: Riveting—I know.

L: I’m still catching my breath.

So hey, everyone, I hope you enjoyed the very very VERY first Book Talk, with my special guest, Brandon Ax. And if you haven’t read Brandon’s first two books, Elemental and Ashes, then I have no idea what you’re waiting for, but you’re in for a treat when you do. Light Bringer will be released on Monday, September 25, so you will want to be caught up and ready to continue the adventure.

You can find Brandon at his website: Brandon Ax

At his blog: Writer's Storm

On Facebook: Brandon Ax: Author

On Twitter: @BrandonAx

And on Instagram: axbrandon

I’m here, of course, because it’s my blog and nobody invites me anywhere else. But you can also find me on my ERE Facebook page and on Instagram as easyreaderediting. Follow me to see what kinds of trouble I can manage on other social media (I post different things in different places), which basically means take your chances on being bored, or completely stunned and amazed.