Posts
There's an ever-growing selection of online editing resources these days (The Chicago Manual of Style Online and Merriam-Webster Online are two of my favorites), but the number of available options – as well as the amount of information they provide – can be a bit overwhelming.
So I was very intrigued when a regular – and Web-savvy – reader sent me this article about Wordnik, a new online uber-dictionary of sorts that brings together information from multiple sources: Web pages, books, magazines, newspapers – even you (think Wikipedia for words).
For example, a search for "grammar" turns up not only definitions but also contextual examples, statistics about how often the word is used (apparently grammar was quite hot in 1980), and some pretty funny pictures from Flickr.
Thanks to Scott for keeping me technologically trendy.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
Copy editor or copyeditor?
Chicago style uses the latter even though their dictionary of choice, Merriam-Webster, does not. (Merriam-Webster spells the verb as one word though, which is how Chicago justifies its preference.) AP style gives the two-word spelling. To further complicate matters, the term is hyphenated in Britain (although they prefer "sub editor").
Readers of this blog know I spell it as two words, maybe because I started out with APA style (American Psychological Association), which spells it this way. Given our profession's penchant for consistency, shouldn't we come to a consensus?
Readers of this blog know I spell it as two words, maybe because I started out with APA style (American Psychological Association), which spells it this way. Given our profession's penchant for consistency, shouldn't we come to a consensus?
Monday, June 1, 2009
The Big Offenders, Part V: Fortunately vs. Thankfully
One person's big offender is another person's pet peeve. Catherine wants to know if she's "the only one who'd rather hear fingernails on a chalkboard than hear one more person use 'thankfully' as if it were a synonym for 'fortunately'!?!?!?"
Fortunately for Catherine, Chicago style agrees with her: Thankfully "traditionally means 'appreciatively; gratefully.' It is not in good use as a substitute for thank goodness or fortunately." (I let her know and she responded thankfully.)
But some would argue using thankfully and fortunately interchangeably has become acceptable through common usage (personally, I get a bit tired of this reasoning). AP style makes no mention of it, so it's obviously no big deal to them.
I'd like to know what other style guides have to say about it. And what about you? Desirable distinction or personal preference?
Fortunately for Catherine, Chicago style agrees with her: Thankfully "traditionally means 'appreciatively; gratefully.' It is not in good use as a substitute for thank goodness or fortunately." (I let her know and she responded thankfully.)
But some would argue using thankfully and fortunately interchangeably has become acceptable through common usage (personally, I get a bit tired of this reasoning). AP style makes no mention of it, so it's obviously no big deal to them.
I'd like to know what other style guides have to say about it. And what about you? Desirable distinction or personal preference?
Friday, May 15, 2009
Be My Guest: Wendy Burt-Thomas
Today, I'm excited to host the blog tour for fellow freelance writer/editor Wendy Burt-Thomas's third book, The Writer's Digest Guide to Query Letters. Wendy provided a Q&A that's packed with advice about writing and editing careers - I hope you find it as helpful as I did! To learn more about Wendy or her books, visit http://www.guidetoqueryletters.com. If you have a writing-related question, you can post it to http://askwendy.wordpress.com.
Q: Can you tell us about your book?
A: The book was a great fit for me because I'd been teaching "Breaking Into Freelance Writing" for about eight years. In the workshop, I covered a lot of what is in this book: writing query letters to get articles in magazines, to land an agent, or to get a book deal with a publisher. Since I'm a full-time freelance magazine writer and editor with two previous books, this was incredibly fun to write because it didn't require tons of research. I was lucky enough to receive lots of great sample query letters from writers and authors that I use as "good" examples in the book. I wrote all the "bad" examples myself because I didn't dare ask for contributions that I knew I'd be ripping apart!
In addition to the ins and outs of what makes a good query, the book covers things like why (or why not) to get an agent, where to find one, and how to choose one; writing a synopsis or proposal; selling different rights to your work; other forms of correspondence; and what editors and agents look for in new writers.
It was really important to me that the book not be a dry, boring reference book, but rather an entertaining read (while still being chock full of information). I was thrilled that Writer's Digest let me keep all the humor.
Q: Why are query letters so important?
A: Breaking into the publishing world is hard enough right now. Unless you have a serious "in" of some kind, you really need a great query letter to impress an agent or acquisitions editor. Essentially, your query letter is your first impression. If they like your idea (and voice and writing style and background), they'll either request a proposal, sample chapters, or the entire manuscript. If they don't like your query letter, you've got to pitch it to another agency/publisher. Unlike a manuscript, which can be edited or reworked if an editor thinks it has promise, you only get one shot with your query. Make it count!
I see a lot of authors who spend months (or years) finishing their book, only to rush through the process of crafting a good, solid query letter. What a waste! If agents/editors turn you down based on a bad query letter, you've blown your chance of getting them to read your manuscript. It could be the next bestseller, but they’ll never see it. My advice is to put as much effort into your query as you did your book. If it's not fabulous, don’t send it until it is.
Q: You're also a magazine editor. What is your biggest gripe regarding queries?
A: Queries that show that the writer obviously hasn't read our publication. I'll admit that I did this when I was a new writer too – submitted blindly to any publication whose name sounded even remotely related to my topic. One of the examples I use was when I submitted a parenting article to a magazine for senior citizens. Oops! A well-written query pitching an article that's not a match for the magazine isn't going to get you any further than a poorly written query.
Q: There's an entire chapter in the book about agents. Do you think all new writers should get agents?
A: Probably 99 percent of new writers should get an agent. There are lots of reasons, but my top three are: 1) Many of the larger publishing houses won't even look at unagented submissions now; 2) Agents can negotiate better rights and more money on your behalf; 3) Agents know the industry trends, changes, and staff better than you ever could.
Q: You've been a mentor, coach, or editor for many writers. What do you think is the most common reason that good writers don’t get published?
A: Poor marketing skills. I see so many writers that are either too afraid, too uniformed, or frankly, too lazy, to market their work. They think their job is done when the write "the end" but writing is only half of the process. I've always told people who took my class that there are tons of great writers in the world who will never get published. I'd rather be a good writer who eats lobster than a great writer who eats hot dogs. I make a living as a writer because I spend as much time marketing as I do writing.
Q: What are some of the biggest misconceptions that writers have about getting a book deal?
A: That they'll be rich overnight, that they don't need to promote their book once it's published, that publishing houses will send them on world book tours, that people will recognize them at the airport. Still, you can make great money as an author if you're prepared to put in the effort. If it wasn't possible, there wouldn't be so many full-time writers.
Q: What must-read books do you recommend to new writers?
A: Christina Katz (author of Writer Mama) has a new book out called Get Known Before the Book Deal – which is fabulous. Also, Stephen King's On Writing and David Morrell's Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing. Anything by Anne Lamott or my Dad, Steve Burt.
Q: What's the biggest lesson you've learned as a full-time writer?
A: Seize every opportunity – especially when you first start writing. I remember telling someone about a really high-paying writing gig I got and he said, "Wow. You have the best luck!" I thought, "Luck has nothing to do with it! I've worked hard to get where I am." Later that week I read this great quote: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." It’s absolutely true. And writing queries is only about luck in this sense. If you're prepared with a good query and/or manuscript, when the opportunity comes along you'll be successful.
Q: What did you enjoy most about writing this book?
A: Writing the "bad" query letters. I've read – and written! – so many horrible ones over the years that it was a little too easy to craft them. But misery loves company and we ALL love to read really bad query letters, right?
Q: What do you want readers to learn from your book?
A: I want them to understand that while writing a good query letter is important, it doesn't have to be overwhelming. You can break it down into parts, learn from any first-round rejections, and read other good queries to help understand what works. I also want them to remember that writing is fun. Sometimes new writers get so caught up in the procedures that they lose their original voice in a query. Don't bury your style under formalities and to-the-letter formatting.
Wendy's credentials include more than 1,000 published articles, essays, short stories, greeting cards, reviews, columns, and poems. She is a full-time freelance writer, editor, copywriter, and PR consultant. Wendy taught "Breaking Into Freelance Writing" for eight years and her three books include Oh, Solo Mia! The Hip Chick's Guide to Fun for One (McGraw-Hill), Work It, Girl! 101 Tips for the Hip Working Chick (McGraw-Hill), and The Writer's Digest Guide to Query Letters (January 2009, Writer’s Digest Books).
Q: Can you tell us about your book?
A: The book was a great fit for me because I'd been teaching "Breaking Into Freelance Writing" for about eight years. In the workshop, I covered a lot of what is in this book: writing query letters to get articles in magazines, to land an agent, or to get a book deal with a publisher. Since I'm a full-time freelance magazine writer and editor with two previous books, this was incredibly fun to write because it didn't require tons of research. I was lucky enough to receive lots of great sample query letters from writers and authors that I use as "good" examples in the book. I wrote all the "bad" examples myself because I didn't dare ask for contributions that I knew I'd be ripping apart!
In addition to the ins and outs of what makes a good query, the book covers things like why (or why not) to get an agent, where to find one, and how to choose one; writing a synopsis or proposal; selling different rights to your work; other forms of correspondence; and what editors and agents look for in new writers.
It was really important to me that the book not be a dry, boring reference book, but rather an entertaining read (while still being chock full of information). I was thrilled that Writer's Digest let me keep all the humor.
Q: Why are query letters so important?
A: Breaking into the publishing world is hard enough right now. Unless you have a serious "in" of some kind, you really need a great query letter to impress an agent or acquisitions editor. Essentially, your query letter is your first impression. If they like your idea (and voice and writing style and background), they'll either request a proposal, sample chapters, or the entire manuscript. If they don't like your query letter, you've got to pitch it to another agency/publisher. Unlike a manuscript, which can be edited or reworked if an editor thinks it has promise, you only get one shot with your query. Make it count!
I see a lot of authors who spend months (or years) finishing their book, only to rush through the process of crafting a good, solid query letter. What a waste! If agents/editors turn you down based on a bad query letter, you've blown your chance of getting them to read your manuscript. It could be the next bestseller, but they’ll never see it. My advice is to put as much effort into your query as you did your book. If it's not fabulous, don’t send it until it is.
Q: You're also a magazine editor. What is your biggest gripe regarding queries?
A: Queries that show that the writer obviously hasn't read our publication. I'll admit that I did this when I was a new writer too – submitted blindly to any publication whose name sounded even remotely related to my topic. One of the examples I use was when I submitted a parenting article to a magazine for senior citizens. Oops! A well-written query pitching an article that's not a match for the magazine isn't going to get you any further than a poorly written query.
Q: There's an entire chapter in the book about agents. Do you think all new writers should get agents?
A: Probably 99 percent of new writers should get an agent. There are lots of reasons, but my top three are: 1) Many of the larger publishing houses won't even look at unagented submissions now; 2) Agents can negotiate better rights and more money on your behalf; 3) Agents know the industry trends, changes, and staff better than you ever could.
Q: You've been a mentor, coach, or editor for many writers. What do you think is the most common reason that good writers don’t get published?
A: Poor marketing skills. I see so many writers that are either too afraid, too uniformed, or frankly, too lazy, to market their work. They think their job is done when the write "the end" but writing is only half of the process. I've always told people who took my class that there are tons of great writers in the world who will never get published. I'd rather be a good writer who eats lobster than a great writer who eats hot dogs. I make a living as a writer because I spend as much time marketing as I do writing.
Q: What are some of the biggest misconceptions that writers have about getting a book deal?
A: That they'll be rich overnight, that they don't need to promote their book once it's published, that publishing houses will send them on world book tours, that people will recognize them at the airport. Still, you can make great money as an author if you're prepared to put in the effort. If it wasn't possible, there wouldn't be so many full-time writers.
Q: What must-read books do you recommend to new writers?
A: Christina Katz (author of Writer Mama) has a new book out called Get Known Before the Book Deal – which is fabulous. Also, Stephen King's On Writing and David Morrell's Lessons from a Lifetime of Writing. Anything by Anne Lamott or my Dad, Steve Burt.
Q: What's the biggest lesson you've learned as a full-time writer?
A: Seize every opportunity – especially when you first start writing. I remember telling someone about a really high-paying writing gig I got and he said, "Wow. You have the best luck!" I thought, "Luck has nothing to do with it! I've worked hard to get where I am." Later that week I read this great quote: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity." It’s absolutely true. And writing queries is only about luck in this sense. If you're prepared with a good query and/or manuscript, when the opportunity comes along you'll be successful.
Q: What did you enjoy most about writing this book?
A: Writing the "bad" query letters. I've read – and written! – so many horrible ones over the years that it was a little too easy to craft them. But misery loves company and we ALL love to read really bad query letters, right?
Q: What do you want readers to learn from your book?
A: I want them to understand that while writing a good query letter is important, it doesn't have to be overwhelming. You can break it down into parts, learn from any first-round rejections, and read other good queries to help understand what works. I also want them to remember that writing is fun. Sometimes new writers get so caught up in the procedures that they lose their original voice in a query. Don't bury your style under formalities and to-the-letter formatting.
Wendy's credentials include more than 1,000 published articles, essays, short stories, greeting cards, reviews, columns, and poems. She is a full-time freelance writer, editor, copywriter, and PR consultant. Wendy taught "Breaking Into Freelance Writing" for eight years and her three books include Oh, Solo Mia! The Hip Chick's Guide to Fun for One (McGraw-Hill), Work It, Girl! 101 Tips for the Hip Working Chick (McGraw-Hill), and The Writer's Digest Guide to Query Letters (January 2009, Writer’s Digest Books).
Friday, May 1, 2009
Dear BPE: It's OK to Break the Rules!
You've probably heard the saying that you should learn the rules before you break them. Well, English professors know the rules of language, and I received an impassioned e-mail from one about breaking a few so-called rules that doubles as a history lesson (and if you're already a rule breaker, it may alleviate any residual grammar guilt):
I just discovered your terrific blog. In addition to teaching technical writing, I also do technical editing, so I am very interested in your posts.
As I was reading through some of your back posts, I found one called "When to Break the Rules." Let me encourage you not to feel hesitant about the issues that you mention in that post. First, none of them are "grammar"—they are "usage" issues. Second, they are not rules—they are "usage opinions." Third, I don’t know where the "don't begin a sentence with a conjunction" idea came from, but it is very clear where the other two opinions originated.
Some believe that the prohibition against "split infinitives" came from the British clergyman Henry Alford and his 1863 book A Plea for the Queen's English, though this idea might have come into popularity earlier and from some other source. No one knows for sure.
However, we do know, almost certainly, that the impetus against "stranding the preposition" at the end of a sentence (or clause) came from John Dryden, beginning in about 1672.
The motivation for both of these nonrules was to segregate lower-class speakers and writers, who spoke the lower-class dialects, from the upper class, who spoke and wrote "correctly." In other words, wealthy British snobs didn't want their speaking and writing to sound like the writing of people they considered to be socially inferior. It had nothing to do with grammar.
All of these things being true, it is easy to see why we today should not, in our writing, be enslaved to petty, two-hundred-year-old and three-hundred-year-old British usage opinions. It is even more important for us not to teach this nonsense to our students. We have a "golden opportunity" to break the cycle so they won't be indoctrinated by these incorrect ideas and have to "unlearn" them like so many of the older generations have.
So, don't be afraid to put those prepositions at the end of your sentences—it never was wrong, and it never will be.
Best wishes,
Tim
I just discovered your terrific blog. In addition to teaching technical writing, I also do technical editing, so I am very interested in your posts.
As I was reading through some of your back posts, I found one called "When to Break the Rules." Let me encourage you not to feel hesitant about the issues that you mention in that post. First, none of them are "grammar"—they are "usage" issues. Second, they are not rules—they are "usage opinions." Third, I don’t know where the "don't begin a sentence with a conjunction" idea came from, but it is very clear where the other two opinions originated.
Some believe that the prohibition against "split infinitives" came from the British clergyman Henry Alford and his 1863 book A Plea for the Queen's English, though this idea might have come into popularity earlier and from some other source. No one knows for sure.
However, we do know, almost certainly, that the impetus against "stranding the preposition" at the end of a sentence (or clause) came from John Dryden, beginning in about 1672.
The motivation for both of these nonrules was to segregate lower-class speakers and writers, who spoke the lower-class dialects, from the upper class, who spoke and wrote "correctly." In other words, wealthy British snobs didn't want their speaking and writing to sound like the writing of people they considered to be socially inferior. It had nothing to do with grammar.
All of these things being true, it is easy to see why we today should not, in our writing, be enslaved to petty, two-hundred-year-old and three-hundred-year-old British usage opinions. It is even more important for us not to teach this nonsense to our students. We have a "golden opportunity" to break the cycle so they won't be indoctrinated by these incorrect ideas and have to "unlearn" them like so many of the older generations have.
So, don't be afraid to put those prepositions at the end of your sentences—it never was wrong, and it never will be.
Best wishes,
Tim
Thursday, April 23, 2009
A Poem for Editors
"The Naughty Preposition"
I lately lost a preposition:
It hid, I thought, beneath my chair.
And angrily I cried: "Perdition!
Up from out of in under there!"
Correctness is my vade mecum,
And straggling phrases I abhor;
And yet I wondered: "What should he come
Up from out of in under for?"
~Morris Bishop
Thanks to Marilee for the poem, which was originally published in the New Yorker in 1947.
I lately lost a preposition:
It hid, I thought, beneath my chair.
And angrily I cried: "Perdition!
Up from out of in under there!"
Correctness is my vade mecum,
And straggling phrases I abhor;
And yet I wondered: "What should he come
Up from out of in under for?"
~Morris Bishop
Thanks to Marilee for the poem, which was originally published in the New Yorker in 1947.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Happy Birthday, Strunk and White!
The Elements of Style, by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White, is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary of publication today – there’s even a commemorative edition available. (I've written before about where you can find Strunk's original version for free. Personally, I'd like to have the illustrated edition!) It's one of the editing resources I recommend to the left, if only for its small size – at eighty-five pages, it's not quite as intimidating as some of the other style guides out there.
There are differing opinions about whether the book is still relevant today, but I'm not going to get into that here; I'm trying to keep this post clear and concise, per their classic advice. If you'd like to read more about the book's history, including letters between White and his editor at Macmillan, Jack Case, here's a great article from NPR. (Thanks to Julie for sending me the link.)
There are differing opinions about whether the book is still relevant today, but I'm not going to get into that here; I'm trying to keep this post clear and concise, per their classic advice. If you'd like to read more about the book's history, including letters between White and his editor at Macmillan, Jack Case, here's a great article from NPR. (Thanks to Julie for sending me the link.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
