And Yet Again, the CWC Reserves the Right to Change Her Mind...

Remember the post I wrote some time ago about having my ladder against the wrong building?

(Okay, if you don't remember it, GO READ IT. Hah!)

Well...I went and contradicted that, not too very long ago. 

By not only writing sweet romance again...but writing TWO of them. A first book, and its sequel.

And they're gosh-darned sweet.

And they're funny.

And I can't wait until they're published, and out there, and people are raving about them.

Have I given up romantic suspense, you ask?

Not at all. 

Because the NEXT book I've sent to my agent is...just that.

Romantic suspense.

With an absolutely delicious sociopath in it.

Uh, yeah.

And I'm working on another romantic suspense now, resurrecting an old book I WAS writing on for awhile, then set aside, then...

This is the way the writer's life goes sometimes.

But if you're creative, sometimes your creativity's going to come out in different forms.

I do plan to write more sweet romance, too.

As soon as I can rid myself of a few more villains...

Yes, writing is going apace now. Which is good news.

So stay tuned! 

Thoughts? 

Janny

Are You Writing Romance...Or Anatomy Lessons?

Okay, I'm a prude. I'll admit it. :-) 

Now that that's out of the way... (LOL)

Why, pray tell, do so many romance writers feel obligated to mention (in some cases in particular or humorous detail) how their hero reacts, anatomically speaking, to an attractive female?

You know what I'm talking about without my having to use the "e" word.  

To their credit, many of them don't use that word, either. That is to their credit, because that word isn't romantic. Period. It can be erotic. Romantic? Nope.

But, with very few exceptions--even among so-called "sweet" romance writers--it seems that a romance writing female can't resist mentioning how "uncomfortable" her hero gets around her heroine.

Or how he has to "shift positions" in his chair.

Or how, in one phraseology I just read, "...her smile raised more than his spirits."

To which I say, "Really? Was that necessary?"

Because guess what? It's not.

Worse than that, though...in my mind, it works against the portrayal of your hero as...heroic.

Why?

Because at that point, the hero slips a little off his pedestal and becomes just another Neanderthal guy who thinks with his hormones.

Most authors do at least differentiate between complete-stranger females and females the man has some acquaintance with, and they do seem to want to attach an emotional component to this reaction.

But that attempt fails. Because a biological or anatomical reaction is not an emotion.

Erotic attraction? Yep.

Chemistry? Yep.

But is it specific chemistry between that hero and that heroine?

Often, not at all. Because it happens way before there's a meaningful emotional connection.

It's kinda like reducing hero/heroine attraction to the old pop tune, "Nothing But Mammals."

There's nothing romantic about that song--and there's nothing romantic about hearing that the hero is turned on by the heroine. 

No, not even if you portray it humorously, or as something he "can't help" and considers an annoyance. 

Not even if you claim you're attaching an emotion to it. 

Because conveying emotion doesn't happen by focusing below a guy's belt. 

 

If revulsion is what you're going for, then, that works admirably.

But I doubt you want me to be revolted by your hero.

I think you want me to fall in love with him.

And I do want to. Honest.

So why distract me from the important stuff by focusing on the adolescent?

I'm an adult woman. I know what, anatomically speaking, is going to happen to him if he allows his thoughts to stray in a certain direction.

But I'm interested in those thoughts and emotions...not in the chemical reaction that results.

And there is absolutely nothing about that reaction that's going to convince me he's falling in love.

At. All.

If a man's feeling the right things in an organ considerably higher in his body, the rest of it is a given.

But I want to hear about that higher organ.

Not the lower one.

And especially not as one of the first reactions he has to the woman who's supposed to turn into his soulmate.

Any man can and often will react that way to any woman.

Sometimes for some very sinister reasons.

Our heroes need to be focused on higher things than that.

And so should our prose.

Thoughts?

Janny

Crikey! It's Been a Long Time!

...just to let you know...

I AM going to be blogging again regularly. 
Stay tuned!

Janny

The Virtue of "Alone"

In the last several months, I've made some substantial changes in my life, my new reality, whatever you'd like to call it.

(I know what I'd like to call it: OVER. As in, take me back to where I had my PM at hand!) 

That aside, of course, we go on with life. 
With one day after another. 
One step after another. 
Some of these days are so sad it's a wonder I can stand up. 
Some of these days are so happy I "forget" about my new reality for a while...and discover that I still have some "fun" left in me. 

I've bought a house, and I may buy an even better one soon, if I can. 
I've bought a piano, with which I am absolutely thrilled. 
I've written a new book, with which I am beyond thrilled. (The story of how that came about, for those of you who care, will probably be posted here shortly.) 

But today, I want to share something that's been gnawing at me. 
Something that is all too common in this world of grieving--but something I feel needs a bit of adjustment. 

In the grief group I go to, there are several extroverts who seemingly cannot imagine why anyone would voluntarily want to be alone. 

And this is ironic, considering that in this same group, everyone's "grieving style" is accepted, you're told to do things when you want to do them and refuse to do things you don't want to do, to take care of yourself, etc. 
All except for the dreaded state of "being alone." 

We went through an account of our holidays, and there were a lot of people at family houses, at their relatives, even at friends'...but our leader praised them in terms of "at least you weren't alone." 

Even some of the people in the group repeated that phrase, to the point where I almost stood up and made trouble. (I may still do so.) 

Because, if I may be so humble as to ask, what in hell is so terrible about "being alone"? 

One woman mentioned that she "stayed busy" because if she wasn't busy, she'd "think too much"...and our leader countered by saying that it's OK to think now and then--in fact, it's necessary to "think too much" at times. If you are too busy for busy's sake, then you don't give yourself time to grieve, to process, to remember, to sort things out. 

But it also seems to me that that "thinking" is best done...you guessed it...alone. And that, unfortunately, seems to be a cognitive disconnect even in our leadership. 

I'm here to tell you, however, that alone is not a crime. 
In fact, it's an interesting revelation to me that, while I think I'd like to fall in love again (because, let's face it, being in love is fun)... 
And while I might be willing to step out on that "dating" limb again... 
One thing that holds me back is the "what-if" of forming another married relationship. 
Which would mean not being alone anymore. 

Now, I can hear the leaders applauding in the background, and many of my fellow grief group members cheering. But I'm not setting forth "not being alone" as being a place I'm desperately trying to get to. In fact, it's a place I'm desperate to avoid right now. 

Because, quite frankly, right now, alone is a nice place to be. 

I actually like living alone. So sue me. (Not really. I'm not that rich, at least not yet!) 

But I know there's a lot of undue fretting about "living alone" that, in my case at least, is needless. 
I am not only alone but retired, which means that I set my schedule. 
Period. 
I decide when I want to go to church every week. And how many times I want to go. 
I decide when, and what, I want to eat and drink. 
I decide if, and when, I want to have TV on...when I want to play my piano...when I want to spend time at the computer...when it's time to just sit and watch a Hallmark movie and pet my cat... 

And I don't have to check with anyone about any of this. 

I do my laundry when I want. 
I clean when I want. 
I go to bed and get up when I want. 
I start a fire in my fireplace every blinkin' night, and no one bats an eyelash.

In short, I like living alone. 
Because for the first time in a very long time, I don't have to accommodate anyone else. 
I don't have to shuttle a kid to school or sports. 
I don't have to plan meals around a strange work schedule. 
I don't have to remind someone of something they need to do. Everything that needs doing around here, I do it. 

Is that sometimes a pain? Yeah, it can be. :-) 

When I really want something from the store, for example, I can no longer just say, "Hey, PM, on your way home from work could you stop at the Jewel and get ______?" 

When it snows half a foot, as it has three times already this winter, I'm the one who has to get out there and shovel it away, or I don't go anywhere. 

I don't have companionship in the car on long drives, or even short ones. 

And there are times, yes, when it feels lonely. When it feels like there's no one out there who will give a damn if I keel over tomorrow. 

But the root of the loneliness, and the gnawing "hole" inside, isn't filled with anyone but PM. No matter who else they are, no matter how much they care...it's him I'm lonely for. 
Not for "people" in general. 

For me?  Loneliness, per se, is not nearly the problem that so many people seem to think it is, or want to make it into. 

I'm not at all of the mindset that says, "If you're feeling sad, get out and be with people. It'll help."

Sometimes, it does. 
Sometimes, however, it most definitely does not. 

Even sometimes doing my normal day-to-day routine brings moments--or hours--of sadness. 
I've cried behind the wheel of my car so much I suspect it thinks that's what people are supposed to do when they drive. 

But would being with people cure that? 
It most definitely does, and would, not. 

In fact, sometimes it's "being out in the world" too much that causes that sadness. 

So for those of us out here who enjoy being, and living, alone...
Give us a little slack, extroverts. We're not using aloneness as a way to pull in on ourselves and become hermits. Some of us are just plain happy that way. 

We've figured out how to be alone and be at peace with it. 
And sometimes that peace is the last thing we want to surrender...for anyone. 

Am I lonely? Yes. For PM. That's a loneliness that won't be cured until I see him again. 

In the meantime, however, for the great majority of the time...I am content alone. 
I even relish the freedom it gives me. 

I am not "wallowing." 
I am not pining away for an endless social calendar. 
And I am here to tell you... 
There are plenty of things worse than "being alone." 

Far worse. 

Don't feel pity for me because I'm "alone." I'm fine living this way, and I will be until or unless something major happens to change things. 

But, trust me... It'll have to be earthshakingly major for me to give up this present freedom.

Thoughts? 

Janny

Word Wrestling, Part II: or, Why the World Needs Better Editors

Actual screen shot from HGTV a couple of weeks ago....

Now, I know when it comes to some of these networks, there's New York and there's Los Angeles and then there's "all the rest"...but from a network talking about real estate, specific locations, and relocations?

Yeah. Ohhhhkay.

Unfortunately...there are PLENTY MORE I can show you. 

More to come...
Janny

There's a Reason.

There's always a reason. For everything.

And there's a reason you haven't heard anything from me for over a month.
In fact, on the evening of the very day of the last post here--before this--my husband hunkered down for the night worker's normal daytime sleep...and never woke back up.

On March 31, at about 6:30 in the evening, I went to rouse him for dinner and found him...unresponsive.

It was the day I joined the New Widows Club.
This is not a club that any of my fellow widows were in any hurry to invite me to join.
We have been coping ever since.
What we have NOT been doing, however, is blogging.

Those of you who are occasionally interested in this, that is the reason it's been absent.
It remains to be seen if I will blog about anything, at any time, in the future.

Stay tuned if you like, read past posts if you've a mind to. 
But I can't promise there's any more coming.

Thanks.
Janny

Word Wrestle #10: Well, All Righty, Then!

Seriously rethinking this whole weekly Word Wrestle thing, since NO one seems to be reading it. Or at least if they're reading it, they're saying NOTHING.

So maybe I can post Wrestling when it occurs to me...and not every week.

I could go for that. :-)

Now go out and live real life, people! Have fun!

Janny

Word Wrestle #9. You Shouldn't Of. No. Really, You Shouldn't Of.

Occasionally, when I write a book review, people pick on it. 
I know, right? Like, what's with THAT?

Seriously, however...I got picked on for taking an author to task for using the construction, "I should of," "I would of," and such.

I don't believe I even was the only one to ream this person out for that construction, but one particularly persnickety reader blasted me for that, among other things she thought were "obnoxious" about my review.

(Note: when someone starts out their comment by saying, "What an obnoxious review," you're probably not going to get much credit from them.  Just sayin'.)

Her contention? "This is how people talk. So you should write it that way."
My response? "It may sound like how people talk. But it's still not how a literate writer should write it."

In truth, when we say, "I should've done ____," we often do make the words sound like "should of." It's sloppy. But, then, a lot of people's conversation is sloppy.
The point is, however, that many things that sound a certain way in speech don't get written that way in prose, and this is one of those that should NOT. 
It's wrong.
It's wrong, no matter if it's in dialogue or not.

What the speaker is saying is "I should have," in a contraction form.
That contraction is never formed with the word of.
If that's how you're forming it because you're too lazy to get it right, you ought to be called out on it. 
You form that speech pattern with an apostrophe and the "ve" at the end.
For should've.
For would've.
For could've.

And no, this isn't  being needlessly pedantic. 
And no, it's not even being needlessly precise.
It's simply trying to write the English language the way the language is normally read.
If you put in "should of," you're putting a preposition in as part of a verb, a preposition that needs an object. A noun. Not a verb.

So if you say, "I should of come," not only does it sound like you're an idiot...it'll stop an intelligent reader every time. They'll stumble over it. 

(Note I said an intelligent reader. Since half the population writes this and doesn't seem to know it's wrong in the first place, you may not get a reaction from them at all. But that's not whom I write for, and I trust it's not whom you're writing for, either.)

Bottom line? It doesn't matter whether it "sounds" like that in speech or not.
In WRITING, it still has to be written to reflect what the person is actually saying.
Which is, "I would have," "I should have," "I could have," and so on.

Frankly? If you're going to mess around with that contraction, then do it with a recognized slang form of the words: woulda, shoulda, and coulda.

Everyone knows those.
Everyone recognizes them.
And slang, boys and girls, is vastly better than illiteracy.
And an author--any author--has gotta know better.  (heh heh)

Just use an apostrophe and a "ve"...and no one gets hurt.
Is that so much to ask?

Janny

Word Wrestle #8: NOT Gonna Make You Smile

Having just discovered this, yet again, being misused in fiction...let's talk about being ORNERY.

Yeah. I know. This space for laughing. 

All personality-themed barbs aside, however, let's truly talk about "ornery." What is IS...and what it AIN'T.
And what it ISN'T...is anything funny.

Several years ago, I first encountered an author I otherwise like very much using the word "ornery" repeatedly when she should have used words like "spunky" or "sassy" or the like. She had characters teasing each other and giving each other "ornery grins."

Well, if she saw someone truly giving an ornery GRIN, she saw someone with a split personality. Because, boys and girls, that's NOT what "ornery" means.
It doesn't mean "smart-aleck."
It doesn't mean "sassy."
It doesn't mean "daring" or "joking" or "teasing."

It means, in a word, NASTY.
The definition lists synonyms like "grouchy or grumpy," "cantankerous," and even "bad- or ill-tempered," "waspish," and "irascible."
The KINDEST term for it in any dictionary I can find is a secondary definition as "stubborn."

Now, in the context that this author used it, she did not mean ANY of the things above, with the possible exception of "stubborn." However, since nothing else in the instances she mentioned had anything to do with someone being stubborn...I can only assume she had acquired some regional misapplication of the word that resulted in using the word wrong-- one that no one had ever bothered to query, so much as correct.

Not even her editors.

And that made ME ornery to see, frankly.

All of which points back to something the CWC says with annoying and even ornery regularity:
Whatever word you choose to use...make SURE you're using it right.
Even if you think you know already, LOOK IT UP.
Even if you're "sure" you know what it means, because everyone in your extended family says it that way, LOOK IT UP.
And, for heaven's sake, if you're only approximately sure what it means, or you're not really sure at all...PLEASE. LOOK. IT. UP.

There's no excuse for using a wrong word like this, over and over, in clear conveyance that you don't know what you're talking about.
There's even less reason for an editor to let it pass by.

You're never, ever, EVER going to give someone an "ornery grin." Unless you have elastic capabilities to both your face and your temperament that, frankly, would be a little scary in real life.

And misusing "ornery" around this friendly editor...will NOT make her smile.
Which will result in a red mark on your manuscript, and not make YOU smile, either.
Use lots of words in your writing. Use all kinds of them. There are something like 600,000 words in the English language, and more are being added every day. So don't be shy. Dig right in and use 'em.

Just please, please, please, please-I-BEG-you... USE THEM RIGHT.
(And they wonder why I drink.)

Don't be ornery about it...but do be picky. If you're going to call yourself an author, picky is one of the first, last, and consistent things you ought to be anyway.
And lazy, quite frankly, is not.
Learn the difference.

Thoughts?
Janny

The Cats Are Dancing!

FINALLY!

No, this isn't a case of actual felines tripping the light fantastic...it's much better.
It's the Northwestern Wildcats finally breaking into the NCAA Tournament, for the first time in 78 YEARS.
And yeah, it's kind of a big deal. 

GO CATS!

Word Wrestle #7: Stop Begging, Already!

OK, you may be wondering what "begging" has to do with a good old-fashioned Wrestle.
You won't wonder long, though, if you find it as irritating as I do to hear the phrase "begs the question" used the WRONG way.
ALL THE TIME.
By people who ought to know better.

Think about it. You can't go for more than a few days--or hours, depending on how much writing you read and commenting you listen to--without hearing some journalist, when presenting a query, say, "Of course, this begs the question..."
And then they proceed to ASK said question.
If this doesn't set your teeth on edge, you're either unfamiliar with one of the basic definitions of rhetoric and logic...or you think that "begging the question" is the same as "presenting" or "bringing up" a question.

Guess what?
IT'S NOT.
Not only is it not the same thing...it doesn't even come close to MEANING the same thing.

Basic logic lesson time.
"Begging the question," according to wiser minds among us, is defined as:
  
Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises.  Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question."  That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
(H/T to Logically Fallacious for this concise definition. Without swear words or anything. Better than I could do.)

Note that this "begging the question" aspect is a) considered an errant form of argument, and b) weak thinking on display. What it attempts to do is use a conclusion in order to argue its own premise. In other words, in shorthand, it's:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true.

The example on Logically Fallacious is, "Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what could only be called paranormal activity."

In order to say that anything "could only be called paranormal activity," one first has to acknowledge that paranormal activity is, in fact, a real thing. But that doesn't PROVE that it is...because in order to label your experience as such, you have to already accept as true that the thing exists and can be identified as such.

Are your eyes crossing yet?

Suffice to say that "begging the question" is a phenomenon that leaves a question, in fact, still unanswered--not something that presents or prompts a question.

So the next time you hear someone say, "This begs the question, 'How were you able to see that purple cow, anyway?'"....
Well, you probably know the response to that.
Most of us have always said we'd rather SEE than BE one.

Old rhymes aside, if you're brave enough, you'll also point out that the purple cow question isn't begging anything. Nor does the cow do any begging. 
And then, if your audience is truly paying attention...you can BEG them to stop misusing this phrase. 
And tell them why they're misusing it.

You will strike a needed blow for logic and clear expression.
And the purple cow will thank you.

Milk it!
Janny

Word Wrestle #6: What Time Was That Again?

Okay...This is actually starting to get a bit scary.

What's with people writing stories nowadays in which the tenses are all mixed up--not only in the same paragraph, but sometimes in the same SENTENCE? I've just finished skimming a potential editing project in which the author actually used past, present, and future in one sentence. And, no, they weren't talking about time travel. This was supposedly normal narrative.

When I first encountered this, I thought it was a couple of clients with bad habits and/or bad instruction. However, it's become so rampant now that I can no longer assume that. The only thing I CAN assume, therefore...is that NO ONE is teaching verb tenses in school anymore. I don't mean sketching around them, touching on them briefly, and then going on to "more interesting" things in the language. I mean NOT TEACHING THEM AT ALL.

If this is the case, WHY and HOW did this happen?

Please don't get me wrong. Slang is one thing. Informal, casual speech is one thing. But when I see a narrative sentence that says something like, "She and her brother had never ventured out of the safe area in their lives, so they don't know what they experience when they will..." and so on? This makes a reader's head hurt. Which strikes me, oh, I don't know, as something YOU DON'T WANT TO DO?

It's not DIFFICULT to learn verb tenses. In English. No. Really. It's not. In fact, it used to be common sense. It used to be that you couldn't get out of school without nailing these things. But now, it's basic error I see in manuscript after manuscript from people who think they're writing books, even people who claim those books HAVE BEEN EDITED ALREADY.

By whom? The legendary 100 monkeys with computers, allegedly writing Shakespeare?

This isn't a matter of pedantry. It's not a matter of being "picky." It's a matter of communicating clearly what you mean. And it should worry people who call themselves writers, above all. Because in this age of people taking every single word you say or write, pouncing on it, and giving it their OWN spin to paint you in negative terms...why would you be content writing anything that a) makes you look stupid, or b) is completely unintelligible?

I suppose the upside is that if everyone is equally stupid, they won't do you any lasting damage. But I'm not in a position where I'd recommend anyone take that chance.

The up side, I suppose, is that editors will be getting more work than ever. The down side, however, is that that work should be aimed at higher levels than needing to correct what should have been basic, fourth-grade grammar. 

I'm an editor. Not an elementary school teacher. I'm willing to do my job...but, apparently, there are a swackload of others who are not willing or able to do THEIRS.

And so it continues.
Pardon me while I go take a painkiller now. Or, maybe, six.

Thoughts?
Janny

Word Wrestle #5 - Some Fun for a Change!

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

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

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

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

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