Drat! Laura got in before me with Tam Lin.
James gets the half-point.
Sorry, Brad...I didn't mean you had to guess it now! If it's any consolation, the weather is probably a lot nicer where you are than it is where I am, the youth of the morning nothwithstanding.
OK...I'll try this in English first. Apologies for the abominable rhymes.
Arms and two men I sing, whom duty led
The first away from his admiral's wife's bed,
His new-met friend in dire financial straits
Now on the Sophie's sick and wounded waits,
With orders to sail from Gibraltar's shore
Long labours both by land and sea they bore,
And in the doubtful war, until they won
The Chilean shores, and there to lend their guns,
The captain's long awaited pennant flown
Blue, from topmast, as they sail home.
OK...I'll try this in English first. Apologies for the abominable rhymes.
Arms and two men I sing, whom duty led
The first away from his admiral's wife's bed,
His new-met friend in dire financial straits
Now on the Sophie's sick and wounded waits,
With orders to sail from Gibraltar's shore
Long labours both by land and sea they bore,
And in the doubtful war, until they won
The Chilean shores, and there to lend their guns,
The captain's long awaited pennant flown
Blue, from top mast, as they sail home.
Bruce Adelsohn asks
So what is the solution? Setting up an anti-corporate disinformation corporation? Netviduals contributing to a massive online database? (Ack! I can't imagine indexing and maintaining that beast!) I don't have the answer, but if someone comes up with a good one, I'm there
WARNING: Long and earnest
I suspect that the answer doesn't exist. I suspect, though, that parts of the answer, or maybe lots of little answers do.
I just finished editing a consumer guide to buying cars, written by someone who refuses to take anything from anyone in the auto industry. He's been exposing faulty engineering, false advertising, secret warranties, and industry dishonesty for longer than I've been alive. We can buy books and support writers like him and publishers who are committed enough to telling true stories to print the books.
We can write the books and the websites, as many do, citing sources.
We can do our homework. Painstakingly, sometimes embarrassingly (it sucks to discover that you've been taken in by some ad-agency's version of "Ethics" and that the business you thought was Different, and worth supporting, was in fact only rich and savvy.) We can learn the tricks the lying corporations use, and look behind all the Teflon and Astroturf. We can put our money and our purchasing power towards those business who know more about ethics than how to spell it.
We can calmly and politely refuse to allow lies to go unchallenged. Heck, we can do it shrilly and rudely, too, depending on what we hope to accomplish. Once the argument gets to "Is not!" "Is too!" we can't do much, admittedly. That's arguing from conviction rather than reason, and not generally effective dialectic.
And there's a mentality we can watch for in ourselves and others. I'm not certain what to call it, but it's got something to do with feeling better about ourselves because we're smarter than those sods who don't know that coffee is hot, so we don't need laws that protect us. And it's got something to do with remembering that the corporations and the insurers are not on our side, even if we're on theirs (apologies to Teresa.)
They're all things we can do. I doubt they're enough. But they're somethings.
Jennett,
First of all, are you editing the book yourself? I mean editing your own book yourself? Wow. Is this the pre-submission editing stage? (Meaning, you don't know who's going to publish the book?) If so, then a lot of this answer is probably moot.
May I strongly recommend that you re-consider this notion, and offer to trade services with an editorially inclined friend? It's really a good idea to have a second, fresh pair of eyes look at the writing.
That said, if you're determined to do it yourself, here's my thinking:
I use Chicago (or New York, which is less comprehensive but friendlier) as a reference, similar to the way I use whatever dictionary I'm using that day. I would not recommend starting at the beginning and continuing until I got to the relevant bits because, well, you probably don't need to know about The Parts of a Journal (Chapter 1, 1.138—1.191).
I might recommend reading most or all of Chapter 2, Manuscript Preparation and Manuscript Editing, which will probably answer a lot of your other questions. Chapter 2 does rather assume an acquired MS., but it's a good overview of the process and of the responsibilities of everyone involved.
Remember, if the MS hasn't been acquired, and you're planning on having it published by a traditional publisher, then it's going to get copy edited professionally. So at this stage you should be polishing up the writing, and doing your best with the spelling and usage, in the knowledge that good writing will speak for itself, and that most publishers don't care if you use their preferred spelling for website. If the book is destined to be self-published, then it's still not a great idea to edit it yourself. It's very, very difficult to see your own typos.
If you're really, really determined, I'd suggest taking a copy editing course—one of the weekend-type ones—which will give you an overview of what to look for in terms of commas (series and otherwise), which vs. that, ellipses, compound adjectives, and other issues of editorial persnickityness. Then when you come to one of these issues in your manuscript, look it up in your style guide of reference (Chicago in this instance), make a note of what it says, and impose that choice consistently.
Use a dictionary for spelling. Choose one dictionary and use it for every word whose spelling is debatable. Once you've made a spelling choice, impose it rigorously on every instance of that word.
The thing about copy editing is that consistency is about as important as correctness. Possibly more so.
The thing about CMOS is that it tries to cover all the bases. Which can prove a bit befuddling.
Does it strike anyone else that the phrase evangelical vegan vitamin salesman is eminently singable? And that it's just begging to be incorporated into an Arrogant Worms song?
Or am I just bent?
Among other things, Paul wrote if I want something, I start looking around for it; I can't actually think of something I've gone out and bought because of an advert.
Which, according to Greg London's stated preferred definition of the verb, just plain killed me.
It does so bother me when people conflate advertising and marketing. To advertise is to make public the qualities of something usually in order to increase sales. Advertising usually involves creating advertisements---specially created messages about a product. To market is simply to find a means of selling product. It involves far too many activities for me to list here (and I don't know what a lot of them are, anyway.)
If you've noticed a book that was face-out in a bookstore, picked it up and read the blurb, liked that enough to open the book, and bought the book based on what you read inside, then you've responded to marketing.
If you've bought a new type of coffee because your local cafe was offering free tastes in little paper cups, the contents of one of which you swallowed and found yummy, then you've responded to the cafe's or the coffeemaker's marketing strategy.
If you've googled "life insurance" because you wanted a life insurance policy, and found an insurance company's website, and it was well laid out, and clear, and gave you all the information you needed, and let you generate a quote online, then gone to your broker and bought your policy from that company, then you've responded to the life insurance company's marketing.
Now you won't catch me trying to argue that marketing is good. Firstly, that's not a useful term. Marketing is effective or ineffective, invasive or non-invasive, inexpensive or expensive. Good and bad are moral-type judgements, and I'm not going to get into that argument. But I will argue that it's not the same thing as advertising. Advertising is a subset of marketing---the one most people notice, and think of, to be sure. Spam, is, alas, another subset of marketing (and I won't hesitate to call it parasitic, evil, icky, and other morally loaded names), so are direct mail and telemarketing (I won't say anything even remotely nice about them, either.) And yes, a lot of marketing is invasive, obnoxious, and plain yucky, and a lot of marketing people spend a lot of their time lying and pestering people for a living.
But the core of marketing---the practice of informing the potential buyer of a product and making that product available and attractive to the buyer is something from which I don't think any of us can claim to be utterly immune.
OK...sorry for the tangent. I feel better having said all that.
Re http://www.marryanamerican.ca/
Not to spoil anyone's plans or shred anyone's dreams of running north or anything (I have no opinion on whether folks should marry a Canadian or stay and work for change. It's not my country and not my decision to make), but before you pack your touque and learn to spell colour, traveller, judgement, and cheque, do please remember that The Pledge does not say "And I promise to pay all the fees associated with immigrating to Canada on my new American fiancé(e)'s behalf." Nor does it say anything about the small mountain of paperwork associated with immigration. So, while your new Canadian sweetie of convenience will provide you with Timbits, it's up to you to cough up the $1475 ($500 application fee + $975 landing fee).
Immigrating isn't quite as easy as meeting someone on the Canadian side of the Falls and phoning the 24-hour wedding rabbi, these days.
Marilee wrote
Nishiko, in the interview she gave the NYT, she also makes an inaccurate comparison. You don't hear another voice in with Luciano, but you *do* hear all of the conductors, teachers, and other singers he's worked with or heard. I think that's pretty comparable to having the hand of an editor in a book.
You're also hearing the skill of the sound engineer in the recording hall or studio and the sound editors, making all the balance come out right, smoothing out the harshnesses, and working their wizardry.
*Warning: Long*
Livia, I can see how you might feel defensive. Me, I don't think anyone here thinks that all unpublished writers are asshats. Most folks here seem quite happy to answer genuine questions from people who want to know. And you can learn an awful lot by simply hanging out here.
Like Greg and others here, I have a lot of respect and a lot of time for would-be writers who take the time not only to finish their writing work, but also to do their homework, to frequent places like Making Light and Absolute Write, and who find the couage to ask people in the business.
Of course a lot of writers do this. That's how they find publishers and how we, the readers, get to discover new writers.
I get really frustrated with the number of people who seem to think that
1) writing is not real skill; anyone with a computer can do it;
2) publishing must be a sort of secret society in which only people with connections ever get published, because look at the amount of drek that's out there. Nobody really looks for talent;
3) writing is an easy way to get rich and famous, all I have to do is write the book and everyone will adore it;
4) the Lore of How to Get Published is So Arcane and Secret that it's no use trying to discover it as a neophyte; and
5) editors exist only to stifle people's creative genius and make money from the sweat of brilliant, misunderstood authors.
(I know, I know, I'm missing several.)
Teresa's been in the biz a heckuva lot longer and waaay deeper than I have—I've never worked in acquisitions, and I don't do much fiction. She's seen a lot more hubristic wannabes, and probably been subjected to a lot more rants. So, I think she may have over-generalized, in this instance, and used "unpublished writers" as a shorthand for "those unpublished writers who think that finishing the book, or even not finishing the book, but having an idea for a book, entails all the work they need to do."
I took a course called Publishing Overview I: Introduction to Trade Publishing, which is part of the Book Publishing Certificate program at a local university. Most of my classmates were wannabe or entry-level publishing types, like me. We also had one or two would-be authors. As classmates, I have to say, these guys weren't ideal. One of them spent a great deal of time trying to get the instructor, a veteran of the Canadian pubishing industry, to admit that he (the instructor) wasn't telling the whole truth, that authors really do get a better deal, more control over their books, more control over their rights sales, more control over the editorial process, the cover design, etc., etc., than they do. I don't think he heard what he wanted to hear.
But, as annoying a classmate as I found this fellow, at least he recognised that this information was important. At least he was taking it upon himself to gain some sort of understanding of how book publishing works in Canada. I admired that grudgingly at the time, and I admire it more wholeheartedly every time somebody comes along spouting nonsense about how books get published.
Not knowing something is fine. Clinging to ignorance is not.
It's not that all unpublished writers are asshats. It's not even that most unpublished writers are asshats. It's that, somehow, a lot of asshats seem to think that they should become writers. Or something. Heck, if all unpublished writers were asshats, then, given that all writers have gone through an unpublished period, we'd have to say the same about all writers. I don't think that would be a popular move, around here.
Most editors and publishers recognise that unpublished writers provide us with new, exciting writers.
Welcome home! I hope I'm correct in my assessment that it sounds like almost the right kind of intense. I also hope that some relaxation managed to sneak its way in there, perhaps with the jellyfish.
At one of Shakespeare in the Living Room's readings, a newcomer had the most perfect, natural unaffected Robin-Williams-doing-John-Wayne-doing-Macbeth voice I have ever heard. He was reading Cassius. He didn't mean to make Julius Caesar into a spaghetti western, I'm certain he didn't, but, somehow the reading's gravitas never really recovered. To nobody's great regret, I think.
Tom,
This is part of why I phrased my request as "think twice about...". Asking someone a question is usually cool --- even if they're not the person who knows the answer, they might be able to point you in the right direction ("Sorry, I dunno about the programme books; I've been helping replenishing the stocks in the ConSuite for the past two hours...maybe you should check at the Information Desk? Oh, you mean you have one? Great---when I go back to the ConSuite, I'll let them know there, too.") Using that person as the emotional punching bag for your own annoyance with the organization is not cool.
Be nice to the volunteers. They're not getting paid
Oh yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! YES!!
ahem.
I would add to this that if you should happen to see a volunteer, identified by their brightly coloured volunteer badge, in the corridor, or in a panel, or chilling out in a quiet corner, or in the bathroom, you might consider thinking twice, thrice, and maybe a few other times, about whether you really want to inform them that you're unhappy with some aspect (or even all aspects) of the con.
Chances are, this person's off duty. Chances are, if your complaint is about an organizational problem, they've heard it before, like umpty-gazillion-google times in the past hour or so, and they were taking a little bit of time ot themselves before heading back into the fray to Deal With It. Chances are they can't fix it right now. If your complaint is of the "Ohmighu there's something gone very wrong in the ladies' room!", then yes, there's a chance they may not have heard this a umpty-gazillion-google times yet, and they may be able to find someone to deal with whatever the problem is. But if you're annoyed that the programme books weren't available, or that the parking lot was too far from the con site, or that the Information Desk was closed when you went there at 08h00, then some random volunteer in the corridor isn't going to be able to do much more than apologise on behalf of the con that the con is not perfect. Is this going to improve anyone's day?
Even if you, personally, have run the con before, done a better job, and know what would have made this particular con run better, please don't take it upon yourself to inform the front-line volunteers at the con (unless you have a suggestion that will make things better right now, and are willing to roll up your sleeves and help them.) However unimpressed you may be with something, chances are you're having a better time than the volunteer who as heard about the missing programme books umpty-gazillion-google times today, might well have been up until the wee small hours every night in the three weeks before the con, getting their particular responsiblity into something like shape, and really, really, really needed that time away from their volunteer duties to remember why they volunteered in the first place.
Please don't make them cry. In fact, don't make anyone cry, if you can avoid it.
Having made them cry, do not attempt to hug them afterwards. Hugging a crying stranger may make you feel better, but it probaby won't do much for the stranger, especially if you're the person who already battered away at their defenses until they broke. Apologise. Tell them you've behaved churlishly. Believe it. And let them go away and do what they need to do to compose themselves.
Be nice to the volunteers. They're not getting paid.
Ditto what Graydon said about the "Yikes!" Do thou go and soak thy hands (and all the rest of thee, too!) in something nice and warm.
And welcome home. I hope that if it isn't already feeling entirely like home, it starts to feel that way soon.
Add my goodwill to the wishes for cool and dry weather, easily located necessaries, plentiful and useful helpers, and an absence of mechanical failure. Add my regrets to those of the other geographically constrained.
And may your new kitchen sprites and your transplanted ones cohabit with minimal surprising results.
We're writers here. We talk. A lot. Ask and the information will be given. You can't make us shut up.
James, I do think that last statement is worthy of another t-shirt. Or at least a button.
Randall, may I commend to your attention Learn Writing with Uncle Jim? If you want even more encouragement, really good advice, and a certain amount of hard-headed professionalism, it's a good place to hang out. Uncle Jim and the other pros on the board are pretty unstinting in their advice and in the truths they mete out. Be warned, though, that if you've anything you're procrastinating, the 72+ pages are a really effective procrastination tool!
I can honestly say that I learned as much about trade publishing and the writing and editing of fiction from Making Light, Electrolite, and Uncle Jim as I did from my Publishing Overview or my Substantive Editing class.
....Editors can be pretty garrulous, too, come to that.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 54 |
| 2003 | 38 |
| 2002 | 9 |
Total: 101 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by jennie:
Show all comments by jennie.