Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Some editing hints that might be useful
http://thewritingcafe.tumblr.com/post/52010362554/editing-checklist
Some good info here about how to go about editing and what to look for in your MSS.
Comments
'Delete gerunds and forms of to be if writing in past tense. Instead of were running, write ran.'
"Were running" and "ran" mean two different things:
"The dogs were running when I got to the track." The race had already started and I arrived as it was in progress.
"The dogs ran when I got to the track." I got there and then the race started.
Also, I would disagree with the 'rule' re numerals - it is far more usual to spell out numbers less than ten and use digits for larger numbers (with exceptions and house style differences as always).
The prose part would rule out all M&B writers instantly! What, no emerald eyes?
'Going to' or 'going to be', 'start to' and begin to'. These really grate. Characters should simply do the action, not start to something. Be direct!
e.g.
"Look, I'm sorry," he said.
She started pulling clothes from the wardrobe and stuffing them into her case. "I'm leaving," she said.
"Can't we at least talk about it?"
vs.
"Look, I'm sorry," he said.
She pulled clothes from the wardrobe and stuffed them into her case. "I'm leaving," she said.
"Can't we at least talk about it?"
The latter implies she's finished packing before her line of speech, whereas the the first version suggests she's talking while she's doing it. Neither is technically wrong, but the writer needs to be sure which effect they want.
Also, 'she said' is not required at the end of the description. That's a faux pas that will make every editor cringe.
But not, as Eddisbury says, to be followed blindly.
*huffs on fingernails and brushes them on lapel*
Mind you, I still have polishing to do.
It will come in very handy.
And yet, many editors still let it go, as is proved by the half dozen books I pulled from my shelves at random. 'she said' or 'he said' was used prolifically in four of them in the manner described above, all well known authors who have sold many books, in one case, millions of books.
Then those editors need shooting, John. They're as bad as the writers!
Not every editor, then.
Maybe those who don't cringe should duck. :)
[/quote]
[quote=Melina]Then those editors need shooting, John. They're as bad as the writers!
[/quote]
Erm, if a book sells millions, a shot editor wouldn't benefit much from the profit then. :D
said dora
It seems the readers who bought the book in it's millions, thought differently to your point above, Melina.
said dora, again.
edited to say, I think perhaps what this example shows is what one editor will accept, another won't?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
To be honest, I believe any editor worth their salt would fail it immediately. NO experienced writer should EVER place dialogue tags into a line that already denotes who the speaker is. If writers don't understand this, or won't, then your novels will continue to be rejected.
[quote=dora]It seems the readers who bought the book in it's millions, thought differently to your point above, Melina[/quote]
Obviously. However, I didn't see John post any actual figures of which books this particular error occured in, and how many 'millions' of copies were sold, but I suspect this silly mistake rarely happens.
[quote=claudia]You won't find the same sort of faux pas that Melina is talking about by top literary authors. [/quote]
Claudia is absolutely right, you won't, because it's simply not acceptable. I'm not sure why, as serious writers, you would not embrace this, instead of getting a little bit defensive and throwing out reasons that justify it, i.e other writers do it, with books sold in their millions. I'm quite shocked, I need a stiff cup of sketos coffee!
[quote=Melina]I believe any editor worth their salt would fail it immediately.[/quote]
Not being defensive at all. Just pointing out that the first statement was rather generalised. The second, as an opinion and qualified, is fine.
I don't know if anyone on this thread is getting a little bit defensive, Melina, or even a lot defensive, lol. :)
Yet I do know meaning and tone can be misunderstood when communication is only written down as in these forums and there's no face-to-face contact and we should all bear that in mind and make allowances.
Yet what is wrong with justifying the fact some writers use this method? If other writers do it and their work is sold in millions then surely what they are doing is acceptable by many (even if in general the standard is it shouldn't be?).
What's wrong with not complying with a norm?
As I've said above, Some editors will accept this, others won't.
I switched to my YA novel, which I have published as an ebook, and it pains me to see there are some howlers in there too. Fortunately, the ePublishing platforms permit an author to upload revisions, and I will be able to do it.
The trouble is, the indie author can't afford the half dozen passes of editing (each with a different function) which a book needs. Anyway, SW4 is immensely valuable, and before I send the next manuscript to my own editor, I shall make sure I have run it through SW4, leaving her free to concentrate on the structural aspects, pacing and general delivery.
I'm sure this is the case. I read the thread and checked out what Suzanne Collins does in her Hunger Games book 'Mockingjay', which is written in first person, present tense, and there's a proliferation of tags, because there are often a group of people in the scene and the speaker needs to be defined where there would be confusion. In Danfango's clip above there seem to be only two people.
My own style uses these tags to add visuals or to split up the dialogue for emphasis or timing reasons. Thus:
He may be high and mighty now, Steve, she declared, but we shall see. She turned towards the elevator, her nose leading firmly forward. Damien, she announced, my home is on the fourteenth floor.
Maybe I should cut them out.
Editing to say: Now that I see my own quote above, the two tags could go and it would make no difference. In fact it would probably be better.
Yet I do know meaning and tone can be misunderstood when communication is only written down as in these forums and there's no face-to-face contact and we should all bear that in mind and make allowances.[/quote]
Not a lot defensive, dora, just a teensy bit defensive. But perhaps I should try to make myself more clearly understood with danfango's original examples and a better explanation. A dialogue tag identifies who is the speaker:
"Look, I'm sorry," he said.
She started pulling clothes from the wardrobe and stuffing them into her case. "I'm leaving," she said.
"Can't we at least talk about it?"
This is incorrect because SHE SAID at the end of the sentence is unnecessary. It is quite clear the woman is speaking; this is achieved by placing action prior to the dialogue.
"Look, I'm sorry," he said.
She pulled clothes from the wardrobe and stuffed them into her case. "I'm leaving.'
"Can't we at least talk about it?"
This is correct.
Dwight's example is also incorrect: He may be high and mighty now, Steve, she declared, but we shall see. She turned towards the elevator, her nose leading firmly forward. Damien, she announced, my home is on the fourteenth floor.
'She announced' is completely redundant because Dwight has already identified the speaker. Simply take out 'she announced' and hey presto, grammatically correct sentence.
Adding a 'she said/he said' etc, even though you've identified who the speaker is really shows bad writing skill.
[quote=dora]Yet what is wrong with justifying the fact some writers use this method? If other writers do it and their work is sold in millions then surely what they are doing is acceptable by many (even if in general the standard is it shouldn't be?).[/quote]
It isn't a method. It's bad writing. If writers want to do this then they really ought to go back to school. If these errors slip by an editor's nose and make millions, well good for them, but the writer hasn't set a good example, have they?
[quote=dora]What's wrong with not complying with a norm?[/quote]
Because when it's the accepted convention you comply to the norm. If you are a bestselling author with plenty of titles to your name, and a few million in the bank, then I'm sure you and your editor can change such conventions as you wish. If you are a writer trying to get on the published ladder and making yourself heard, then conventions are there for a really good reason!
Melina, you are obviously an experienced and knowledgeable writer - your input on threads like this is most welcome!
In fairness, these days it is more common to pare down speech tags to a minimum, and if I'd written that scene I would probably drop the "she said" during the edit.
However, I disagree with your comments on the first of my examples using the "starting to" construction. You appear to be coming from the point of view of saying that both versions are trying to describe the same thing, whereas the point I was making is that they don't.
[quote=Melina]Characters must be clear in their actions.[/quote]
This is key - so the writer needs to be absolutely certain of the action he or she is describing. If the woman finishes packing her case before she speaks, use the second version; if she speaks while she's still doing it, use the first - or find a different way to describe her actions.
You can't simply say one version is correct and the other is "poor writing" because each describes a different set of circumstances. It's a subtle distinction, but it's important, and imposing black-and-white 'rules' on writing in order to stamp out those subtleties might make editing easier, but robs some of the meaning from the text.
That's because he's a well established writer. He can adopt a nouveau riche approach to writing without being frowned upon too much. What I am saying is that writers should stick to convention and stay within the accepted rules until such time they and their editors can experiment. I cannot implore potential authors enough to do that if they want to increase their chances of acceptance rather than rejection. As an editor, I would reject a potential novel on this basis, because it tells me the author cannot control dialogue basics.
[quote=danfango]You appear to be coming from the point of view of saying that both versions are trying to describe the same thing, whereas the point I was making is that they don't.[/quote]
On the contrary, it it clear what is required. Both versions differ in construction. One version is correct, the other is incorrect.
[quote=danfango]This is key - so the writer needs to be absolutely certain of the action he or she is describing. If the woman finishes packing her case before she speaks, use the second version; if she speaks while she's still doing it, use the first - or find a different way to describe her actions.[/quote]
Then first example should be cut. As stated, 'starting' to or 'beginning to' etc, should not be used. In fiction, characters either do something or they don't.
I don't say this to provoke or offend people. I can only be brutally truthful. If you find an agent or editor that doesn't mind all that and still wants to publish your novel, then please do carry on. I merely offer such advice on the basis it might help writers find publication for their novels. I love writing, mostly poetry, but I do it for the love of it because, as strange as sounds, I don't have that special 'spark'. My experience and knowledge and training has always been in publishing, and I can only go on industry standards.
It's a strangely complex business, learning all the aspects of writing fiction.
I find myself on another level, which I didn't know existed (and goodness me I already have a lot of research under my belt). It's a bit like when the plane climbs through the cloud cover and you think, "Ah ha, is that how it is up here?"
I think I have a much more professional book now, with Far Out. I think the new revision gives a better reading experience.
I hope so.
Thanks to everyone for the editing tips. They don't teach enough of the editing side in creative writing classes, in my opinion.
I have a book called "Edit Yourself Into Print" which is a good one, and a few others, but it can be really hard to track down the tuition you need.