Google+
This blog has moved. Please go over to this link to see my new website.
Showing posts with label Writing and Editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing and Editing. Show all posts

Tuesday, 17 June 2014

Are You Very Very Sure of This? #3

Over these few weeks, I’m looking at the very frequent use of ‘very’, which is very bad, as you know so very well.

Okay; overkill, but you know we all do it: use ‘very’ to modify a verb or an adjective rather than search for a stronger one that will say the same thing, only better. So, here are a few examples to make it easier for you to reject that easy option. Choose with care; synonyms are not always exact matches and you need to consider context.

Very pretty – beautiful, pulchritudinous (though, why anyone would use such an ugly word to describe beauty is beyond me!), radiant, comely, gorgeous, adorable, exquisite
Very big – immense, enormous, huge, gigantic, colossal, towering, monumental, gargantuan
Very hungry – ravenous, famished, starving, could eat a scabby ‘orse between two bread vans, (colloquial, but you get the idea.)           
Very wicked – villainous, evil, heinous, villainous, depraved, contemptible, sinful, irremediable    
Very bright – dazzling, resplendent, radiant, sparkling, glowing, brilliant. Or intelligent, forward, brilliant, scintillating, brainy, gifted, talented
Very risky – perilous, dangerous, treacherous, hazardous, frightening, scary, dicey, dodgy, alarming


This is the third lot; there’ll be a few more next week.

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

I’ve Started, So I’ll Finish

Cover of "I've Started, So I'll Finish: T...
Cover via Amazon
Those of you familiar with the original black chair torture that is the TV show ‘Mastermind’ will recognise that famous phrase made catchword by Magnus Magnusson.

I generally complete an editing session by doing a full read through, aloud, from a printed text. I’ve discovered that this reveals things missed when editing silently on screen, so it’s worth the effort.
However, I set myself the job of editing the two final books of the epic fantasy trilogy, A Seared Sky, in this way, without really thinking it through. I should, of course, have done book two immediately after I finished it, but I waited until I’d written book three, so eager was I to get the story written.

Those who’ve read book one, Joinings, will know that it’s a bit of a tome, at 700 pages. Guess what? Books two and three are also quite long! Still, I set myself this vital editing task and, I’ve started, so I’ll finish.

This post is to let you know that book two, a typescript of 599 pages, 46 chapters and a little under 200,000 words, is finally ready for the publisher. It’s taken some time and a lot of water to cool my sore throat, but it’s done.

Did I find much? I estimate I made around 180 corrections, ranging from a misplaced comma to the addition or removal of a complete sentence, and everything in between. So it’s been a worthwhile exercise. After all, I want the book to go out in the best possible form for readers. I want them to enjoy my writing, not come to a jarring halt because I’ve missed some sod (odd) typo or used an inappropriate homophone, like ‘bare’ for ‘bear’ for example.


So: on now with book three. I’d originally hoped to have the whole thing done by the end of May, as I have a sci-fi novel knocking at the back of my brain and eager to roam free, but I have my doubts. Life has a tendency to get in the way, doesn’t it?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 4 August 2013

Do You Love Words?

Regular visitors will know I love words. As a reader and a writer, I'm fascinated by these small
packets of information that allow us to communicate, imagine and to explore our world. Here is a website I came across recently that I think will interest those with similar interests. I've copied the most recent of the weekly newsletters, with, of course, the permission of the site owner, Michael Quinion. Have a read, and if you're intrigued like me, you can easily sign up for the newsletter by going to this link: http://www.worldwidewords.org/

Newsletter 843
Saturday 3 August 2013
Contents
1. Culprit
This is a common word with a strange genesis, arising out of an old legal abbreviation, compounded by popular etymology.
When England was conquered by the Normans at the Battle of Hastings, French became the language of the law. It remained in use among lawyers even after the language of the courts changed to English in the fourteenth century, latterly in a stylised and degenerate form called law French. Fragments of law French survive even to this day in parliamentary proceedings.Culprit is another survivor.
The records are sparse, but the usual explanation goes like this: if a prisoner in a medieval court pleaded not guilty to the charge, the prosecutor would respond with the words, Culpable: prest d’averrer nostre bille, which may loosely be translated as “We believe him to be guilty and I am ready to prove the charge”. This was recorded in the court rolls as cul prest or cul prist.
The two key words are culpable and prest. The former remains in English in the sense “deserving of blame”, ultimately from Latin culpa, blame or fault.Prest is Anglo-Norman, meaning “ready”, which survived in English until the eighteenth century, but which has become prêt in modern French (as inprêt à manger, ready to eat, or prêt à porter, ready to wear).
The abbreviation cul prest became modified down the years and was somehow misunderstood very late on in the history of law French to be the way that the accused was to be addressed. It turns up first in the record of the trial in 1678 of the Earl of Pembroke for murder; he was asked: “Culprit, how will you be tried?”
Culprit became part of the language in the sense of the accused person. During the following century people came to believe that it meant a guilty person, perhaps in part because of a confusion with culpa.
2. Pony up
Q From David Shapiro: Where does pony up come from?
A This is a classic American expression, but one now widely known in other parts of the English-speaking world. To pony up means to pay what you owe or settle your debt. It usually refers to a smallish sum of money:
The promotion offers Virginians 16 and older the chance to fish without a license for three days in the hopes some of those folks will have so much fun they’ll decide to pony up a few bucks for the privilege of fishing for the next 12 months.
The Roanoke Times (Roanoke, Virginia), 2 Jun. 2013.
It dates from the early nineteenth century. This is the earliest example so far known:
The afternoon, before the evening, the favoured gentlemen are walkingrapidly into the merchant-tailors shops, and very slowly out, unless they ponied up the Spanish.
The Rural Magazine and Farmer’s Monthly Museum, May 1819.
(Spanish here is slang for money, a term known a little earlier in Britain — Francis Grose recorded it in the 1788 edition of his Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. It’s short for Spanish money, from an association of Spain with rich treasure fleets, doubloons and pieces of eight.)
It seems very likely that pony similarly derives from English slang. It appears in several works at about the same time, including the 1796 edition of Grose’s book. It also turns up in another famous work, which will expand even further your knowledge of long-obsolete slang terms for money:
It’s everything now o’days to be able to flash the screens — sport the rhino — show the needful — post the pony — nap the rent — stump the pewter.
Tom and Jerry, by W T Moncrieff, 1821.
The presumption is that it comes from the equine pony because it was a small horse, as relatively small as the sums of money which users were concerned with. Among the moneyed classes a pony at this time meant 25 guineas (later 25 pounds), a very large amount at the time by most people’s standards, but presumably not thought excessive by individuals who paid their bills in guineas. Horses for courses, you might say.
3. Sic!
• “The quote below,” emailed Hal Norvell, “is from a local newspaper here in central Maine. The source is the Associated Press. ‘A court in Cameroon found two men guilty under the country’s law banning gay sex on Tuesday, a lawyer said ....’”
• Nancy Miller found this in the Premier Traveler magazine for June & July, reviewing ANA business class: “The meal was expertly finished off with a decedent Pierre Hermé Paris dessert: vanilla and dulce de leche ice cream with raspberry sauce.”
• Speaking of decedents, the New York Times obituary of 26 June for the photographer Bert Stern contained this sentence, Kate Schubart reports: “His death was confirmed by Shannah Laumeister, a longtime friend, who said she and Mr. Stern had been secretly married since 2009. No cause was given.”
• It-could-have-been-better-punctuated department: in a story about acute oak decline, a bacterial disease which is afflicting British trees, the Guardian on 16 July referred to “Brian Muelaner, an ancient oak adviser at the National Trust.”
• Detlef Pelz read a Reuters report dated 1 August on the website of The Agein Australia: “Mr Chong’s lawyers have said that he was arrested at the home of friend during a raid by a drug enforcement task force investigating an ecstasy trafficking ring that included DEA agents, sheriff’s deputies and San Diego police officers.”
4. Useful information
World Wide Words is copyright © Michael Quinion 2013. All rights reserved. You may reproduce this newsletter in whole or part in free newsletters, newsgroups or mailing lists online provided that you include the copyright notice above. You need the prior permission of the author to reproduce any part of it on Web sites or in printed publications. You don’t need permission to link to it.
Comments on anything in this newsletter are more than welcome. To send them in, please visit the feedback page on our Web site.
If you have enjoyed this newsletter and would like to help defray its costs and those of the linked Web site, please visit our support page.

Share on facebook

Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 1 August 2013

July, a Month of Change and Progress

Click on the chart to open in a new window at a larger size

It’s been a mixed month. The weather, always an important component of British life, has been largely hot and fine, which is fine with me: I detest wet and cold. But, of course, we get so few hot days that we feel we must make the most of them. So, the garden has been well attended, and we’ve had a couple of trips out. Relatives and friends have been visited. It all takes time out of the writing calendar. Unfortunately, my wife had a fall (at her bowls club, slipping on a wet floor) and broke her wrist in two places. She’s in plaster and still in some pain, which means I’m doing more of the household tasks than normal.

As for the writing, which is the purpose of this post, that has been going relatively well. I sent the first 3,000 words of book 1 of the adult fantasy to a publisher and, within a few days, Fantastic Books Publishing asked to see the whole MS. That involved a little bit of final tweaking, of course (you have to make it as good as you can). And, as a result of their interest, I decided to prepare book 2 for publication, just in case. I’m now awaiting their decision, but, as you know, the wheels of publishing turn slowly. So, watch this space.

In the meantime, I started book 3 in earnest and have, to this date, written 24,131 words. Not as much as I’d hoped, but the emergency with Valerie’s broken wrist and subsequent hospital visits have eaten into my days, of course. I was planning on 3,500 words a day to get the first draft completed before a specific date in September. It’s looking as though that is now unlikely, but so be it.

As for what I’ve achieved this month: I’ve written the first 6 chapters of book 3 and edited the final 10 chapters of book 2, read and reviewed 3 books, posted 11 posts on here, and submitted 1 short story to a contest. I also discovered another way to present the writing contest information I thought I’d have to abandon last month. If you look under the ‘Writing Contests’ tab above, you’ll find it there. I don’t have as much time to update this as I did before, so it’ll probably only be done once a month or so, but I will endeavour to keep the information current for you.

So, not a bad month. How has July gone for you? Let us know through the comments. Oh, and if you’re not yet following the blog, I’d appreciate a follow. And, by all means, connect with me on the other social networking sites: the links are all in the side bar to the right.

The chart, explained:
'Writing' - initial creation of stories, blog posts, reviews and longer works.
'Editing' - polishing of all written work to make it suitable for readers.
'Research' - discovery of info for story content, market research, contests and blog posts.
'Reading' - books and writing magazines.
'Networking' - emails, Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, and comments.
'Admin' - story submission, blog posting, marketing, organisation, tax, and general admin tasks.

Thursday, 2 May 2013

What Rules Do You Hate as a Writer?

Typographic quotation marks (top) versus strai...
Typographic quotation marks (top) versus straight quotation marks, or "dumb quotes" (bottom). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They’re there, everywhere you look, on blogs, in books, on websites – those unbreakable rules for writers. Some are concerned with language itself; grammar, syntax, spelling. Others are to do with style; repetition, viewpoint, backstory, vocabulary. Then there are the rules surrounding presentation; font, paragraphs, spacing, quotations, dialogue. Of course, the gurus and mentors have their own sets of rules: you must do this or that if you’re to succeed as a writer. These latter rules come in the form of exhortations to build an author platform, participate in forums, network, join groups, create a bog, a website, become a member of any of dozens of professional organisations. And so it goes on.

Do you ever get the feeling you’re being bamboozled, perhaps being patronised, maybe being groomed as a cash cow for some organisation or individual? There are lots of wolves out there, seeking out those ignorant, naïve or inexperienced enough to become the victims of the many scams aimed specifically at writers. And all of them have their rules. Those laws that you must obey if you’re ever to become a writer, ever to make a name for yourself, ever to make your fortune. Assuming that’s what you’re after.

I, of course, have special rules that I hate. Some of these have been exposed as irrelevant or simply wrong as a result of experience. Some have been pointed out by other writers. Some were clearly not right from the word go.

Let’s have look at some of those I have problems with. Well, there’s one for a start: never finish a sentence with a preposition. Rubbish. We do it all the time. Writers have been breaking this rule ever since they first picked up a chisel to mark the first slab of rock. It’s idiotic. To obey this rule, my initial sentence would have to be reconstructed as, ‘Let’s have a look at some of those with which I have problems.’ Clumsy, at best. No one speaks like this and we shouldn’t be required to write this way. Only the Grammar Police will ever find fault with the use of a preposition at the end of your sentences. So, if it sounds right, use it.

Another: build an author platform. No agent or publisher will look at you these days unless you have a decent following on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, YouTube, LinkedIn etc, etc. Two points with this one: do you want an agent or a publisher, bearing in mind the way they rip off writers these days? And, far more importantly, this rule is designed to stop you writing and to make you spend all your time making contacts online. I tried it last year, as a way of discovering the validity of this exhortation to build a following. Did it have any measurable effect on my book sales? With the possible exception of Twitter, none whatsoever. I’ve increased my ‘presence’ across the various networks I belong to (there goes that preposition at the end of a sentence again!). But, whilst this has amplified requests for my help for other writers (something I’m happy to do when I’m able), has resulted in numerous requests for the endorsement of work I’ve no experience of (there it goes again; another preposition in danger of ending a sentence!), has brought many requests for me to review books written by other authors (as if my increased visibility has somehow had a similar effect on my time available for reading), it has had no measurable effect on shifting my books off the shelves. This rule, so beloved of agents and publishers, is unlikely to get you what you actually want; i.e. more readers.

One more: use curly quotes, use straight quotes, use double quotes, use single quotes…etc. The only rule with any validity regarding such stylistic matters is the one that guides the publication to which you’re submitting your work (there; I stuck this preposition in place for the purists). Seriously, if a publication you want to publish your work uses single, curly quotes, then have the common sense to follow their house style. Otherwise, the choice is yours. Same with fonts (but do make the size and typeface easy to read, and you can use any colour as long as it’s black. On your website or blog you have the freedom to make your font and background colours the same, violently different, or traditional black on white, but bear in mind that people are going to be trying to read that text).

I must, of course, remind you of George Orwell’s rules for writers. These are, if taken with an intelligent pinch of common sense in interpretation, very sensible. The last one, naturally, is the most important:

1.      Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (see my piece on clichés)

2.      Never use a long word where a short one will do.  (dip a toe in the hydrotherapeutic fluid and see whether the pool will suffice)

3.      If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (surgical excision, scalpel at the ready, is essential to the prevention of purple prose)

4.      Never use the passive where you can use the active. (always better to be the one doing the doing than having the doing done to you)

5.      Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (using obscurum per obscurius is simply employing obfuscation for the sake of it)

6.      Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (up with this I will never put)

And I’d apply that last rule to all the various rules of writing.

Finally, from me at any rate, remember you’re a writer. Writers write. That’s their purpose, their raison d’être (oops, Orwell’s 5th rule broken!).

So, that’s my piece said. Are there any writing rules you abhor? Let’s have a comment with your reasons; see if we can help each other here, shall we?

Enhanced by Zemanta