Yes, I know the purpose of Word Wrestle allegedly was to help you navigate through grammar, use the right word for the right purpose, and generally avoid hacking off the CWC (which, as you know, can have dire consequences). But this week? Let's combine two of our favorite things, word wrestling and commercials, for a bit of a grin.
There's a Bud Light ad on Blackhawks radio that has my new favorite commercial line:
"Will Bud Light make your team play better? No. Because that's not how beer works."
Every time I hear that, I crack up. It's delivered in a perfectly straightforward style, by a spokesman who's clearly enamored of beer...but who also knows its place. :-)
Bud Light isn't the best beer in the world. Some people think it's not really "beer" at all (I'm looking at you, IPA-micro-brewery-fans-of-beers-with-stuff-in-them-God-probably-never-intended-beer-to-contain). Some people claim it's undrinkable, watered-down, and generally otherwise not worth using for much other than, maybe, cleaning out the garbage disposal. That's not MY opinion, necessarily...but it's some people's.
But the beauty of this company's product--and its ads--is that it doesn't CARE. It's just out to put the beer in your mind as an option for "the big game," and give you a smile or two.
And this isn't the first time Bud Light has come out with commercials that are actually witty. Which, IMHO, puts them head-and-shoulders above about 98% of the advertising out there.
Although beer doesn't make our writing better--because, again, THAT's not how beer works, either--there are plenty of things beer DOES work quite well to do. On a hot day, at a baseball game, very few things taste better.
In the meantime, there's at least one ad out there that I can actually enjoy--every single time. And that's something any agency ought to get kudos for.
Thoughts?
Janny
Friday, February 24, 2017
Friday, February 17, 2017
Word Wrestle #4: Spell Check is NOT Your Friend.
Last week, we talked about how to get good spelling and grammar help--which is to run what you write through the real-life pair of eyes of someone who knows how to do these things correctly.
And, as you know, there is also a way to get bad help.
That comes from applications that promise to do "spell-checks" and "grammar checks."
And they're everywhere.
Today, however, we're just going to talk about the Microsoft Word version of it.
Which ought to be called a perversion of it.
I don't know why one of the world's superpower-corporations couldn't get this right. They've had years and years, and versions and versions and VERSIONS of Windows, in which to figure out that whoever wrote that original version of Word's Spelling and Grammar Check was a complete imbecile.
Yet it has never been fixed. Not by one iota.
So I cannot say this enough: DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE WORD'S SPELLING AND GRAMMAR CHECK AS YOUR PROOFREADER.
I found out why when I ran a document through the Grammar Check, once upon a time, with the honest intention of seeing if it would, in fact, catch bad grammar.
If it would, in fact, catch sentences that don't make sense because the wrong WORD is in them.
If it would, in fact, catch things like putting "hers" where you mean "his" or "her" where you mean "him," or similar things that are RIGHT in the strict spelling sense, but complete and utter gibberish in terms of meaning.
I'm here to tell you, unfortunately, that Grammar Check can't find any of those.
It can't tell sentence sense.
It can't tell when you've accidentally put the wrong gender in a sentence.
And it can hardly tell when you've said "hardly" but meant "heartily."
In short, it's not a Grammar Check at all, in that it will not correct ERRORS of that sort.
But what it DOES do, boys and girls, are things like this:
--Where you have a sentence that says a phrase like "your children" or "your career" or "your school"...it will query that and suggest "you're."
--Where you have a sentence like "She didn't know if she dared," it will query that and suggest putting in a question mark.
--And probably the worst and most egregious offense of all...Where you have a sentence that says "It's a problem," it will query it and suggest you change to "Its." And where you say, "Its nature is to be incorrect most of the time," it will absolutely bear that sentiment out--by querying and suggesting "It's."
I don't have hard figures on this. I don't have statistics. If someone does, I'd love to see them. But I'd be willing to guess, off the top of my head, that Word's Spelling and Grammar Check will take something that's already correct and tell you to make it wrong approximately 88 percent of the time.
And the rest of the time, it won't find the wrong word or the nonsensical sentence. Because if the words are all spelled right...it can't read enough to actually check the GRAMMAR and tell you the sentence is wrong.
Which means that while, as a raw spelling (and repeated-word) checker, it has some limited capability...as a Grammar Check, it's a complete fraud.
And yes, I'm prepared to stand behind that.
Because I've seen many instances of what results when writers lean on it.
And that, boys and girls, is awful.
Spare us awful writing. Either use reverse dictionaries to help you spell a word you "know" but can't "spell"...use regular dictionaries to make sure you're using the right word...use someone like Strunk and White to get some of the grammar gremlins out of the way...
...or best yet--use a really, really good editor, and all these things will be seen to.
Properly.
Decently.
And in order.
Class dismissed!
Thoughts?
Janny
And, as you know, there is also a way to get bad help.
That comes from applications that promise to do "spell-checks" and "grammar checks."
And they're everywhere.
Today, however, we're just going to talk about the Microsoft Word version of it.
Which ought to be called a perversion of it.
I don't know why one of the world's superpower-corporations couldn't get this right. They've had years and years, and versions and versions and VERSIONS of Windows, in which to figure out that whoever wrote that original version of Word's Spelling and Grammar Check was a complete imbecile.
Yet it has never been fixed. Not by one iota.
So I cannot say this enough: DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES USE WORD'S SPELLING AND GRAMMAR CHECK AS YOUR PROOFREADER.
I found out why when I ran a document through the Grammar Check, once upon a time, with the honest intention of seeing if it would, in fact, catch bad grammar.
If it would, in fact, catch sentences that don't make sense because the wrong WORD is in them.
If it would, in fact, catch things like putting "hers" where you mean "his" or "her" where you mean "him," or similar things that are RIGHT in the strict spelling sense, but complete and utter gibberish in terms of meaning.
I'm here to tell you, unfortunately, that Grammar Check can't find any of those.
It can't tell sentence sense.
It can't tell when you've accidentally put the wrong gender in a sentence.
And it can hardly tell when you've said "hardly" but meant "heartily."
In short, it's not a Grammar Check at all, in that it will not correct ERRORS of that sort.
But what it DOES do, boys and girls, are things like this:
--Where you have a sentence that says a phrase like "your children" or "your career" or "your school"...it will query that and suggest "you're."
--Where you have a sentence like "She didn't know if she dared," it will query that and suggest putting in a question mark.
--And probably the worst and most egregious offense of all...Where you have a sentence that says "It's a problem," it will query it and suggest you change to "Its." And where you say, "Its nature is to be incorrect most of the time," it will absolutely bear that sentiment out--by querying and suggesting "It's."
I don't have hard figures on this. I don't have statistics. If someone does, I'd love to see them. But I'd be willing to guess, off the top of my head, that Word's Spelling and Grammar Check will take something that's already correct and tell you to make it wrong approximately 88 percent of the time.
And the rest of the time, it won't find the wrong word or the nonsensical sentence. Because if the words are all spelled right...it can't read enough to actually check the GRAMMAR and tell you the sentence is wrong.
Which means that while, as a raw spelling (and repeated-word) checker, it has some limited capability...as a Grammar Check, it's a complete fraud.
And yes, I'm prepared to stand behind that.
Because I've seen many instances of what results when writers lean on it.
And that, boys and girls, is awful.
Spare us awful writing. Either use reverse dictionaries to help you spell a word you "know" but can't "spell"...use regular dictionaries to make sure you're using the right word...use someone like Strunk and White to get some of the grammar gremlins out of the way...
...or best yet--use a really, really good editor, and all these things will be seen to.
Properly.
Decently.
And in order.
Class dismissed!
Thoughts?
Janny
Thursday, February 16, 2017
For Better, For Worse...
I'm committing to a new (old) book. See the sidebar for progress on the resurrection of MY BROTHER'S KEEPER, a "Fabulous Five" contest winner once upon a time...and a book that's always been close to my heart (as only a book about two basketball players could be). Problem is, it's been through umpty-ump-plus-one too many revisions, reversions, remakes, and retools, until the original STORY has been lost in the shuffle.
But...no more. I hope.
I'm going into Intensive Care (not to be confused with where our hero may end up) of my own to get this book Up and Running Again, starting with Write-a-Thon's SPRINT tonight. Stay tuned!
More to come,
Janny
But...no more. I hope.
I'm going into Intensive Care (not to be confused with where our hero may end up) of my own to get this book Up and Running Again, starting with Write-a-Thon's SPRINT tonight. Stay tuned!
More to come,
Janny
Tuesday, February 14, 2017
And I Don't Have a Job in Advertising...Why? (part 1)
You know you do it.
You talk back to the TV or the radio when an ad comes on that you think is stupid.
Or, as many people do during the Super Bowl ad blitz, you "rate" the ones you think are good and pan the rest.
On that subject, does anyone remember when Super Bowl ads were actually good? When they were funny? When they were memorable? When they didn't feel the need to PREACH at their audience? (And does anyone find it ironic that Super Bowl ads will frequently preach at their audience about some "social justice" or "moral" issue, and then segue right to a Super Bowl halftime show that drags the bottom of the moral barrel, is subject to "wardrobe malfunctions" that you swear were planned, or that is so banal that you can't even watch it?)
But...I digress. And I DO talk back to the TV and the radio.
For different reasons, depending on the ad.
There's at least one ad that I DESPISE because it paints women as total idiots about their cars. You know the one. It's where you hear a series of dings and the woman says, "Oh, that's your gas gauge. And that's your tire pressure thingy. And that's your oil whatchamacallit."
They're INDICATORS, sweetie. Or WARNING LIGHTS. And if you don't know enough to call them that instead of "thingies," someone needs to take away your car keys.
But there are others that, while I don't despise them for their portrayal of human beings as idiots (there are far too many of those to enumerate here), I find myself talking back to every time because the writing on them is HOPELESSLY awful. As in bad. As in incorrect, to the point where they don't even make sense.
My favorite nonsensical one is a bank ad (they're frequently bank ads, come to think of it) where the narrator is talking about people who run their own businesses. Entrepreneurs, if you will. And he says, "And you know that when you run your own business, no day is ever the same. And if it is, you know something's wrong."
Yeah, something's wrong, all right. WITH THAT SENTENCE.
Can you pick out what it is?
Post it in the comments!
Janny
You talk back to the TV or the radio when an ad comes on that you think is stupid.
Or, as many people do during the Super Bowl ad blitz, you "rate" the ones you think are good and pan the rest.
On that subject, does anyone remember when Super Bowl ads were actually good? When they were funny? When they were memorable? When they didn't feel the need to PREACH at their audience? (And does anyone find it ironic that Super Bowl ads will frequently preach at their audience about some "social justice" or "moral" issue, and then segue right to a Super Bowl halftime show that drags the bottom of the moral barrel, is subject to "wardrobe malfunctions" that you swear were planned, or that is so banal that you can't even watch it?)
But...I digress. And I DO talk back to the TV and the radio.
For different reasons, depending on the ad.
There's at least one ad that I DESPISE because it paints women as total idiots about their cars. You know the one. It's where you hear a series of dings and the woman says, "Oh, that's your gas gauge. And that's your tire pressure thingy. And that's your oil whatchamacallit."
They're INDICATORS, sweetie. Or WARNING LIGHTS. And if you don't know enough to call them that instead of "thingies," someone needs to take away your car keys.
But there are others that, while I don't despise them for their portrayal of human beings as idiots (there are far too many of those to enumerate here), I find myself talking back to every time because the writing on them is HOPELESSLY awful. As in bad. As in incorrect, to the point where they don't even make sense.
My favorite nonsensical one is a bank ad (they're frequently bank ads, come to think of it) where the narrator is talking about people who run their own businesses. Entrepreneurs, if you will. And he says, "And you know that when you run your own business, no day is ever the same. And if it is, you know something's wrong."
Yeah, something's wrong, all right. WITH THAT SENTENCE.
Can you pick out what it is?
Post it in the comments!
Janny
Friday, February 10, 2017
This Week's Wrestle: Copywriting versus Copyrighting versus Copy Editing versus...
Yeah. I need some anti-hair-pulling-out medicine on this one.
I cannot tell you how many times I've been through the job boards and read from some author wannabe:
I've written a book and I need a copywriter to edit it and correct the spelling and grammar, in some cases reword a sentence or two where it doesn't make sense...
And so on. And so forth. And so CLUELESS.
As are the ones who want all the services given above--and want to get them from a copyrighter.
Or a copywritter, which may be the worst of all. Although all three are pretty bad.
So let's set the record straight.
1. A copywriter writes copy. Specifically, sales-oriented copy. Such as the volumes of "junk" you get in the mail all the time, wanting you to buy, take a course in, or attend something.
A copywriter DOES NOT edit books. No, not even the "copy" in said books.
The person who does that is a copy editor, a line editor, a substantive editor, or...
There's a recurring theme here. Can you spot it?
Yep. There's nothing in those titles about writer.
So if you are looking for book, article, blog post, or journal editing...you want a copy editor. Not a copywriter.
You also don't want a copywriter if you want someone to write the book FOR you.
That's a ghostwriter. NOT a copywriter.
While it's possible to find good copywriters who can also ghostwrite for you, it's not easy. Nor is it particularly recommended, as they tend to be two different skill sets--not to mention two different mindsets.
So if you're looking for someone to be a co-author, to interview you for a book manuscript, or to take transcriptions and organize them into a book...generally, you're NOT looking for a copywriter. The tools and weapons to do that kind of work aren't in most of their arsenals--and, it must be said, most true copywriters I know don't even want that kind of work.
2. A copywriter has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright has to do with protecting your intellectual property. It's the process by which you declare that something is YOUR work and no one else's.
The person who does that is YOU. Not anybody else, strictly speaking. Even registering your work with the Copyright Office doesn't mean they're doing the copyrighting; they're merely documenting what YOU already possess--which is ownership of certain said material as of a certain said date.
So if you are looking for copy editing, you don't want a copyrighter.
Nor are you looking for a copyrighter if you want copy written.
3. Copywritting is the kind of jaw-dropping request that leaves a potential editor or writer scratching his/her head. You see, using that word makes it impossible to tell what kind of help you need with that request--other than the obvious, which is spelling help. (And no, you don't get that from the legendary "spell check" on your computer. In the next segment of this feature, we'll talk about why not.) If English isn't your first language, this is somewhat forgivable. If you're supposedly a native, however, it's not. No. Not even once. Ever.
(Although if you apologize because you're not a good speller elsewhere in the job posting...it's somewhat easier to take. But not much.)
In reality, you may actually want real live copywriting work done. Until we get past the spelling hurdle, we won't know for sure--although in my experience, what follows that word in most job ads, once again, isn't a request for "copywriting" at all. It's usually a variation on "I need an editor." (With which the Catholic Writer Chick concurs.)
So, let's review.
There's only one thing a "copywriter" does for you: write sales or marketing COPY.
This can be letters, memos, brochures, e-mail series, presentations, or catalog descriptions.
Yes, copywriters do work in the book industry: as back-cover, jacket flap, or promotional/PR/press release writers.
But that is where their connection to a book begins...and ends.
So please...if you've written a book and want help with the "copy" on the page...
ask for an editor.
Not a copywriter.
OR a copyrighter.
OR...no, let's not even go there.
Capisce?
My hairline will thank you.
Comments?
Janny
I cannot tell you how many times I've been through the job boards and read from some author wannabe:
I've written a book and I need a copywriter to edit it and correct the spelling and grammar, in some cases reword a sentence or two where it doesn't make sense...
And so on. And so forth. And so CLUELESS.
As are the ones who want all the services given above--and want to get them from a copyrighter.
Or a copywritter, which may be the worst of all. Although all three are pretty bad.
So let's set the record straight.
1. A copywriter writes copy. Specifically, sales-oriented copy. Such as the volumes of "junk" you get in the mail all the time, wanting you to buy, take a course in, or attend something.
A copywriter DOES NOT edit books. No, not even the "copy" in said books.
The person who does that is a copy editor, a line editor, a substantive editor, or...
There's a recurring theme here. Can you spot it?
Yep. There's nothing in those titles about writer.
So if you are looking for book, article, blog post, or journal editing...you want a copy editor. Not a copywriter.
You also don't want a copywriter if you want someone to write the book FOR you.
That's a ghostwriter. NOT a copywriter.
While it's possible to find good copywriters who can also ghostwrite for you, it's not easy. Nor is it particularly recommended, as they tend to be two different skill sets--not to mention two different mindsets.
So if you're looking for someone to be a co-author, to interview you for a book manuscript, or to take transcriptions and organize them into a book...generally, you're NOT looking for a copywriter. The tools and weapons to do that kind of work aren't in most of their arsenals--and, it must be said, most true copywriters I know don't even want that kind of work.
2. A copywriter has nothing to do with copyright.
Copyright has to do with protecting your intellectual property. It's the process by which you declare that something is YOUR work and no one else's.
The person who does that is YOU. Not anybody else, strictly speaking. Even registering your work with the Copyright Office doesn't mean they're doing the copyrighting; they're merely documenting what YOU already possess--which is ownership of certain said material as of a certain said date.
So if you are looking for copy editing, you don't want a copyrighter.
Nor are you looking for a copyrighter if you want copy written.
3. Copywritting is the kind of jaw-dropping request that leaves a potential editor or writer scratching his/her head. You see, using that word makes it impossible to tell what kind of help you need with that request--other than the obvious, which is spelling help. (And no, you don't get that from the legendary "spell check" on your computer. In the next segment of this feature, we'll talk about why not.) If English isn't your first language, this is somewhat forgivable. If you're supposedly a native, however, it's not. No. Not even once. Ever.
(Although if you apologize because you're not a good speller elsewhere in the job posting...it's somewhat easier to take. But not much.)
In reality, you may actually want real live copywriting work done. Until we get past the spelling hurdle, we won't know for sure--although in my experience, what follows that word in most job ads, once again, isn't a request for "copywriting" at all. It's usually a variation on "I need an editor." (With which the Catholic Writer Chick concurs.)
So, let's review.
There's only one thing a "copywriter" does for you: write sales or marketing COPY.
This can be letters, memos, brochures, e-mail series, presentations, or catalog descriptions.
Yes, copywriters do work in the book industry: as back-cover, jacket flap, or promotional/PR/press release writers.
But that is where their connection to a book begins...and ends.
So please...if you've written a book and want help with the "copy" on the page...
ask for an editor.
Not a copywriter.
OR a copyrighter.
OR...no, let's not even go there.
Capisce?
My hairline will thank you.
Comments?
Janny
Friday, February 03, 2017
This Week's Word Wrestle: The Dreaded Apostrophe
The poor apostrophe!
Just THINKING about the many ways I've seen this abused sets my teeth on edge, as it does to anyone with a modicum of proficiency in the English language.
For those of you who don't have that, here are a few simple rules.
1. Plurals are never made with apostrophes. EVER. EVER. EVER.
In other words, if you see (as I saw this week on a choral schedule sign) "solo's" indicating that the group was going to talk about people auditioning for SOLOS, and you have to physically restrain yourself from getting up and rubbing out the apostrophe on the white board (as I did), you're not being "picky" or "pedantic" or "fussy." You're being literate. Congratulations to you. You know better than probably 90 percent of the allegedly English-speaking population out there. (The foreigners I know for whom English is a second language, by and large, get this right. Go figure.)
2. Plural possessives put the apostrophe after the s. Not before it.
In other words, if you're going to visit the Johnson family, you're going to the "Johnsons'," not the "Johnson's." If only one Johnson lives there, you might be able to get away with the second construction. On the other hand, if only one lives there--say, Abby Johnson--you're probably saying, "I'm going to Abby's house," not, "I'm going to Johnson's." If you're a young man and you commonly call your friends by their last name, you could say the latter...but it would still be more correct to use the former, since your friend Johnson probably hasn't banished the rest of the family from "his" house forever and taken sole possession of it. Get it?
3. It's WOMEN'S clothing, but LADIES' attire.
It's CHILDREN'S clothing, but CHILD's play.
It's MENSWEAR, but MEN'S conference.
Yes, there are irregularities here and there. Deal with them.
4. Finally, speaking of the "conference" example above...
Maybe it's just me, but it seems more correct to place an apostrophe in that "possessive," even though it's largely omitted. Things like "writers conference," although considered technically fine...grate my teeth. Is it a conference of writers? Yes. Is it a conference designed for writers? Yes. If those things are true, don't the writers, in effect, own it? So in that case, to my way of thinking, the term should read "writers' conference." (And, no, not "writer's conference"...unless, again, only one writer is there or "owns" it or goes to it. Which makes it a really, really, really small conference.)
5. Most of all...just remember. Please. Remember.
APOSTROPHES ARE NEVER USED TO MAKE A PLURAL. EVER. EVER. EVER.
I fully expect many of you to be traveling with Sharpies now, ready to jump on and correct those illiterately-produced signs, memos, and other nonsensical notices that say things like "Buy one, get one free on Friday's," or "Tomato's on sale today," or "All permission slip's due tomorrow."
They're everywhere. You know it, and I know it. Do your part.
Me, I have to go take a Valium now.
Happy Friday!
Janny
Just THINKING about the many ways I've seen this abused sets my teeth on edge, as it does to anyone with a modicum of proficiency in the English language.
For those of you who don't have that, here are a few simple rules.
1. Plurals are never made with apostrophes. EVER. EVER. EVER.
In other words, if you see (as I saw this week on a choral schedule sign) "solo's" indicating that the group was going to talk about people auditioning for SOLOS, and you have to physically restrain yourself from getting up and rubbing out the apostrophe on the white board (as I did), you're not being "picky" or "pedantic" or "fussy." You're being literate. Congratulations to you. You know better than probably 90 percent of the allegedly English-speaking population out there. (The foreigners I know for whom English is a second language, by and large, get this right. Go figure.)
2. Plural possessives put the apostrophe after the s. Not before it.
In other words, if you're going to visit the Johnson family, you're going to the "Johnsons'," not the "Johnson's." If only one Johnson lives there, you might be able to get away with the second construction. On the other hand, if only one lives there--say, Abby Johnson--you're probably saying, "I'm going to Abby's house," not, "I'm going to Johnson's." If you're a young man and you commonly call your friends by their last name, you could say the latter...but it would still be more correct to use the former, since your friend Johnson probably hasn't banished the rest of the family from "his" house forever and taken sole possession of it. Get it?
3. It's WOMEN'S clothing, but LADIES' attire.
It's CHILDREN'S clothing, but CHILD's play.
It's MENSWEAR, but MEN'S conference.
Yes, there are irregularities here and there. Deal with them.
4. Finally, speaking of the "conference" example above...
Maybe it's just me, but it seems more correct to place an apostrophe in that "possessive," even though it's largely omitted. Things like "writers conference," although considered technically fine...grate my teeth. Is it a conference of writers? Yes. Is it a conference designed for writers? Yes. If those things are true, don't the writers, in effect, own it? So in that case, to my way of thinking, the term should read "writers' conference." (And, no, not "writer's conference"...unless, again, only one writer is there or "owns" it or goes to it. Which makes it a really, really, really small conference.)
5. Most of all...just remember. Please. Remember.
APOSTROPHES ARE NEVER USED TO MAKE A PLURAL. EVER. EVER. EVER.
I fully expect many of you to be traveling with Sharpies now, ready to jump on and correct those illiterately-produced signs, memos, and other nonsensical notices that say things like "Buy one, get one free on Friday's," or "Tomato's on sale today," or "All permission slip's due tomorrow."
They're everywhere. You know it, and I know it. Do your part.
Me, I have to go take a Valium now.
Happy Friday!
Janny
Friday, January 27, 2017
New Feature! Janny's Word Wrestling Makes Its Debut!
Yes, it gives me great--or at least a modicum of--pleasure to introduce something that I hope will be helpful here. While I also know that there are 3,276 "grammar" or "word" sites online, where you can look these things up at your leisure, let's face it. They're not nearly as entertaining as I am. Right?
So without further ado (do you? ah don't), enjoy the first installment of what I hope will be a partial curative for one of my pet peeves...word misuse. Each week, I plan to take a pair like this and expound (briefly) upon the differences. We'll cover all kinds of things that most writers, Word's Grammar and Spellcheck primary among them, get WRONG with astonishing regularity, causing much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair. This has to stop for two reasons: my dental bill, and what little hair I have left.
SO...here we go.
First batch: discreet versus discrete.
Yes. They are two discrete things, and if you misuse them, you're not being discreet about your treatment of the language.
Here's the scoop from blog.dictionary.com.
I cannot tell you how seeing this difference ignored in published authors' works (I'm looking at you, Elizabeth Spann Craig) irritates me. And I know there are many other authors out there who've made this mistake over and over and over again. Which says to me two things:
1. You don't know what you don't know.
2. Your editors don't know it, either.
And yes, it does matter. There are something like 400,000 words in the English language; learning the difference between pairs of them that sound and/or look alike but are actually very different in meaning makes you a better communicator. It makes your work say what you intend it to say. And most of all, it keeps people like me from denting walls, the aftereffect of tossing a book against the wall in frustration. (With a Kindle, tossing the "book" against the wall could do even more damage. Making me, your dear reader, even more frustrated. You don't want to go there.)
So remember...be DISCREET about the DISCRETE things you cover in your writing and speech. Or face the flying Kindle.
You're welcome.
Watch this space for another segment next Friday!
Thoughts?
Janny
So without further ado (do you? ah don't), enjoy the first installment of what I hope will be a partial curative for one of my pet peeves...word misuse. Each week, I plan to take a pair like this and expound (briefly) upon the differences. We'll cover all kinds of things that most writers, Word's Grammar and Spellcheck primary among them, get WRONG with astonishing regularity, causing much gnashing of teeth and tearing of hair. This has to stop for two reasons: my dental bill, and what little hair I have left.
SO...here we go.
First batch: discreet versus discrete.
Yes. They are two discrete things, and if you misuse them, you're not being discreet about your treatment of the language.
Here's the scoop from blog.dictionary.com.
"Discreet implies the showing of reserve and prudence in
one's behavior or speech. Discrete means something quite different:
'distinct, separate, unrelated.'"
I cannot tell you how seeing this difference ignored in published authors' works (I'm looking at you, Elizabeth Spann Craig) irritates me. And I know there are many other authors out there who've made this mistake over and over and over again. Which says to me two things:
1. You don't know what you don't know.
2. Your editors don't know it, either.
And yes, it does matter. There are something like 400,000 words in the English language; learning the difference between pairs of them that sound and/or look alike but are actually very different in meaning makes you a better communicator. It makes your work say what you intend it to say. And most of all, it keeps people like me from denting walls, the aftereffect of tossing a book against the wall in frustration. (With a Kindle, tossing the "book" against the wall could do even more damage. Making me, your dear reader, even more frustrated. You don't want to go there.)
So remember...be DISCREET about the DISCRETE things you cover in your writing and speech. Or face the flying Kindle.
You're welcome.
Watch this space for another segment next Friday!
Thoughts?
Janny
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
"Creative" Isn't a Political Viewpoint. Got It?
A brief word.
PLEASE, if you run
a group, newsletters, or such to which I subscribe and/or belong because of my
trade, HEAR THIS and hear it well:
I am a creative person. That being said, however, let's also talk about what I am NOT: namely, wringing my hands in agony and/or embittered, angry, or terrified over the direction the country is now taking.
In a word? Um. No. Much to the contrary, in fact...I'm dancing-in-the-streets DELIGHTED, actually.
"But how can this BE?" you wail. Simple.
I'm a creative. I'm also a conservative. And yes, Snowflake, they can go together.
It is extremely prejudicial to assume that because someone is an artist, a writer, or a musician, that he/she is also allied with the mindset of so many of you who consider yourselves cultural "elites." I'm from one of those "flyover states" you're so fond of either ignoring or disparaging...and I'm proud to be. I hold to traditional values, unapologetic religious faith, and a worldview that seems to either scare or repulse many of you. I'm also an award-winning fiction writer who's helped countless people realize their writing dreams, a singer and performer who loves to be onstage, and a proud parent of a young lady who is truly gifted in ceramics. Among other things.
If you hate the first part of my description but love the second, and wonder how those two can coexist...? This is just a guess, but...maybe because ARTISTIC ABILITY is a totally different sphere than POLITICS?
I know. It's a wild and crazy idea. But...imagine for a second...if it's TRUE. (Spoiler alert: it is.) Pretty darned progressive notion, isn't it?
I am a creative person. That being said, however, let's also talk about what I am NOT: namely, wringing my hands in agony and/or embittered, angry, or terrified over the direction the country is now taking.
In a word? Um. No. Much to the contrary, in fact...I'm dancing-in-the-streets DELIGHTED, actually.
"But how can this BE?" you wail. Simple.
I'm a creative. I'm also a conservative. And yes, Snowflake, they can go together.
It is extremely prejudicial to assume that because someone is an artist, a writer, or a musician, that he/she is also allied with the mindset of so many of you who consider yourselves cultural "elites." I'm from one of those "flyover states" you're so fond of either ignoring or disparaging...and I'm proud to be. I hold to traditional values, unapologetic religious faith, and a worldview that seems to either scare or repulse many of you. I'm also an award-winning fiction writer who's helped countless people realize their writing dreams, a singer and performer who loves to be onstage, and a proud parent of a young lady who is truly gifted in ceramics. Among other things.
If you hate the first part of my description but love the second, and wonder how those two can coexist...? This is just a guess, but...maybe because ARTISTIC ABILITY is a totally different sphere than POLITICS?
I know. It's a wild and crazy idea. But...imagine for a second...if it's TRUE. (Spoiler alert: it is.) Pretty darned progressive notion, isn't it?
This isn't to say that both of these things aren't part of me. Of course they are. The WHOLE is what I am. But one does not preclude, cancel out, or negate the other. I'm not "stupid" or "uncreative" by being a conservative, and YOU're not "wise" and "enlightened" by NOT sharing my views. We just differ. Period.
This should not be difficult to understand.
Intelligent people know what you DO doesn't constitute the sum total of who you ARE; it seems to me that creative people should be able to separate, and appreciate, the dichotomy of those aspects better than almost anyone else. How many of us wait tables before that "big break"? Are we career food service people? Nope. Had we better make sure we're GOOD food service people while we ARE doing it? Well, yeah, unless we want to be living examples of "starving artists."
Just as we're not deemed "less artistic" simply because part of us is engaged in keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, I should not be considered "less creative" or "less intelligent" for holding a worldview that's different from what you might expect. I'm being truly, authentically me. Which is what creativity also hinges on, if I'm not mistaken.
Creative people don't like being pigeonholed, no matter how comfortable and reassuring you may find the particular hole in which you'd like to think you can stuff me. :- ) Stop trying. Because, I promise you...it ain't gonna work.
More to the point, however, it's just not right.
So if I'm supposed to "live and let live," then I should be treated with the same courtesy. Yes, even if I'm (gasp!) conservative.
Go on. Try it. It'll be a good creative exercise for you. And I promise, it won't hurt a bit.
This should not be difficult to understand.
Intelligent people know what you DO doesn't constitute the sum total of who you ARE; it seems to me that creative people should be able to separate, and appreciate, the dichotomy of those aspects better than almost anyone else. How many of us wait tables before that "big break"? Are we career food service people? Nope. Had we better make sure we're GOOD food service people while we ARE doing it? Well, yeah, unless we want to be living examples of "starving artists."
Just as we're not deemed "less artistic" simply because part of us is engaged in keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, I should not be considered "less creative" or "less intelligent" for holding a worldview that's different from what you might expect. I'm being truly, authentically me. Which is what creativity also hinges on, if I'm not mistaken.
Creative people don't like being pigeonholed, no matter how comfortable and reassuring you may find the particular hole in which you'd like to think you can stuff me. :- ) Stop trying. Because, I promise you...it ain't gonna work.
More to the point, however, it's just not right.
So if I'm supposed to "live and let live," then I should be treated with the same courtesy. Yes, even if I'm (gasp!) conservative.
Go on. Try it. It'll be a good creative exercise for you. And I promise, it won't hurt a bit.
Thoughts?
Janny
Friday, November 18, 2016
What He Said.
Why I am an entrepreneur at heart:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/07/10-reasons-you-should-never-get-a-job/
(Which is good, considering the lack of people pounding down my door to hire me!)
Time to up the income scale...
Janny
http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2006/07/10-reasons-you-should-never-get-a-job/
(Which is good, considering the lack of people pounding down my door to hire me!)
Time to up the income scale...
Janny
Frankly, My Dear, I Don't Give a Sh*t
You know, sometimes you dodge a bullet.
A potential client on Upwork had a business book he wanted editing on...about how to keep Millennials happy in your workplace.
You know. How to keep a raft of recent college graduates endlessly entertained, affirmed, praised, and rewarded for basically not PRODUCING anything yet...but they will. Oh, boy! They will! Just ask them about what they're gonna do for you...
...as long as you can keep them engaged with your enterprise for long enough.
While I understand that this, unfortunately, IS the work force that many companies are facing--I found myself reading this guy's tips on how to keep these kids on board, and thinking, "Why in the world do you want to work so hard KEEPING these prima donnas? That's just enabling a delusion at your company's expense."
And that's what it is, ladies and gentlemen.
In the mental-health and recovery professions, we call aiding and abetting someone in their illness "enabling" them. You clean up the drunk's messes, you call and make excuses for the drug-addict kid, you coddle and protect and shield, because obviously, they're only screwing up their lives and the lives of everyone around them because they were Underloved In Some Important Way and We Have To Make Up To Them For It.
Hogwash.
Mental illness is an illness. It needs cauterizing and treatment, not coddling. Yes, it hurts. Lots of things do. But the light at the end of the tunnel is worth going through the healing process to get to.
Drug and alcohol abuse is an illness, but it's also a behavioral DECISION. (At some point or other, you take that first drink or you smoke that first weed. Yes, YOU do it. No one forces you to.) And it needs correction, not cooperation. Accountability, not accommodation.
Same goes for the mental illness rampant in the Millennial generation's members who believe the world owes them a living, full-blown, luxurious, and debt-free, FROM DAY ONE.
And yes, they'd like it on a scale better than Mom and Dad's, too, thanks.
Um. No.
If you're sitting behind your desk at the factory wondering how you're going to keep kids like THIS employed at your firm...stop wasting your time and energy.
Because it IS a waste. And worse, it's contributing to the perpetuation of a mental illness.
It's called being delusional.
And the sooner you can STOP catering to it, the sooner it'll get cured.
But if you maintain that you somehow have to change the way YOU do business so that these kids will be motivated to stick around?
Um. No.
Trust me. They won't. The moment someone dares to shatter their "safe place" or fails to reward their special uniquenesses, they'll walk anyway.
Which is where the title of this post comes from. Because, frankly, you shouldn't care if they do. There are plenty of other able and willing hands out there to take their places.
Don't kowtow, wheedle, or try to appease these spoiled specimens. Set them free. You'll be doing them a service.
You'll be enabling them to discover that $7 an hour jobs are plentiful out there for people with no other options, as well as realizing that eating and indoor living cost money...money OTHER people are willing to sacrifice and work hard to get.
Between those two insights, they might come to their senses and understand, finally, that it's not up to The World to cater to THEM...but the other way around.
And THEN, they might be staff members worth keeping. Because they'll actually understand that they need to show up, and be on time, and keep their mouths shut, and learn a few things, BEFORE they'll get that corner office.
Then, you'll have great people to work with.
But until then, please, stop bending over and inviting these special little snowflakes to kick you again.
It's not doing any of us ANY favors.
And that behavior certainly doesn't deserve an owner's manual to encourage ANYONE to perpetuate it.
Thoughts?
Janny
A potential client on Upwork had a business book he wanted editing on...about how to keep Millennials happy in your workplace.
You know. How to keep a raft of recent college graduates endlessly entertained, affirmed, praised, and rewarded for basically not PRODUCING anything yet...but they will. Oh, boy! They will! Just ask them about what they're gonna do for you...
...as long as you can keep them engaged with your enterprise for long enough.
While I understand that this, unfortunately, IS the work force that many companies are facing--I found myself reading this guy's tips on how to keep these kids on board, and thinking, "Why in the world do you want to work so hard KEEPING these prima donnas? That's just enabling a delusion at your company's expense."
And that's what it is, ladies and gentlemen.
In the mental-health and recovery professions, we call aiding and abetting someone in their illness "enabling" them. You clean up the drunk's messes, you call and make excuses for the drug-addict kid, you coddle and protect and shield, because obviously, they're only screwing up their lives and the lives of everyone around them because they were Underloved In Some Important Way and We Have To Make Up To Them For It.
Hogwash.
Mental illness is an illness. It needs cauterizing and treatment, not coddling. Yes, it hurts. Lots of things do. But the light at the end of the tunnel is worth going through the healing process to get to.
Drug and alcohol abuse is an illness, but it's also a behavioral DECISION. (At some point or other, you take that first drink or you smoke that first weed. Yes, YOU do it. No one forces you to.) And it needs correction, not cooperation. Accountability, not accommodation.
Same goes for the mental illness rampant in the Millennial generation's members who believe the world owes them a living, full-blown, luxurious, and debt-free, FROM DAY ONE.
And yes, they'd like it on a scale better than Mom and Dad's, too, thanks.
Um. No.
If you're sitting behind your desk at the factory wondering how you're going to keep kids like THIS employed at your firm...stop wasting your time and energy.
Because it IS a waste. And worse, it's contributing to the perpetuation of a mental illness.
It's called being delusional.
And the sooner you can STOP catering to it, the sooner it'll get cured.
But if you maintain that you somehow have to change the way YOU do business so that these kids will be motivated to stick around?
Um. No.
Trust me. They won't. The moment someone dares to shatter their "safe place" or fails to reward their special uniquenesses, they'll walk anyway.
Which is where the title of this post comes from. Because, frankly, you shouldn't care if they do. There are plenty of other able and willing hands out there to take their places.
Don't kowtow, wheedle, or try to appease these spoiled specimens. Set them free. You'll be doing them a service.
You'll be enabling them to discover that $7 an hour jobs are plentiful out there for people with no other options, as well as realizing that eating and indoor living cost money...money OTHER people are willing to sacrifice and work hard to get.
Between those two insights, they might come to their senses and understand, finally, that it's not up to The World to cater to THEM...but the other way around.
And THEN, they might be staff members worth keeping. Because they'll actually understand that they need to show up, and be on time, and keep their mouths shut, and learn a few things, BEFORE they'll get that corner office.
Then, you'll have great people to work with.
But until then, please, stop bending over and inviting these special little snowflakes to kick you again.
It's not doing any of us ANY favors.
And that behavior certainly doesn't deserve an owner's manual to encourage ANYONE to perpetuate it.
Thoughts?
Janny
Tuesday, August 09, 2016
Does Anybody Actually Work Anymore?
OK, you may think I'm being a little facetious here...
But as a freelancer, I notice things like big influxes of job listings, or big SLOWDOWNS in activity. And patterns in same.
Awhile back, I posted on social media about how things seemed to "shut down" about noon on Thursdays. From a fairly brisk pace beforehand, it seemed like clients were getting ready to power down for the weekend...shall we say...rather early. I'd see regular traffic, and then it would get sparser and sparser, bit by bit, as Thursday afternoon edged toward Thursday evening.
NOW, however, the ebb is starting on WEDNESDAYS.
And this week...I'm starting to wonder if anyone's working at all in any offices, anywhere, during the month of August. Because things have gone from fairly respectable streaming to a trickle to, now, a DRIP.
(This is not a comment on the quality...merely the quantity. :-) )
So there must be a secret I don't know about as to how people are paying their bills when they increasingly DON'T DO A LICK OF WORK PAST LUNCHTIME ON TUESDAY.
Um...
Could someone fill me in, please?
I need a job that pays like that!
Thoughts...?
Janny
Thursday, June 23, 2016
I Know It's Breaking All The Rules...and Going Against (What Could Sound Like) Good Advice...
...but I can't be anything other than what I am. Which is, FIRST, a Catholic.
All the other terminology, including "writer," comes second to that.
And I'm very public and very unapologetic about it.
When you're searching for clients, hoping to put work together, and trying to do things that "don't offend" people, you don't take stands like I take.
Some folks will come right out and tell me this is career suicide.
And they could be right.
On the other hand, ETERNAL suicide is not something I'm interested in courting. So if it comes down to a choice, guess which way I'm going to choose?
If there are any employers or potential clients out there who are put off by a public stand...
...who don't agree with what I say, believe, and profess...
...and who won't hire me because of it...
...yes, that may cost me a few bucks.
But what it'll cost YOU could be far more.
So I "yam what I yam," and that's not going away.
Ever.
Just so's we're clear. :-)
Onward and upward,
Janny
All the other terminology, including "writer," comes second to that.
And I'm very public and very unapologetic about it.
When you're searching for clients, hoping to put work together, and trying to do things that "don't offend" people, you don't take stands like I take.
Some folks will come right out and tell me this is career suicide.
And they could be right.
On the other hand, ETERNAL suicide is not something I'm interested in courting. So if it comes down to a choice, guess which way I'm going to choose?
If there are any employers or potential clients out there who are put off by a public stand...
...who don't agree with what I say, believe, and profess...
...and who won't hire me because of it...
...yes, that may cost me a few bucks.
But what it'll cost YOU could be far more.
So I "yam what I yam," and that's not going away.
Ever.
Just so's we're clear. :-)
Onward and upward,
Janny
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
How to Shoot Your Credibility to Hell in 3...2...
Yet another wonderful (!) encounter with Clueless Movie Script Writers.
Was watching a Lifetime movie the other day called YOU MAY NOW KILL THE BRIDE. Now, before you crucify me for watching Lifetime movies at all, it must be said--some of them aren't bad. True, some of them tend to be a bit predictable, a bit too angsty, or a bit too soap-oper-y to be realistic--but, on the other hand, there's nothing like a tall glass of wine and a good escapist movie to relax with after spending a day at the keyboard, wrestling with a cat, and lifting 160 pounds in the gym.
Right?
So...I'm watching this. It's creepy. Psychotic chick, has a crush on her stepbrother to the point where she literally destroys all his relationships. Even killed a former fiance on the wedding day. And she plans to kill the latest one, too. Worms her way into the wedding, sabotages pretty much everything, then threatens bride and groom to be with a knife, gets hauled away because she's Off Her Meds, etc.
Fast forward to happy wedding day, except, of course, it isn't...because somehow, Ms. Psycho is OUT of the hospital now and has managed to hide herself in the bridal chamber, where she's going to kill the bride. Puts the bride underwater, dresses in a wedding gown, shows up in front of the preacher, etc. Of course, the bride manages to live through it all, as does her groom, even though Ms. Psycho actually stabs HIM in the course of the struggle. And somehow manages not to drown in a bathtub, even though the bride holds her underwater for something like 2 minutes while said bride is fighting to get the psycho's hands off her throat.
This is AFTER Ms. Psycho has also attempted to murder the maid of honor, by the way.
Yeah. Chickie has issues.
OK, so...eventually newlywed Bride and Groom go to visit Psycho Sister in the Psych ward. It's not clear whether this is regular hospital that she's just in a psych wing of, or if it's an actual locked treatment center, but the net result is portrayed about the same. She's there in her little hospital pajamas with the elastic waist and no strings, ties, hard objects, sharp objects, or other contraband. She apologizes, they tell her they've heard she's made "great progress," and they give her a wedding picture that she asks for so she can "face what's real."
Only the wedding picture is in a wooden frame.
With a GLASS FRONT.
She takes it, tells them how lovely it is, and they let her hold it.
The attendant then comes and tells them it's time to go.
And Psycho Sister KEEPS THE PICTURE.
Of course, the minute they're out of sight, Psycho Sister drops the picture on the floor, shattering the glass. Which she then proceeds to pick up and shred the picture with...all with no one intercepting, observing, or intervening. And at the end, of course, she has that evil little crazy smile on her face, and she's ripped everyone out of the picture but the bridegroom, chanting, "he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me..."
Now, it makes a great final scene. EXCEPT IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN THAT WAY.
In what alternate universe, first of all, is a mental patient in the hospital allowed a picture frame with GLASS in it and WOOD with sharp corners?
In what alternate universe, second of all, does the attendant see her clutching the picture and not take it away?
In what alternate universe, as well, are people walking around proceeding as normal a little distance away, while she drops this in the hallway, breaking it, then sits down next to it and starts picking up glass IN THE CORRIDOR OF A MENTAL UNIT?
Apparently, this happens in the Lifetime universe.
I promise you, it won't happen in any mental ward I've ever encountered.
Or if it does, someone's head will roll, swiftly and with no second chances.
There are so many things wrong with that scene that it destroys the credibility of the entire rest of the movie. Which, as these kinds of thrillers go, wasn't bad. True, there was a bit of suspension of disbelief involved, and more than a little muttering at the TV saying, "Oh, come ON. No. You don't owe her an apology. She's a psycho. Listen to your maid of honor."
...and such things.
But, hey, clearly Lifetime decided it needed High Chilling Drama at the end...and what's creepier than realizing Psycho Sister's been faking everybody out and she's going to get out eventually...and probably make good on her intentions? Yeah, leave everybody horrified. Great touch! Wow! Wonderful!
Um. No. Not when it depends on absolute STUPIDITY in order to be created.
Sorry, Lifetime. Not in THIS Lifetime.
This, folks, is why you do your research.
And if you can't write that scene that way, you think of an even better one that is actually realistic.
That is, if you're not too lazy.
Or if you don't underestimate the intelligence of your viewers so much that you figure they'll never know the difference.
Which could also be construed as an interesting bit of sexism, considering that Lifetime's always sold itself as "television for women."
Your target audience is that stupid, is it?
REALLY.
Thoughts?
Janny
Was watching a Lifetime movie the other day called YOU MAY NOW KILL THE BRIDE. Now, before you crucify me for watching Lifetime movies at all, it must be said--some of them aren't bad. True, some of them tend to be a bit predictable, a bit too angsty, or a bit too soap-oper-y to be realistic--but, on the other hand, there's nothing like a tall glass of wine and a good escapist movie to relax with after spending a day at the keyboard, wrestling with a cat, and lifting 160 pounds in the gym.
Right?
So...I'm watching this. It's creepy. Psychotic chick, has a crush on her stepbrother to the point where she literally destroys all his relationships. Even killed a former fiance on the wedding day. And she plans to kill the latest one, too. Worms her way into the wedding, sabotages pretty much everything, then threatens bride and groom to be with a knife, gets hauled away because she's Off Her Meds, etc.
Fast forward to happy wedding day, except, of course, it isn't...because somehow, Ms. Psycho is OUT of the hospital now and has managed to hide herself in the bridal chamber, where she's going to kill the bride. Puts the bride underwater, dresses in a wedding gown, shows up in front of the preacher, etc. Of course, the bride manages to live through it all, as does her groom, even though Ms. Psycho actually stabs HIM in the course of the struggle. And somehow manages not to drown in a bathtub, even though the bride holds her underwater for something like 2 minutes while said bride is fighting to get the psycho's hands off her throat.
This is AFTER Ms. Psycho has also attempted to murder the maid of honor, by the way.
Yeah. Chickie has issues.
OK, so...eventually newlywed Bride and Groom go to visit Psycho Sister in the Psych ward. It's not clear whether this is regular hospital that she's just in a psych wing of, or if it's an actual locked treatment center, but the net result is portrayed about the same. She's there in her little hospital pajamas with the elastic waist and no strings, ties, hard objects, sharp objects, or other contraband. She apologizes, they tell her they've heard she's made "great progress," and they give her a wedding picture that she asks for so she can "face what's real."
Only the wedding picture is in a wooden frame.
With a GLASS FRONT.
She takes it, tells them how lovely it is, and they let her hold it.
The attendant then comes and tells them it's time to go.
And Psycho Sister KEEPS THE PICTURE.
Of course, the minute they're out of sight, Psycho Sister drops the picture on the floor, shattering the glass. Which she then proceeds to pick up and shred the picture with...all with no one intercepting, observing, or intervening. And at the end, of course, she has that evil little crazy smile on her face, and she's ripped everyone out of the picture but the bridegroom, chanting, "he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me..."
Now, it makes a great final scene. EXCEPT IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN THAT WAY.
In what alternate universe, first of all, is a mental patient in the hospital allowed a picture frame with GLASS in it and WOOD with sharp corners?
In what alternate universe, second of all, does the attendant see her clutching the picture and not take it away?
In what alternate universe, as well, are people walking around proceeding as normal a little distance away, while she drops this in the hallway, breaking it, then sits down next to it and starts picking up glass IN THE CORRIDOR OF A MENTAL UNIT?
Apparently, this happens in the Lifetime universe.
I promise you, it won't happen in any mental ward I've ever encountered.
Or if it does, someone's head will roll, swiftly and with no second chances.
There are so many things wrong with that scene that it destroys the credibility of the entire rest of the movie. Which, as these kinds of thrillers go, wasn't bad. True, there was a bit of suspension of disbelief involved, and more than a little muttering at the TV saying, "Oh, come ON. No. You don't owe her an apology. She's a psycho. Listen to your maid of honor."
...and such things.
But, hey, clearly Lifetime decided it needed High Chilling Drama at the end...and what's creepier than realizing Psycho Sister's been faking everybody out and she's going to get out eventually...and probably make good on her intentions? Yeah, leave everybody horrified. Great touch! Wow! Wonderful!
Um. No. Not when it depends on absolute STUPIDITY in order to be created.
Sorry, Lifetime. Not in THIS Lifetime.
This, folks, is why you do your research.
And if you can't write that scene that way, you think of an even better one that is actually realistic.
That is, if you're not too lazy.
Or if you don't underestimate the intelligence of your viewers so much that you figure they'll never know the difference.
Which could also be construed as an interesting bit of sexism, considering that Lifetime's always sold itself as "television for women."
Your target audience is that stupid, is it?
REALLY.
Thoughts?
Janny
Saturday, May 28, 2016
THIS Is Why You Need (GOOD) Editors, People
Is it just me, or does NO ONE know how to use the language anymore?
Facebook is rife with memes talking about all the misuses of things like THEY'RE, THEIR, and THERE. Not to mention all the funny poems about how English spelling versus pronunciation is inconsistent, to say the least. :-)
But there's one usage I haven't seen much said about: POUR versus PORE.
Probably for good reason...because NO ONE seems to know how to use the words right.
Quick reference guide:
Unless you've got a pitcher tipped, a container ready to be emptied, or a bucket of sand that needs to be added to a castle, you're not POURING over a document. You're PORING over it.
Yes, there's a difference. And yes, it does matter.
Next time I see a published book with the heroine "pouring" over a book, a document, a letter, or other thing she's obviously reading and examining, I'm going to quote the dang thing on Facebook, identify the ignorant author, and ask which liquid or solid her character dumped on her reading material.
This is why you need editors who actually understand the English language, people.
Unfortunately, most of you who DO need this won't ever read this post.
(sigh.)
Thoughts?
Janny
Facebook is rife with memes talking about all the misuses of things like THEY'RE, THEIR, and THERE. Not to mention all the funny poems about how English spelling versus pronunciation is inconsistent, to say the least. :-)
But there's one usage I haven't seen much said about: POUR versus PORE.
Probably for good reason...because NO ONE seems to know how to use the words right.
Quick reference guide:
Unless you've got a pitcher tipped, a container ready to be emptied, or a bucket of sand that needs to be added to a castle, you're not POURING over a document. You're PORING over it.
Yes, there's a difference. And yes, it does matter.
Next time I see a published book with the heroine "pouring" over a book, a document, a letter, or other thing she's obviously reading and examining, I'm going to quote the dang thing on Facebook, identify the ignorant author, and ask which liquid or solid her character dumped on her reading material.
This is why you need editors who actually understand the English language, people.
Unfortunately, most of you who DO need this won't ever read this post.
(sigh.)
Thoughts?
Janny
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The First Toe-Dip in the Lake...
...was, indeed, as cold as I expected.
But I suspect future dips will start to feel REALLY good when it gets hot outside!
In the meantime, here's the view from my office window:
But I suspect future dips will start to feel REALLY good when it gets hot outside!
In the meantime, here's the view from my office window:
Yeah, I'm a brat. :-)
More to come,
Janny
Janny
Monday, May 23, 2016
A Pitching Parable
Here it is, Saturday morning, when someone comes on Facebook talking about Kensington's Lyrical Press line looking for thrillers and suspense. (!) Naturally, with CALLIE'S ANGEL sitting right there on my computer ready to find a home, I jump all over this.
Which then begins an interesting comedy of errors.
1. It seems the author who recommended her editor also admits her editor has moved from New York to Seattle. Which means that her editor is now a freelancer. Or something like it.
2. Of course, that also means her editor's not listed with the "normal" editors on the Kensington page anymore...
3. ...except that--wait, wait!--she actually IS on one of their pages as an assistant editor...
4. Which sets up an interesting dilemma when Author Who Is Ready To Pounce On This attempts to send an e-mail to said editor, and it bounces back.
5. The editor the aforementioned recommending author is NOW with (having been moved along in the process), however, is still WITH the company.
6. So Pouncing Author says, "I'm going for it"....
7. ...only to forget to take the OTHER editor's name out of the salutation on the e-mail. So I've got a "Dear Ms. F" when I'm actually pitching "Dear Mr. S."
8....prompting said Pouncing Author to follow up immediately with a short e-mail note saying, "I really do know what I'm doing, honest."
9. Which should be a cautionary tale to all of you out there: if you're going to recommend someone pitch your editor, GIVE HER E-MAIL ADDRESS in your post. Don't say, "PM me for the e-mail address," and then fail to answer the PM. If it's NOT okay with your editor to do this without asking her, don't talk about the recommendation until you've got that okay. If you get flooded with PMs asking for that editor's e-mail address, answer them. Yes, ALL of them. You asked people to contact you, after all. Don't leave them hanging afterward.
10. With the actual e-mail address of this apparently now freelance editor, I could have saved myself a whole lot of grief, including saving myself looking like an idiot to an actual editor at a place that claims to want books like I write.
11. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could wonder if this author deliberately set people up to fail, masking it as enthusiasm and "spreading good news." But...no. I really am not. A conspiracy theorist. Much. Well, okay, hardly ever.
I'm going to go change my aluminum-foil hat now. And hope that "Mr. S" has a sense of humor.
(sigh)
Janny
Which then begins an interesting comedy of errors.
1. It seems the author who recommended her editor also admits her editor has moved from New York to Seattle. Which means that her editor is now a freelancer. Or something like it.
2. Of course, that also means her editor's not listed with the "normal" editors on the Kensington page anymore...
3. ...except that--wait, wait!--she actually IS on one of their pages as an assistant editor...
4. Which sets up an interesting dilemma when Author Who Is Ready To Pounce On This attempts to send an e-mail to said editor, and it bounces back.
5. The editor the aforementioned recommending author is NOW with (having been moved along in the process), however, is still WITH the company.
6. So Pouncing Author says, "I'm going for it"....
7. ...only to forget to take the OTHER editor's name out of the salutation on the e-mail. So I've got a "Dear Ms. F" when I'm actually pitching "Dear Mr. S."
8....prompting said Pouncing Author to follow up immediately with a short e-mail note saying, "I really do know what I'm doing, honest."
9. Which should be a cautionary tale to all of you out there: if you're going to recommend someone pitch your editor, GIVE HER E-MAIL ADDRESS in your post. Don't say, "PM me for the e-mail address," and then fail to answer the PM. If it's NOT okay with your editor to do this without asking her, don't talk about the recommendation until you've got that okay. If you get flooded with PMs asking for that editor's e-mail address, answer them. Yes, ALL of them. You asked people to contact you, after all. Don't leave them hanging afterward.
10. With the actual e-mail address of this apparently now freelance editor, I could have saved myself a whole lot of grief, including saving myself looking like an idiot to an actual editor at a place that claims to want books like I write.
11. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could wonder if this author deliberately set people up to fail, masking it as enthusiasm and "spreading good news." But...no. I really am not. A conspiracy theorist. Much. Well, okay, hardly ever.
I'm going to go change my aluminum-foil hat now. And hope that "Mr. S" has a sense of humor.
(sigh)
Janny
Monday, April 18, 2016
"Try to Leave Out the Parts People Skip."
The above is a quote from mystery writer Elmore Leonard, one I always got a kick out of. How do you know which parts people are going to skip?
Well, I've gotten a partial answer on it.
I'm presently editing a nice book from a client about athletes, some of whom are from ages long past; setting the background for these people does entail a bit of history. However, I've discovered there's a certain amount of history that lends itself well to background...and a certain amount more that glazes me over.
And I like history. So that should tell you something.
What it tells me is that there are parts that should be edited out--the parts people will "skip over." I've never seen something illustrate this idea quite so clearly, and I know my author will have the final say on what stays and what goes...but it's still interesting to encounter, first-hand, an actual piece of manuscript that "shows" you rather than "telling" you, in a manner of speaking.
The trick, however, still is trying to get rid of this stuff before it's written and has to be edited out!
If I have any insights on what that might look like, you'll hear it here first.
Trust me.
In the meantime...keep calm and write your a** off! Because you can't have something to edit until something is there on the page, or screen, in the first place.
Capisce?
Onward!
Janny
Well, I've gotten a partial answer on it.
I'm presently editing a nice book from a client about athletes, some of whom are from ages long past; setting the background for these people does entail a bit of history. However, I've discovered there's a certain amount of history that lends itself well to background...and a certain amount more that glazes me over.
And I like history. So that should tell you something.
What it tells me is that there are parts that should be edited out--the parts people will "skip over." I've never seen something illustrate this idea quite so clearly, and I know my author will have the final say on what stays and what goes...but it's still interesting to encounter, first-hand, an actual piece of manuscript that "shows" you rather than "telling" you, in a manner of speaking.
The trick, however, still is trying to get rid of this stuff before it's written and has to be edited out!
If I have any insights on what that might look like, you'll hear it here first.
Trust me.
In the meantime...keep calm and write your a** off! Because you can't have something to edit until something is there on the page, or screen, in the first place.
Capisce?
Onward!
Janny
Sunday, March 20, 2016
...And the Tweaks Continue
...Have sent CALLIE'S ANGEL out to both my critique partner and a beta reader.
Now the nervewracking part begins. Or at least the FIRST nervewracking part.
You know. The one BEFORE you send it out to the Gatekeepers.
I've already gone from, "Man, this is a great story" to "Who in hell is going to want to read this?"
Writers will recognize this syndrome instantly. And they will also recognize how fast it happens. (!)
Usually, if the writer has done her job somewhat right...she'll swing back toward "Man, this is a great story" again. At least she can get as far as, "OK, not bad. Maybe even good."
Then the comments will come back, and she'll need chocolate.
Hopefully, that will coincide with when the CWC can actually HAVE chocolate again...AFTER Lent is over.
One more week...(ayeeee)
Thoughts?
Janny
Now the nervewracking part begins. Or at least the FIRST nervewracking part.
You know. The one BEFORE you send it out to the Gatekeepers.
I've already gone from, "Man, this is a great story" to "Who in hell is going to want to read this?"
Writers will recognize this syndrome instantly. And they will also recognize how fast it happens. (!)
Usually, if the writer has done her job somewhat right...she'll swing back toward "Man, this is a great story" again. At least she can get as far as, "OK, not bad. Maybe even good."
Then the comments will come back, and she'll need chocolate.
Hopefully, that will coincide with when the CWC can actually HAVE chocolate again...AFTER Lent is over.
One more week...(ayeeee)
Thoughts?
Janny
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
Callie's Angel...Almost Ready to Fly!
Well, the graphic on the side may have been a little "off"...in that CALLIE'S ANGEL, my first new work in YEARS, may not come in at the original projected word count of 90K. (!) It's at 79,770 or so right now, pending revisions--but the first draft is DONE. THE END has been typed, which means first draft is now on the screen, ready for tweaking.
The hard part now is sitting back and NOT being in a hurry to get it submitted anywhere, because there will be changes that an author only discerns and is able to make AFTER the initial smoke clears and you get a better idea what you've created, where it's lacking, or where it needs cutting down.
Still, it's a hoot and a half to have something, finally, ALL NEW in the hopper, just ready to be polished into pristine shape and sent out there, hopefully to snag a contract with some kind of REAL money attached to it.
I, like all writers, live in perpetual hope.
More to come!
Thoughts?
Janny
The hard part now is sitting back and NOT being in a hurry to get it submitted anywhere, because there will be changes that an author only discerns and is able to make AFTER the initial smoke clears and you get a better idea what you've created, where it's lacking, or where it needs cutting down.
Still, it's a hoot and a half to have something, finally, ALL NEW in the hopper, just ready to be polished into pristine shape and sent out there, hopefully to snag a contract with some kind of REAL money attached to it.
I, like all writers, live in perpetual hope.
More to come!
Thoughts?
Janny
Monday, March 14, 2016
....And No One Can Write Romantic Comedy, Either.
I know that writing "funny" is anything but easy. I've done it at times, but being a full-time comedic writer? That's a grind and a half for many reasons. So I "get" that people may not know how to write comedy that's truly laugh-out-loud funny.
But when you're writing rom-com, there's still a romance to consider, too. And the writers I've encountered over the past several days--with a few notable exceptions that can be counted on the fingers of one hand--can't do that, either.
What is it about romance now that eludes so many writers?
Don't get me wrong: it's not like I'm encountering sex scene after sex scene masquerading as "romance." (You only get that nonsense in places like RWA. And, yes, you can quote me on that.) I'm talking about a romantic deficit that seems to think that one kiss is a relationship...or one flirtation...or one bickering "conflict."
In other words, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of beginner mistakes in these stories.
But it's kind of sad that they're not the same kind of beginner mistakes that I, and so many of my now-published colleagues, made in our early attempts to write love stories, either.
We tended to err on the side of "they're getting along way too famously way too fast."
Now, I'm seeing "romances" that deal with relationships that are toxic...
...that are decaying right there on the page...
...or that don't have a spark of excitement ANYWHERE. Not even erotic excitement. Which also isn't "romance," but at least is something a writer can work with as a jumping-off point.
In other words, if the state of romantic fiction is reflected by the entries I've been reading over the past few days...we need help.
I got to the point where I started muttering, "People, people, people. For heaven's sake. Turn on the Hallmark Channel once in a awhile, will you?"
Hey, it may not be highbrow...but at least it's got the emotion in the right places.
It's a start.
In the meantime, there are contest entrants out there who are gonna get their hearts broken by this particular judge--but that, unfortunately, can't be helped.
If you don't WRITE what the category is about, I'm not going to pretend you DID.
I did give extensive feedback on most of these stories. Which'll probably put them at least a leg ahead in the game when they go onto paper the next time.
I hope!
In the meantime, I can only prescribe rom-com movies. Enough of those, and you'll internalize the genre, and maybe next time...you'll actually write it.
Thoughts?
Janny
But when you're writing rom-com, there's still a romance to consider, too. And the writers I've encountered over the past several days--with a few notable exceptions that can be counted on the fingers of one hand--can't do that, either.
What is it about romance now that eludes so many writers?
Don't get me wrong: it's not like I'm encountering sex scene after sex scene masquerading as "romance." (You only get that nonsense in places like RWA. And, yes, you can quote me on that.) I'm talking about a romantic deficit that seems to think that one kiss is a relationship...or one flirtation...or one bickering "conflict."
In other words, yeah, I'm seeing a lot of beginner mistakes in these stories.
But it's kind of sad that they're not the same kind of beginner mistakes that I, and so many of my now-published colleagues, made in our early attempts to write love stories, either.
We tended to err on the side of "they're getting along way too famously way too fast."
Now, I'm seeing "romances" that deal with relationships that are toxic...
...that are decaying right there on the page...
...or that don't have a spark of excitement ANYWHERE. Not even erotic excitement. Which also isn't "romance," but at least is something a writer can work with as a jumping-off point.
In other words, if the state of romantic fiction is reflected by the entries I've been reading over the past few days...we need help.
I got to the point where I started muttering, "People, people, people. For heaven's sake. Turn on the Hallmark Channel once in a awhile, will you?"
Hey, it may not be highbrow...but at least it's got the emotion in the right places.
It's a start.
In the meantime, there are contest entrants out there who are gonna get their hearts broken by this particular judge--but that, unfortunately, can't be helped.
If you don't WRITE what the category is about, I'm not going to pretend you DID.
I did give extensive feedback on most of these stories. Which'll probably put them at least a leg ahead in the game when they go onto paper the next time.
I hope!
In the meantime, I can only prescribe rom-com movies. Enough of those, and you'll internalize the genre, and maybe next time...you'll actually write it.
Thoughts?
Janny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
