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
Did you find sub-editing hard when you first began writing?
Did you find sub-editing hard when you first began writing?
When I first began writing full-time I found it easier to sub-edit another person's work than my own.
Even though it has taken me many years I am amazed today on how much I have improved sub-editing my own work. I can now change sentences, pick up on mistakes and cut out words that is of no importance.
It has certainly taken a lot of experience to improve on my work but I am definitely pleased with it!
Alana
Still experience difficulty correcting my own work, yet spotting other folks "errors" is practically instant. (Your penultimate sentence; ".....words that IS of no importance" you meant ARE of course.) See? That old adage, "it's the easiest thing in the world to criticise others" sounds so true.
My best efforts of self-editing are achieved when reading my words printed on paper.
This is going to get complicated, Jan. Your expression - folks errors - requires an apostrophe after folks just as - the players' injuries - or - the ladies' room - do. The two nouns follow each other. In my sentence they don't, so no need for an apostrophe.
There is, incidentally, a mistake in my sentence ( deliberate of course - just to keep people on their toes!!).
Not a mistake, but the apostrophe in ladies' room may be overdoing it (not for me, though). Every time I write gents I never know whether to put one, and my editor has said not to bother. I hasten to add that I write romance and not porn!
No, no, Jay. It was my sentence further up that begins; the possessive form etc.
Regarding ladies' room: it's an example given in the Penguin Guide to Punctuation.
You wouldn't, I'd have thought, need the apostrophe for the word ladies on its own, as in 'going to the ladies'. Any more than you would for the word gents in 'he went to the gents. But for gents' socks or gents' underpants of course, you would - two expressions which I'm sure you're using all the time in your romantic fiction!
To me it's the Ladies room, to hell with an apostrophe! And for most public conveniences, the prospect of getting the powers that be to put the apostrophes in the correct position, well that's asking for trouble (excuse the cliche).
Erm... Can I have a go at the original question, please?
The amazing thing I've found about sub-editing is that when I look at someone else's work to cut out what's unnecessary, it ends up shorter; when I do the same to my own work, it ends up longer.
Does anyone else have this problem, which hasn't diminished over many years?
My current w-i-p novella was 30,000 words until I edited it. Then it went down to 25,000. Not that this involved the wholesale removal of scenes. What it was was me having to make up my mind on my '&/or' sentences. This is where I put, say, decisive or positive or certain or sure in the first draft. (I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.)
The reason, of course, is that we know what we mean and need to be certain our readers fully comprehend our intended interpretation. When editing other work we are purely analytical of the words before us.
Re the ladies' room - the crux of the matter is that it is plural and possessive. It needs an apostrophe because it is possessive and it goes after the s because it is plural. As opposed to the lady's room (the room belonging to ONE lady).
Comments
When I first began writing full-time I found it easier to sub-edit another person's work than my own.
Even though it has taken me many years I am amazed today on how much I have improved sub-editing my own work. I can now change sentences, pick up on mistakes and cut out words that is of no importance.
It has certainly taken a lot of experience to improve on my work but I am definitely pleased with it!
Alana
Still experience difficulty correcting my own work, yet spotting other folks "errors" is practically instant. (Your penultimate sentence; ".....words that IS of no importance" you meant ARE of course.) See? That old adage, "it's the easiest thing in the world to criticise others" sounds so true.
My best efforts of self-editing are achieved when reading my words printed on paper.
Told you I was rubbish with my own writing. On the other hand I did mean all types of folk, so why does it need an apostrophe?
There is, incidentally, a mistake in my sentence ( deliberate of course - just to keep people on their toes!!).
Hands up!
I misread [terrible sin and my pet hate] thinking the apostrophe should have been placed folk's whereas everyone said and meant folks'.
It's obvious now and I am suitably humbled at my error. Thank goodness you are all so tolerant, that's what sets this site so far above any other.
Now come on, what about my 'deliberate' mistake?
Regarding ladies' room: it's an example given in the Penguin Guide to Punctuation.
You wouldn't, I'd have thought, need the apostrophe for the word ladies on its own, as in 'going to the ladies'. Any more than you would for the word gents in 'he went to the gents. But for gents' socks or gents' underpants of course, you would - two expressions which I'm sure you're using all the time in your romantic fiction!
I still remember my English teacher telling me about black men's socks (whoops, typo, can't possibly explain in a family forum like this one!).
The amazing thing I've found about sub-editing is that when I look at someone else's work to cut out what's unnecessary, it ends up shorter; when I do the same to my own work, it ends up longer.
Does anyone else have this problem, which hasn't diminished over many years?
I really must find something to do. Sounds like Catholic guilt. Probably Protestant work ethic.
The reason, of course, is that we know what we mean and need to be certain our readers fully comprehend our intended interpretation. When editing other work we are purely analytical of the words before us.