De-Was-Ing a Manuscript and Other Editing Woes

I’ve spent the past ten days de-was-ing my third manuscript. It’s quite humbling. I think I’m finally getting the hang of writing, then I take on an editing chore like that and discover I still have much to learn.

First, I never knew there was anything wrong with “was.” (See? Wases proliferate when you aren’t paying attention. And what is the plural of was? Wases or wasses?)

Second, I have a hard time finding replacements. Some wases are easy to remove — change from passive to active voice. For example, this “was” was easy to fix: The gun was aimed at the old men. I merely switched to active voice: He aimed the gun at the old men. Eureka! One sentence de-was-ed. Sounds simple? Perhaps. Unless there are a thousand wases. I’ve found as many as a dozen on a single page, though to be fair, I’ve also found a page or two without any wases.

How many wases are acceptable? There is a philosophy of writing/speaking/thinking called E-prime (for English-prime) that says all form of the verb “to be” should be abolished. Nothing exists “out there” independent of a viewer, and all things are in a state of flux. To say the apple was red eliminates the witness, and not all witnesses see the apple as red. Does a color-blind person? Does a cat? Does a bee? Also, to say the apple was red ignores the stages of growth when the apple was green (unripe) or brown (rotten). But to say the apple looked red or some such makes a person/character sound uncertain about their ability to tell the color of the apple.

I’m not going to bore you with a discussion of E-prime (though if you understand E-prime, feel free to bore me; I’d like to understand it better). I just mentioned E-prime as one of the problems of de-was-ing a manuscript. Eliminating all wases seems impossible, yet which to keep? And how do you eliminate was in a sentence such as: He was a lawyer? You can change it to: He worked as a lawyer but that makes him sound as if perhaps he wasn’t really a lawyer. And how do you say: “When I was young, I liked to ride my bike”? Perhaps: “In my youth, I liked to ride my bike.” But few people talk like that, and it makes dialogue seem stilted and unreal.

So, I gradually de-was my manuscript the best way I know how, and hope that the remaining wases don’t detract from the story.

How do you deal with your wases?
What are your editing woes?

The group No Whine, Just Champagne will be discussing was and woes during our Live Chat on Thursday, March 12th at 9:00 p.m. ET. Hope to see you there! If you can’t make it, feel free to discuss them here.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Today I am a Published Author. I think.

A couple of days ago I noticed that Second Wind Publishing, the company that will be releasing my books, has More Deaths Than One listed for sale as a download on their ebook page. How long had it been there? Did its availability mean that I was a published author?

My books still aren’t available in print form. I know publishing delays are nothing out of the ordinary, but I feel a bit foolish for having frequently announced the imminent publication of More Deaths Than One and A Spark of Heavenly Fire. It seems as if they are always two weeks away from being published. When they are finally released, I am going  throw a huge online “Hallelujah!” party. (You are all invited, of course.)

Which brings me back to the point of this bloggery. I wasn’t sure if having a book available as a download qualified as being published. And if it does, how odd that I didn’t know. Shouldn’t it have been a momentous occasion? Shouldn’t such a milestone have caused a ripple in my life, a change? But no. Here I sat, doggedly de-was-ing another manuscript, not knowing I’d been elevated to published status.

Well, I can now truly say that I am a published author –an online friend bought the ebook.  I received an email from her today. She wrote: “I got the prize! The first Ebook! I want the first book in print too! So see to it that someone sends me one first!”

So, not only am I a published author with one sale to my credit, I received my first fan letter.

Now this is a momentous occasion. I can already feels the ripples.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

The 600-Pound Gorilla in the Publishing Industry

When it comes to small presses today, there is a 600-pound gorilla sitting in the middle of the room, and everyone is trying to ignore it. They point to the pretty pictures on the wall and to the bright new books on the shelves, but there the gorilla sits, filling the place with its heavy breathing and strong animal scent.

What is this gorilla? POD. Print-on-demand. A technology for printing a single book at a time in a matter of minutes. Because of this new printing process, small presses with vision and little capital are able to publish good books that otherwise would never reach a readership. Just a few years ago, a small press would only be able to publish a book or two. They would have to print a thousand or five thousand copies and hope to break even somehow. And of course, they would have to find a place to store them. Now, with new technologies, they can publish many books and have them printed up as needed.

Traditional publishers who still print books the old way — in offset print runs of 5,000 or 20,000 for debut authors — have no advantage over the new presses, except, of course, when it comes to promotion and publicity. They can reach vast numbers of readers. Still, in the end, 25% of all books published this way end up as pulp, so it makes one wonder if they really know what they are doing. The publisher will save a few copies of each, of course, because that way they can keep the rights to the book indefinitely, even after they stop promoting it.

To me, print-on-demand is something to be embraced, not ignored. Small presses should brag that they print as demand requires. As long as the publisher and author agree, the book can be available to the public indefinitely, with no exorbitant upfront printing costs, no storage costs, no unsold books to be pulped.

If one mentions book burning, people get indignant. Books are sacred! One cannot burn books! But who besides me (and the traditional publishers’ accountants) cares about the books that are pulped? No one — it’s an acceptable part of the business, though it shouldn’t be. It’s wasteful and shameful. So you’d think small presses would brag about printing on demand. Instead, they try to hide it.

And there sits the 600-pound gorilla. You can ignore it, but you can’t hide it. The size of the book — trade paperback — is one giveaway. The cost is another. A POD book is more expensive than a traditional paperback (though not much more expensive than other trade paperbacks). That it’s not available in most bookstores is another tell.

A POD book is special — perhaps a book that only a few thousand would love, perhaps a regional story that no one in New York cares about, perhaps a book whose time has not yet come. And every single one of them has been filtered through the publisher’s submissions department, and every single one of them has been accepted on its merits. They are chosen.

Print books are not going to disappear any time soon, but how they are printed will change. POD will become the norm rather than the exception — it’s a much better way to conduct business.

So why the reluctance to admit small presses are POD? Because of the other POD — publish on demand. These POD people will publish anything — for a price. (Some POD companies and vanity presses are owned by the major publishers. A nice scam. But a lucrative one. Why not prey on the millions of authors who want to be published at any cost?) Since I don’t want to incur the wrath of all the self-published authors out there who are doing a good job, I’m going to stop here.

Except to say one more thing.

If one cannot hide the gorilla, change its name.

Since there are two distinct meanings to POD, I suggest calling publish-on-demand PLOD and print-on-demand PROD. That way no one will ever get them confused.

(March is Small Press Month. So, this month, let us pay tribute to all the PROD publishers out there.)

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Writing and Well-Meaning Friends

A friend — another writer — sent me an email, which she said I could post here on my blog. She asked:

How do you resist the efforts of (I hope) well-meaning friends who want to manage your writing career for you?  As an example, a friend of mine happened to see a copy of my novel on the bookshelf while she was over.  Questions arose–How many copies had I sold?  Why wasn’t available locally in the bookshops?  How did I expect to sell millions of copies if it wasn’t marketed?

I tried to explain that writing was an end to itself, and I had no expectations beyond that.  I don’t expect to make any serious money writing, and I don’t want to be well-known, especially in my home town.

She looked at me like I was crazy and then launched into a bunch of suggestions about what I “should” do — like visit the local bookstores and sell my book to them, or have a local autograph/book launch party.

No, no, no.

I’m a private person.  I HATE speaking in front of people I don’t know, or otherwise putting on a show.

And these well-meaning lectures happen all the time.  Basically to the point where I don’t want to tell people what I do anymore.  But my kids or my husband usually chime in–because they are proud of what I have accomplished.  So I am, but I am happy with the level of success I have achieved.

Any thoughts?

My response:

That’s an interesting question. My publisher (Second Wind) is new,  so for now the authors are pretty much on their own for promotion. Many are haunting bookstores, (or trying to get their courage up to do so) trying to line up booksignings, and they can’t see beyond that. But . . . 85% of books in a bookstore sell less than two copies. Most people who go to bookstores buy what they went in for (though they may browse) and usually what they buy is one of the 15%. Most people who impulse buy, buy online. Which makes sense when you think of it. When do people have time to kill? At work. And so they browse the internet.

I totally understand about being a private person. I may have to do a booksigning/talk at the local library (the librarians have been very good about getting me the books I needed) but I have no desire to be a local celebrity. Or a laughingstock.

Nor am I interested in traveling around doing booksignings — you spend more than you can make.

The way I see it, our books are available on the internet. (Or mine will be when I’m finally out of copy-editing hell.) So that’s what any promotion should be geared for.

One of the benefits of being published by a small press is that most do not expect you to become a public person. Most (especially if they publish on demand) are even willing to keep the book on their lists indefinitely, which is good. It takes three years for a book to take hold.

But this does not really answer your question. It just explains why the questioners don’t know what they are talking about.

I don’t know how to answer pushy people. Never have. Maybe the best thing is to put a smile over gritted teeth and say, “I’ll let you know when I do.”

Odd, when you were published as an e-book, you weren’t a real writer. Now that you’re in print, you’re not a real writer because you haven’t sold a million copies. But you know that you are a real writer, a real published writer. And no one can take that away from you.

How would you respond to the author’s question?

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

The Wolf’s Side of the Story

I bet you didn’t know the wolf had a story; he’s always been the villain. But is he as black as he’s been portrayed? I just read a marvelous story by Laurie Foston, an American author of science fiction. She posted it in on her blog, and there it sits for all to read. “The Wolf’s Side” by Foston starts out:

They call me the big bad wolf. They have been calling me that forever, since that meanie, “Little Red Riding Hood”, and her grandmother told a story about me that was not true. But, as the old saying goes, “What goes around, comes around!”

I don’t have any reason to tell you a lie. I’m a good wolf.

One beautiful spring day while I was lying in a bed of wild flowers, safely guarding some nearby sheep when I heard a voice call to me.

“Good morning, Wolf!”

I turned my head in the direction of the voice and saw Little Red Riding Hood standing close by holding a basket on her arm. She was covering her face with her hood. I didn’t know why she was doing that then but now I realize she was just trying to hide the smirk on her face.

“Good morning!” I answered. I was honestly glad to see her. I picked a quick bouquet of flowers and put them between my fangs. Then I trotted over to her and dropped them into her basket. I had only the best of intentions.

“Where might you be headed today?” I asked, just to be friendly, of course.

“Oh, my grandmother is pretending to be sick again. So, I have to take her some cakes and honey. My mother told me to go straight to Granny’s house but when I saw you lying there among those flowers, it gave me an idea. I would rather eat these cakes, then lie down and go to sleep.” She said angrily.

How can you not love this story? If you’d like to read the rest of it, you can find it here: The Wolf’s Side.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

A Two-Ton Ice Cream Cone

I am having an online discussion about description based on my article “An Image Fit Only For a Horror Movie.” We’ve been talking about simile and metaphor, and how to create vibrant images. As you know, I’m not fond of similes and metaphors, so I look for the significant detail, the one detail that will give the whole, such as crayon scribbles on a wall to show . . . well, whatever the reader thinks it shows.

Sometimes this significant detail transcends mere description and becomes a metaphor. One participant in the discussion is Bruce DeSilva,  the writing coach at The Associated Press in New York City, whose agent is shopping his first novel, a crime story set in Providence, R.I.  Bruce  told a wonderful story that immediately captured my attention. Bruce wrote: 

In my experience, the best images spring not from the imagination but from careful observation. Let me tell you a story.

Several years ago, I went for a walk with a young reporter I was thinking of hiring. As we strolled through Times Square, he suddenly stopped dead in his tracks and said: “That’s amazing!”

What was? I didn’t see anything.

I watched as he whipped out his digital camera and started snapping pictures of a six-foot-tall, two-ton, concrete ice cream cone, painted up pretty, standing on the sidewalk in front of an ice cream parlor.

“I don’t get it,” I said. “What’s amazing about that?”

“Bruce,” he said, his tone indicating he was disappointed in me. “Look at it!”

“I’m looking,” I said, ” but I still don’t get it.”

“Bruce,” he said, “it’s chained to the wall. We live in a city where you have to chain a six-foot-tall, two-ton ice cream cone to a wall so no one will steal it.”

Well, yeah. That was amazing.

But how many millions of people, me included, had walked passed it without ever noticing the chain, or, more importantly, what the chain represented?

You don’t see the chain unless you are a careful observer, and it takes a poet’s sensibility to make the leap from the chain to what it represents.

We never did write a story that used the ice cream cone as a symbol of crime in our city — but we could have.

I hired the young man on the spot.

See? Significant detail and metaphor all rolled into one. If you are on Facebook and would like to participate in the discussion, feel free to stop by the Suspense/Thriller Writers group discussion.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Help Me Plan My Big Book Bash

One of these days soon, perhaps next week, my novel A Spark of Heavenly Fire will be released.

Finally.

After years of sending out query letters, after enduring hundreds of rejections, after surviving three worthless agents, I found a publisher who loves my books. Mike at Second Wind Publishing recently told a group of romance writers:  “If you haven’t, you all need to read Pat’s novels — especially A Spark of Heavenly Fire. It’s loaded with multiple love stories, triangles, lost love, romantic character development, unrequited love, and even a little happily-ever-after. Thank God she’s not a romance writer — we’d all be out of business!”

Now that deserves a celebration, so . . .
 
I am going to throw a virtual launch party when the book is published, a big book bash here on Bertram’s Blog. Most such “parties” come across more as announcements than celebrations, but I would like mine to seem like a real party, a real celebration. Do you have any suggestions on how to make an online blog party fun and festive?  How do you get people to hang around for a while, not just stop by and leave a comment? Is there such a thing as an eparty favor or an eprize or a way of simulating party games?
 
Any and all help would be appreciated.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Serial Killers and the Writers Who Love Them: Facts about Popular Myths

I am proud to welcome Dr. Katherine Ramsland as a guest on my blog. Dr. Ramsland has published 33 books and teaches forensic psychology and criminal justice at DeSales University, where she chairs the Social Sciences Department.  Among her books are Inside the Minds of Serial Killers, The Human Predator (a history of serial murder), The Criminal Mind, and The Unknown Darkness, with former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary.  In April, she will published The Devil’s Dozen: How Cutting Edge Forensics Took Down 12 Notorious Serial Killers.  She has also written a series of books to clarify facts about investigations, notably The Forensic Science of CSI, the Science of Cold Case Files, The CSI Effect, and True Stories of CSI.  Later this year, she offers The Life of a Forensic Scientist, with Dr. Henry Lee and The Forensic Psychology of Criminal Minds. Dr. Ramsland writes:

We have many myths attached to serial killers in our culture, most of them from outdated studies or from fiction and film. While those early studies had their merits, they’re not, and never were, representative of serial killers as a whole.  In fact, the early conclusions about serial killers were derived from studying articulate, imprisoned, white, male American serial killers – and in limited numbers at that – about 25.  Even my undergraduate Psychological Sleuthing class knows better than to accept this as sound.

Former FBI profiler Robert K. Ressler told Sue Russell when she was writing a biography of killer Aileen Wuornos that there were no hard and fast rules. Too many people, he said, try to oversimplify the psychology of these killers, but for every attempt to state a “truth,” one can find counterexamples that undermine it.  Some killers have a victim preference, for example, but many do not.  While a lot of killers grew up in abusive homes, some enjoyed plenty of privilege and experienced no abuse whatsoever.  Generalizations, Ressler indicated, do a disservice to the subject.

I have examined more than 1,300 cases of serial murder, looking at several hundred in detail via court transcripts, correspondences, newspaper archives and true crime biographies.  In the process I have found that there are many motives that drive these offenders, they come from diverse backgrounds, and for almost every definitive claim that has been made about them there are exceptions that undermine it. 

Even the definition of serial murder can be confusing, so let me address it.  While it was once the case that any type of incident that involved a number of murders was called “multiple murder” or “mass murder,” eventually it became clear that distinctions were needed.  We believe the phrase, “serial killer,” was first used in The Complete Detective in 1950, but it’s generally accepted that in 1976, with the “Son of Sam” case in New York, FBI Special Agent Robert Ressler initiated its use for cases on which he and his colleagues were consulting in the Behavioral Science Unit (now the Behavioral Analysis Unit).  Thus, it became common parlance for a specific type of multiple murder incident, as opposed to being a spree or mass murder.  (He apparently based it on how the British had been using “serial burglary” or “series burglary” for repeat burglars.)

I usually begin my course on serial murder with the following list, and then explain why they’re not true.  If you’re a fan of movies, novels, and television shows that feature serial killers, you may believe some of these are true:

THERE AREN’T AS MANY NOW AS THERE WERE IN THE 1970S AND 80S

THE FBI ALWAYS GETS INVOLVED IN A SERIAL KILLER INVESTIGATION

IT TAKES AN UNIQUE INVESTIGATOR TO TRACK DOWN A SERIAL KILLER

SERIAL KILLERS ARE SMARTER THAN MOST PEOPLE

JACK THE RIPPER WAS THE WORLD’S FIRST SERIAL KILLER

AILEEN WUORNOS WAS THE WORLD’S FIRST FEMALE SERIAL KILLER

THEY’RE INVARIABLY GOOD-LOOKING, REFINED AND CHARMING

99% ARE WHITE, MIDDLECLASS MALES BETWEEN 18 AND 35

THOSE KILLERS WITH THE MOST VICTIMS ARE FROM THE U.S.

AMERICA HAS 75% OF THE WORLD’S SERIAL KILLERS

THEY ALWAYS WORK ALONE

THEY’RE LONERS, WITHOUT RELATIONSHIPS OR FAMILIES

THEY ALWAYS LEAVE A SIGNATURE

THEY’RE INSANE

THEY ALWAYS CHOOSE THE SAME TYPE OF VICTIM

THEY ALWAYS USE THE SAME TYPE OF KILLING METHOD/SAME WEAPON

THEY’RE ALWAYS AWARE OF THE INVESTIGATION

THEY LIKE TO PLAY CAT-AND-MOUSE WITH INVESTIGATORS

THEY USUALLY TRY TO INSERT THEMSELVES INTO THE INVESTIGATION

THEY USUALLY TARGET THE LEAD INVESTIGATORS

THEY ALWAYS RETURN TO THE CRIME SCENE

THEIR MURDERS ARE SEXUALLY MOTIVATED

THEY’RE ALL PSYCHOPATHS

THEY PREFER TO KILL UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL

FROM 30-50 SERIAL KILLERS ARE ON THE LOOSE IN THE U.S. AT ANY TIME

5,000+ AMERICAN CITIZENS PER YEAR ARE THE VICTIMS OF SERIAL KILLERS

THEY WANT TO BE CAUGHT, SO THEY ALWAYS MAKE A MISTAKE

The truth is, serial killers are not all alike.  They’re not all male.  Some have been as young as eight or older than fifty.  They’re not all driven by sexual compulsion.  They’re not all intelligent, nor even clever – often, they’re just lucky.  They’re not all charming.  A single killer may choose different weapons or methods of operation, although they will tend to stay with whatever works best.  Even with rituals, the basis of a “signature,” they often experiment and change things.  They might be profit-driven, in search of thrill or self-gratification, or compelled by some other deep-seated desire, fear or need.  Occasionally, serial murder is about revenge or it’s inspired by a delusion.  In most cases, the killer does not wish to be stopped or caught.  Yet a few do intentionally undermine themselves or stop of their own accord.  Some rare killers have even professed remorse or killed themselves.

Many more serial killers are emerging in other countries, both historically and now.  Just this month, I’ve seen reports from Jamaica, India, South Korea, China, Germany, Russia, England, and Indonesia.  There are as many now as there ever were, and there were plenty of killers in past history.  Among the earliest documented killers, as far back as Ancient Rome, was a female poisoner, and females have been among those with the highest victim toll (American serial killers don’t even come close, with Gary Ridgway holding the documented record here at 48.)

The notion that 30-50 killers are operating in the U.S. at any given time came from FBI agents during the 1980s who were seeking funds for more resources, and the same goes for 5,000-plus victims.  Although one researcher has recently revived this claim, based on how many people have gone missing in the U.S., it’s a great leap in logic to say that most must be victims of serial murder.  

We have plenty of serial killers from different races, too.  The reason we think that most are white is because the U. S. media has focused most often on white male serial killers.  Try Japan, South Africa, Mexico, or South America. A most intriguing one right now is a woman in Germany who has been killing and committing robberies for about 15 years, leaving DNA behind but not getting caught. 

Quite a few killers have had families or been in relationships.  Their IQs range from borderline mentally retarded to genius, with most about average.  Some have been psychotic, while about 90% are psychopaths.  About 15% work in teams, and teams have range from two or three to more than a dozen.

The FBI gets involved if they’re invited or if the killer has crossed state or international boundaries.  Often, they’re not the super-sleuths who solve the case, but consultants assisting with their computerized database.  It’s usually a local detective or task force that breaks the case, just using good police work or catching a killer making a mistake (like driving around with a body in the car.)

Obviously, writers don’t have the time to collect and read all the cases, but accessible sources are available from criminology to allay some of these myths and provide details interesting enough for developing a fictional villain.  If a criminological text or article is from the 1990s, chances are that it subsumed the FBI’s unrepresentative prison study of 25 white guys and extrapolated from there.  More recent publications – including the FBI’s new report from its international symposium – provide better facts.  Mostly the FBI would like writers and reporters to know, “there is no profile of a serial killer.”  There is no single set of parameters or traits or behaviors that blueprint that clever, white, male, lone-wolf, game player who stands out because he’s been abused or has a head injury and is driven to sexually assault and kill white females.

See also: Deception Detection: The Truth About Lie Detecters by Dr. Katherine Ramsland

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Last Day for the “More Deaths Than One” Contest

Today is the last day to enter my More Deaths Than One contest. (Entries must be received by midnight tonight EST.)

The premise:

A friend of mine found an obituary in the paper that could have been for his mother — the woman had the same name, lived in the same general area, was the same age, had the same number of children, and one of the children had approximately the same name and age as the friend. There was no relationship, merely coincidence but, joking, I said, “What if her son really is you?” That “what if” eventually became More Deaths Than One.

The contest:

Write at least a paragraph and no more than a page, telling how would you develop a story using this scenario. The three most imaginative entries will be posted on the Second Wind site for readers to vote on. The top entry will win an autographed copy of More Deaths Than One and your choice of two other books from Second Wind Publishing. You can find the entry form at: Second Wind Publishing.

We’ve already received some really great entries, including this one:

I would not develop the story. I am a reader, not a writer. I read and analyze books, not write them. Quite frankly, I am much more interested in seeing how the author Pat Bertram develops the story rather than how I would. How does she make the coincidence believable? How does she maintain the level of suspense throughout the novel? How does the story differ from other books written in the genre?  How is the book innovative? How does the story adhere to more traditional conventions of the genre? It is often said that those who can’t write, teach. On the contrary, writing and analysis (and teaching) are completely different skills, each worthwhile in its own right. I am not a writer. Rather, I am a reader who enjoys reading other authors’ books and using my imagination and analytical skills to review and share books with other readers.

It won’t be long until you can answer those questions yourself.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

A Spark of Heavenly Fire Update — Copy-Editing Hell

I found additional mistakes to the proof copy of A Spark of Heavenly Fire, so it will be a couple of more weeks before it’s released. I’ve been afraid that I’m going to be stuck in copy-editing hell for the rest of my life, but I’ve decided that perfection at this point really is impossible. I had the idea that single-handedly I needed to eradicate the POD publishers reputation for releasing less than stellar books, but there is a limit to what one (untrained) person can do. I am learning how to copyedit, though, and I do know one thing: however much copy-editors get paid, it is not enough.

The thing with mistakes is that they proliferate when you are not looking. You correct one, and in the process, create another. When I finished my novel, the manuscript was almost perfect — I’d read the thing out loud, so I would be sure to look at every single word, every single punctuation mark. Then . . . I did one final polish, took out all the extra justs and onlys, the particularlys and practicallys, the barelys and hardlys, the began tos, and the wases. The problem is, other words got deleted along the way (don’t ask me how, because I don’t know) and I didn’t catch them. Yikes.

And then there are the choices to be made. Is it ill-prepared or ill prepared? I originally had ill-prepared, but MSword said that was wrong, so I deleted the hyphen. And now I want it back for the simple reason that the hyphen is how it is commonly used. And what about brand new? My dictionary says it’s brand-new, but common usage has it as brand new. So which do I use? I think I’ll leave out the hyphen; that way there will be one less change to make.

Some of the changes  that need to be made entail rewriting a sentence. In the proof copy, smelled is on two lines: smell-ed. Smelled can’t be hyphenated, so now I have to decide how to rewrite the sentence so smelled can fit on one line. I had “He fell silent for a moment, savoring the feel of her tee shirt- and jeans-clad body next to his. She smelled clean and fresh, like cucumber, or melon, or pear.” So how do I change the sentence, so that smelled can fit on one line? “savoring the fell of her thinly clad body”? savoring the feel of her tee shirt-clad body”? Neither of those do it for me. But now, writing this, I see what I can change. I can take out “for a moment”. (Yes, I know that the period belongs inside the quotation marks, but this is proofing, and perhaps whoever is making the changes to the print copy will think the period needs to be taken out.) See what I mean? Copy-editors are not paid enough.

Well, now it’s put up and shut up time. Make the important changes, and try not to sweat the small stuff. I can guarantee, though, that whoever came up with that particular phrase is not a copy-editor. With copy-editing, it’s all about the small stuff.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook