The Editor is IN is now available in book form

Here is an excerpt.

The Editor Is IN, issue zero

Welcome.

Issue zero is designed to give you an idea of what future issues will look like, in style, scope and content. Expect changes as I learn ways to improve the newsletter.

I anticipate The Editor Is IN will be e-mailed on the first of each month, but please note that there may be times when I'll need to send it out a day or three early. Feces Occur, but I'll do my best to see that it never goes out later than the first of each month.

I expect now that each issue will run 3,000-5,000 words (this one is shorter; it's just a demo). Does that sound about right? Do you want more, or less? I don't want to overwhelm your inbox, but I don't want to be skimpy either.

From time to time, I may send you more than one issue a month. This might happen when/if I have acquired too much material in a short period of time for one mailing (I don't want to "stockpile" articles. The manuscript in your desk drawer can't sell; the article in my desk drawer can't be read), or if there's a timeliness issue involved — an upcoming event I'd like to comment on or the like. Personal issues — I travel a lot — may also come into play.

Many of you subscribe to e-mail newsletters that offer versions in PDF and other forms. I'm not a technophile — I'm doing this for reasons other than an opportunity to push innocent electrons around and stare at blinking icons and blankety-blank screens all day, so I'll be offering The Editor Is IN as an attached file, in RTF, TFN. FYI. Simple style, simple format. Maybe I'll get more techy as I learn, but for now, KISS.

Anything else? I'm sure there is — there always is. Let me know. I do want this newsletter to be interactive, responsive to your needs. What do you want to talk about? Ask. The Editor Is IN.

-0-

Read Bad Fiction — It's Good For You

While attending a recent writers convention, I listened to a discussion among several writers about what I thought at the time was an unusual premise — good writers read bad fiction to become better writers. Until then, I thought I was supposed to read the best fiction to see how it gets done right. Isn't that what all the how-tos say?

These writers, all pros, say that's only half the story. The other half: read bad fiction — to see how not to do it.

Actually, "bad fiction" isn't the term they prefer. "If the overall piece is bad," writer-editor-illustrator Liz Danforth says, "you probably won't spend very much time with it. You'll look at it, go 'ugh,' and carry on. I think the most instructive things are flawed things, not bad things."

Why hadn't I read this in the how-tos? Were the pros trying to keep this a secret? If so, why?

"Bad fiction is in the eye of the beholder," novelist Jennifer Roberson explains. "As for learning from bad fiction, it's usually easier to do once you're a little more experienced with writing. That's because if you're just trying to break in, and you're still learning the ropes, it's hard to analyze what makes it bad fiction."

Novelist Michael Stackpole agrees. "It's a question of experience," he says. "You need to have a foundation and a background enough to be able to tell that something is wrong. And once you can tell it's wrong, you have those tools to begin to be able to fix it."

How do you know when you've reached the point when reading "bad fiction" can be good for you?

According to Danforth, "Almost every writer talks about that watershed moment when they say, 'I can write better than this.' That is the first time you've read something that caught you that said 'This is wrong.' That's the first step, the first time you identify what the bad thing about it is, whether it's a plot error, bad characterization, dialogue, or something."

Once you've reached that "watershed moment," you're almost ready to read the bad stuff to make yours better. Almost.

What you must now realize is that people approach the printed word differently in different situations. When we want facts, we may tend to skim until we find the facts we seek. When we read for entertainment, we may skip boring sections to get to the good parts. When we're bored — waiting in a dentist's office, stuck in bad weather at an airport, or whatever — we might read whatever is available, good or bad, and not be able to remember two minutes later what we've read.

"Reading as a consumer and reading as a writer are two different things," novelist Jane Fancher says. "Reading as a writer means reading the bad parts too, and paying attention."

Fancher believes readers have a right to expect good writing. "I think most readers are too forgiving," she says. "They don't appreciate that they have a right to read a good book. If they are feeling cheated at any stage, they have a right to complain. And I think most readers think they don't have that right."

That's wrong, and as a writer, you have a responsibility to make it right — by making your own fiction as good as it can be. Reading flawed fiction critically can be a major step toward achieving that goal.

Read to see where the writer screws up, Stackpole says. "That way you learn by analyzing why and how they screwed up, and you can learn how to avoid those mistakes."

As you read flawed fiction, Danforth says you should ask yourself, "Is there any point that I am starting to do some of this also?" Then "you should start to apply some of the things you see that you consider bad — apply it to your own work."

"The things you should be most suspicious of," Fancher says, "are the things that you think are the most wonderful. Your favorite scene is the most suspect."

Changing those favorite scenes is hard, but it can be done — with the right attitude. "You can't assume that what you write is far superior to what anybody else writes," Danforth says. "You have to realize that it's still a learning process." When you can see the flaws in others' work reflected in your own, you must take the next logical step — and change your own work to a better form. If you can take that last step — the hardest step — you will have come a long way toward ensuring that future writers do not turn to your stuff as examples of "bad fiction." (This article originally appeared in Speculations, issue #6, 1995. Check it out.)

-0-

How to Get Your Family on Your Side

Your family's support of your writing can be a key ingredient to success. Do you have their unquestioned faith, or something close to it? If not, here are a few tips on how to win them over:

• Share your accomplishments. When you finish a story or an article or a novel, or make a sale, include everyone in your celebration. Dinner at Burger King, or for the Big Book Contract, supersize it.
• Share your everyday efforts. Ask family members for their opinions, not just on whether a story is "good" or not, but whether this character should do that or whether that ending is more satisfying than this. Brainstorm with them. Whether you use their contributions or not isn't necessarily relevant. That you've shared with them is.
• Get them used to seeing you do writerly things. They'll come to expect you to whip out a notebook to record an overheard quip at Burger King. You'll know this is working when the kids start bringing home stories and one-liners from school for you!
• Write about them. Use their names, characteristics, and attributes (the flattering ones, of course, and with permission) in your stories and articles. If you make a sale, let them know they contributed to it--and find some way to reward them for their support. If they don't make it onto the acknowledgements page, remember that chocolate always works.
• Find ways to work around them. Start early, work late, or during naptime. Pregnant writers know how to write with one hand while breast-feeding. Whatever. It shows your respect for them. They'll return it.
• The corollary: schedule Quality Time With the Family. "Give me my one hour now and I'll give you two right after."
• Bribe the kids. "I'll let you watch another half hour of cartoons if you leave me alone during that time."

There's more, but you get the idea. No two families are the same — these are just hints — so plan your own strategy.

-0-

Feedback...

Q: If words like "insure" for "ensure", "entitle" for "title," and "utilize" for "use" are wrong, why do I see them so often?

A: "Insure" is not synonymous with "ensure" and "entitle" doesn't mean "title." "Ensure," and "insure" and "entitle" and "title" sound alike, which likely contributes to the problem. The problem with "utilize" is different: I'll get to that. For now, know the first two words don't mean what many writers think they mean. Simple as that. Look them up in your Funk & Wagnall (so you know that you know) and you'll never get them wrong again.

I think I'm a pretty liberal editor so I'm not sure why I wince so grumpily when I read or hear these three words used in error. (Okay, I confess: I'm a form Nazi.) Other words get misused, I know, but these are my pet peeves. They show up incorrectly in TV newscasts, on the radio, in novels, short stories, and in newspaper and magazine articles way too often. How can people who make their living writing make such errors?

We most often use incorrect English because we don't know better. Simple as that. We just don't know.

But why don't we know?

We routinely rely on apparent authoritative precedent. This is nothing new. Newspaper editor Horace Greeley used one of these errors (I forget which one) in his 1859 An Overland Journey. Who'd question such a venerable expert?

When it comes to editing, I advocate the 60's anti-Establishment slogan "question authority."

We venerate "expertness" too much. In our busy lives, reliance on experts is a shortcut--not necessarily lazy, but expedient. Who's got time for nit picking?

There's the rub: checking it out takes valuable minutes from our precious leisure time (and there's a rerun of Friends coming on in a few minutes) so we don't check. We trust experts. Thus error gets perpetuated, until--

Until it becomes acceptable, even semi-respectable.

"Ain't" was once a nonword. Major dictionaries once eschewed listing it. Using "ain't was a knuckle-rapping offense to Mrs. Cooke, my second grade teacher, a real form Nazi. But dictionaries document popular speech and "ain't" is now in the book. (In my opinion, that ain't a bad thing.)

Now, let's look at "utilize." Unlike the first two words in my alphabestiary, "utilization" and "use" have the same Latin root; they are synonymous enough. "Utilize" and "utilization" mean "use," but why use the longer version?

Blame pomposity. "Utilize" sounds more important than "use." When we want to sound important--when we want people to pay attention to us--we'll go to the Big Word. Little word (often Anglo Saxon root) equals unimportant. Big Word (often Latin root) equals important. vI know I'm fighting a fruitless rearguard action here. Surly old editor with his finger in the dike of popular use. Eventually, as "ain't" crept into our dictionaries via overwhelming popular use, these three errors will lose their, um, errorness, and show up in my Webster's.

I may have to quit bellyaching, but I don't have to like it.

-0-

I got this from charter subscriber Janet Jensen of Logan, UT (co-author, with Shaunda Wenger, of The Book Lovers Cookbook, Ballentine Books, 2003): "I thought of a cemetery as a wonderful way to find names for characters. It's hard to invent a character whose name feels natural. Swapping a few off gravestones and mixing and matching them has possibilities. I know of one author who did this." Janet sent me this on Memorial Day. Writers are resourceful, yes?

-0-

Rules for Editing:

1. Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
2. Prepositions are not words to end sentences with.
3. And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.
4. It is wrong to ever split an infinitive.
5. Avoid cliché's like the plague. (They're old hat.)
6. Also, always avoid annoying alliteration.
7. Be more or less specific.
8. Parenthetical remarks (however relevant) are (usually) unnecessary.
9. Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
10. No sentence fragments.
11. Contractions aren't necessary and shouldn't be used.
12. Foreign words and phrases are not apropos.
13. Do not be redundant, do not use more words than necessary; it's highly superfluous.
14. One should never generalize.
15. Comparisons are as bad as clichés.
16. Eschew ampersands & abbreviations, etc.
17. One-word sentences? Eliminate.
18. Analogies in writing are like feathers on a snake.
19. The passive voice is to be ignored.
20. Eliminate commas, that are, not necessary. Parenthetical words however should be enclosed in commas.
21. Never use a big word when a diminutive one would suffice.
22. Use words correctly, irregardless of how others use them.
23. Understatement is always the absolute best way to put forth earth-shaking ideas.
24. Eliminate quotations. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said, "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
25. If you've heard it once, you've heard it a thousand times. Resist hyperbole; not one writer in a million can use it correctly.
26. Puns are for children, not groan readers.
27. Go around the barn at high noon to avoid colloquialisms.
28. Even if a mixed metaphor sings, it should be derailed.
29. Who needs rhetorical questions?
30. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement.
31. Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Thanks to Wisconsin writer Sue Wentz, who wrote: "I hardly ever forward jokey-type stuff. But there are a few gems here." Sue's e-mail signature: "My idea of housework is to sweep the room with a glance." Sue is a writer.

-0-

Questions? Ideas? Comments? Contact me at KRand27577@aol.com.

-0-

The Editor is IN is now available in book form.

-0-

Home