Errors? Not so much.

An article on People.com got quite a buzz in the circles I follow – originally when it was posted on the virtual eve of the release of the Fifty Shades movie, and again yesterday, when it popped up a couple times in my Facebook feed. Authors and readers alike were posting it, commenting on it, and, well, squinting at it quite a bit.

For those who didn’t read the article, it was a numbered list of the most common grammatical errors [per Grammarly] found in E.L. James massively successful [“best-selling” doesn’t quite cut it] Fifty Shades of Grey. I read the book, but didn’t read the subsequent novels, as I rather liked the way the inaugural book ended.

Because most who know me are aware that I can be a bit pedantic in formal-style issues, I thought I’d share my thoughts on People’s list.

Disclaimer of sorts: I know the People.com article was not intended as an attack on Ms. James' work. It was a topical piece at a topical moment. Even where inaccurate, the article has some decent advice that every writer and author should consider. For its part, Grammarly is a useful tool for flagging possible issues in one's writing. In light of those known facts, I, in turn, want to have fun with the results.

Remember – these are alleged grammatical errors. Period. So, let’s start with a definition, courtesy of my well-worn Oxford English Dictionary:


grammar The branch of language study or linguistics which deals with the means of showing the relation between words as used in speech or writing, traditionally divided into the study of inflection (or morphology) and of the structure of sentences (syntax), and often also including phonology (see also linguistics). [OED]

What doesn’t that definition cite as part of grammar? Punctuation, just for one [sort of a rough a priori: punctuation is not a part of speech, but grammar is, so punctuation is not part of grammar]. Mechanics, for another. I’m just noting that before we get into it.

Now, on to the list! [So excited! I'll tally a score at the end of each section – in a completely subjective fashion.]

People.com Grammatical Error #1: Punctuation Errors in Complex Sentences
Before we go further, this is not a grammatical error. It is an error in punctuation, as was indeed noted. So shouldn’t have been on the list. Let’s look at it, though. [“Yes, Roberta! Let’s!”]

FSoG sample citation: "Oh my. My heartbeat picks up again, this feels so... so good."

In fact, the error is a comma splice [not specified in the article], so named as it’s the splicing together of two independent clauses with a comma. The advice – which was correct – was that the comma should more appropriately be a semicolon [though they spelled it semi-colon; to each their own]. I used to use many semicolons, but I use fewer now [that last one in exemplum]. I prefer to have a full stop [period] or a conjunction. [In interests of fairness, comma splices drive me wild. I hate them. Probably used to use them.]

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error [punishment; no zeros awarded in this category]: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 1
For good advice: 1
Score: 1
Running total: 1

People.com Grammatical Error #2: Comma Misuse
Again, not a grammatical error. So shouldn’t have been on the list.

FSoG sample citation: "I open my eyes, and for a moment, I'm tranquil and serene, enjoying the strange unfamiliar surroundings. I have no idea where I am."

The advice – again correct – was that a comma should have followed “strange”. The reason for that [not given in the article] is that “strange” and “unfamiliar” are both adjectives modifying “surroundings”. Therefore, a comma separates the separate [haha! there's a mnemonic for you!] ideas. [For those who think “strange” and “unfamiliar” are synonymous and therefore redundant, you are wrong.]

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 1
For good advice: 1
Score: 1
Running total: 2 

People.com Grammatical Error #3: Wordiness
Again, not a grammatical error. So shouldn’t have been on the list. It is a matter of style, and style is a matter of taste. Whether you like it or loathe it, it is wholly discretionary. [Should you like excellent examples of wordiness, I highly recommend cracking the spine on anything written by Melville or Hugo.]

FSoG sample citation: "He's so passionate, mesmerizing. This is obviously his obsession, the way he is... I can't take my eyes off him. He really, really wants this. He stops talking and gazes at me."

The upshot of the advice [they didn't mention the comma splice!] was to remove one of the “really”s. While I don’t argue with that too hard, FSoG was written in first person, and the narrative voice is Ana’s. I really, really think the emphatic repetition suited the character.

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice [I'll give it to them]: 1
Score: 0
Running total: 2

People.com Grammatical Error #4: Colloquialisms
Again, not a grammatical error. So shouldn’t have been on the list. It is a matter of style, and style is a matter of taste.
[Didn't I just write that a couple minutes ago? Could’ve sworn . . .]

The article concedes that it’s a style issue. My – well, not argument – but slight dismissiveness of it, is the sample chosen to represent this “error” [not an error, remember!].

FSoG sample citation: "I open my eyes, and I'm draped in Christian Grey. He's wrapped around me like a victory flag."

I thought the complaint was going to be “victory flag”. It wasn’t. It was “I’m”. A contraction. [Erm . . . *not sure where to look* . . . Um.]  For examples of real colloquialisms that can be problematic, might I suggest Joyce or Runyan? Or maybe this blog post?

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice: 0
Score: -1
Running total: 1 

People.com Grammatical Error #5: Accidentally Confused Words
Ah! An actual grammatical error! [*high-fives the Internet*] "Accidentally confused words" is indeed about syntax and how words relate to each other. Also known as malapropisms.

I love malapropisms! [Maybe "I hard malapropisms"? ;) ] They make me laugh. I work hard to keep them out of my writing [because they are really bad!], but recently a reader caught “illicit” where I meant “elicit”, and once upon a time, another reader caught “palatable” where I meant “palpable”. I laughed a lot at myself – but fixed those puppies right away.

My favourite and often-seen malapropisms:
elude/allude [avoid/imply]
affect/effect [verb: influence / noun: result]
consecutive/concurrent [successive/simultaneous]
bridle/bridal [noun: tack for horse / adjective: relating to a bride (okay, no snickering – or nickering)]
rein/rain/reign [part of a bridle (not "bridal") / water from the sky / rule]
regimen/regime/regiment [schedule/establishment / military unit]

But back to the People.com article . . .

FSoG sample citation: "She doesn't think to question my explanation, because I am one of the most un-coordinated people in Washington State."

The “caught” error was the hyphenated “un-coordinated”. ... Huh? At worst, it’s a spelling error. It’s not an “accidentally confused word”. It's not a malapropism.

For examples of malapropisms at their best, I recommend Sheridan's The Rivals, wherein you'll find the archetypal Mrs. Malaprop [though her malapropisms are used to deliberate comedic effect]. Or select Yogi Berra quotes.

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error [I'm not giving it to them!]: 0
For good advice: 0
Score: -1
Running total: 0 

People.com Grammatical Error #6: Sentence Fragments
I’m going to concede that sentence fragments are grammatical errors, as they affect syntax and how words relate to each other. However, it is mostly a style choice many authors employ, and can be used to great effect [not affect! ;) ], at least in fiction. In a medical journal or poli-sci piece, you're going to want to avoid them. 

FSoG sample citation: "Do you really feel like this or do you think you ought to feel like this? Two very different things."

I have zero problems with that, structurally at least. Yes, it’s an error. Do I think it works? Yep. Sure do.
Best. Fragment. Ever! [Well, no, but . . .]

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: 1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice [I'm on the fence, but . . . nope]: 0
Score: 1
Running total: 1 

People.com Grammatical Error #7: Determiners
The word I would have chosen over “determiners” would have been “articles” – direct article “the”, and indirect articles “a” and “an”. Leaving articles out is not necessarily a grammatical error, depending on the context.

FSoG sample citation: "I still prefer my title to yours, in so many different ways. It is lucky that I am master of my own destiny and no one castigates me."

The [People.com ;) ] article suggested adding “the” before “master”. I’m assuming the writer hadn’t heard of a little ’90s sitcom called Seinfeld and the most famous episode of its – or any other TV show’s – run: The Contest.

That aside, dropping articles can make for far tighter and more compact narrative. Grammatical error? Only if the article is absolutely necessary for clarity.

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error [sure, okay]: 1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice: 0
Score: 1
Running total: 2 

People.com Grammatical Error #8: Prepositions
Yep, preposition use is grammatical.

FSoG sample citation: "Please him! He wants me to please him! I think my mouth drops open. Please Christian Grey. And I realize, in that moment, that yes, that's exactly what I want to do. I want him to be damned delighted with me. It's a revelation."

The suggested edit was to change “in that moment” to “at that moment”. I concede that “at” specifies a particular time, and “in”, an unspecified time. But when I read the FSoG passage, I took it subtextually as Ana being “in the moment”. Should I care more about the grammar? Possibly. Maybe I’m not really in the moment at this moment.

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error: 1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice [yes, they get it, for sheer subtly – kudos!]: 1
Score: 2
Running total: 4 

People.com Grammatical Error #9: Passive voice
Okay, that one made me laugh a bit. First, the article did concede that it is a style issue – not a grammatical error – to employ passive voice. [So shouldn’t have been on the list!] But wait! There's more!

Aside first: I do not like passive voice – even in casual conversation, I don’t use it. It’s a personality thing [or so my friends tell me]. While it has its uses [which I’ve likely exploited], I agree that it weakens drama and comedy alike, faster than anything else.

FSoG sample citation: "He is totally beguiling, and I'm bewitched. I place my hand in his."

So that was where I started laughing. That is not an example of passive voice. “I’m bewitched” is a simple declarative statement. [The suggested change: “he has bewitched me”. Um . . .] The cited sample does walk a thin line, though. Had it read, “I’m bewitched by him,” then it would have been passive voice. Since it began with “he” as the subject, changing it to “I” created a problem through the presumed “by him”. However, maybe there are other things at that moment that influenced Ana, and it is not solely the beguiling Christian who caused her bewitchery. Thus, it’s a simple declarative. For the sake of clarity, perhaps it should have been two separate sentences: “He is totally beguiling. I’m bewitched.” Or [presupposing Christian as sole cause], one sentence: “He is totally beguiling and bewitches me.” Or better: "He totally beguiles and bewitches me." [Tip! Just like my last example, removing forms of "to be", where used in conjunction with other verbs, tightens your prose. And if there's a preposition near your "to be", you're in passive territory, so step carefully!]

But still, not passive. Not an error.

For more about passive voice – and indeed, much helpful advice on writing – I recommend Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, the text of which can be found here. It is marvellously relevant, though written 70 years ago. Also, Orwell’s conclusions are – or should be – at least vaguely familiar to every writer and author. I guarantee you've heard them, even if you didn't know the source.

Scoring:
For identifying a grammatical error [they should lose double for the incorrect example]: -1
For identifying a [different sort of] error: 0
For good advice: 0
Score: -1
Final total: 3 out of a possible 27

Yay! We're through it! \o/
All that written [or said, as many might write], the People.com article entertained me. Started a whole whack of conversation. And reminded me that I should never read comments on controversial articles, since many of them were quite ugly, both for and against. Ms. James wrote a trilogy that changed much of how we view publishing, sex, and fandom. Whether a fan of her work or not, one must give her kudos. I, for one, wish her nothing but the best in all things, and offer my most sincere congratulations.

Should you wish to sample Ms. James’ books for yourself, they can be purchased on Amazon, and are listed on her Author Page.

Should you wish to sample my novels and find all my grammatical, punctuation, and mechanical errors [and report back with scathing criticism so that we can discuss], you can find them on Amazon or, for other retailer buy links, on my WordPress page.

My romantic-comedy suspense, Famous Penultimate Words, is now available in ebook format, and will be available in print soon. Look! Here's the PB cover [so you'll know I'm not lying]!

“The butler did it.” I’d kill for a simple dénouement.

My current WiP is a murder mystery of sorts, the result of deliberate restrictions I put on myself for last year’s NaNoWriMo: first-person, romantic suspense comedy. It’s almost done. It was almost done November 30, 2013, with the plot laid out clearly in an annotated detailed list in the MS so I wouldn’t forget who did what to whom when I returned to it.

I wrote the HEA ending last November, so, literally, that’s all I had left to do – get that list of details into a scene. Yesterday, I shot off a message to one of my betas, letting her know she’d see the MS in a couple of days, as I was just writing the dénouement. I immediately returned to work, determined to finish those few lines that would wrap up the mystery. That’s it. Easy-peasy, right?

Dénouement literally means “untying the knot”. It’s the unravelling of the plot of any story, not just in mysteries. Explanations made, he-said-she-said, I’ve always loved you, here’s the murderer, the motive, the MacGuffin. Scene! The End.

So I’m not unfamiliar with tying – or rather, untying and retying – the knots of a story. However, this is my first mystery. With clues hidden and scattered and hinted at throughout the MS, trying not to give things away and tossing out some red herrings for fodder, now I have too many things to explain. In the midst of the mess I’ve made of these “few lines” I was going to whip off last night, I started wishing for a convenient butler to blame everything on.


Edgar the Butler, The Aristocats, [1970] © Disney

Of course, the butler did it is a both a classic trope and hackneyed cliché. Relax; even had I a butler character to throw to the wolves of dénouement, I’d not use him. It’s not my first rodeo.

But damn! Sure feels like it. Seven hours I spent labouring over revealing the threads. The “few lines” currently stand at about 2,100 words. And I’m not done explaining!

I was too damned clever with too little experience in the genre. I have too many possible villains and accomplices. Clearing names in one breath and ruining reputations in the next is taking its toll in what should be a tight, fast scene.

At last, I fell asleep in the wee smalls, desperate for the convenience of simplicity . . . and dreamed that my H was the villain all along.

No, that won’t work.

What to do with the steamy mess?

Well, I’m not going to change my plot. Maybe I’ll backtrack and wrap up some threads earlier to lighten the load of the end. I can muddle through this dénouement and think about how to tidy it while betas pfthhht it. Next time I write a mystery – if I ever do – I could keep it simpler. One villain. One motive.

Yet my current conundrum presents a huge opportunity. A writing exercise of epic proportions [for me]: to write this scene with all the complexities intact and still keep it interesting to the reader. To unravel the Gordian knot of my plot by following the tangles, rather than jackhammering through it – which is what I’m currently doing.

Whew! We’ll see how it goes.


FPW WiP cover

Many thanks to the irrepressible Camilla Monk for her design advice [who am I kidding - it's her idea!] that fits my brand so well!

Famous Penultimate Words will be published . . . soon-ish.

Yar, me soul-matey! Revisiting my dislike of this romantic paradigm.

Yesterday was Canada Day, and I had a prearranged date with a bottle of wine and two women of fiction. The first was Kendra, a stranger to me, so you get to meet her, too.

Before I get to my review, I’d best address my post title. I have – with a degree of amused snark – used this line before. Never as any dig at an author employing the You are my density destiny [Ah, damn! Snarky. Again.] trope, but I have a real aversion for it.

Kendra by Edward M. Wolfe at Amazon

So when reading Kendra by Edward M. Wolfe – which embraces the concept – I began examining why I was so, not bitter about it, but definitely antagonistic. I’m a romance novelist, after all. All romantic tropes and paradigms should be natural and reasonable to me, to be used as appropriate.

Maybe it’s that I never met my soul mate, that I’m still single [roughly speaking], and my distaste is a form of envy that I never met – or worse, met and missed – my soul mate along the way.

Nah. Never met anyone like that . . .

And then I thought about him. That guy. That guy who, when he first spoke, riveted me to the spot. That guy who so enthralled me that when we went on our first date, I was so busy staring at him in lustful admiration that I ran smack into a tree. [Who plants trees on sidewalks? In a city? Really. It’s the place for wide avenues of beautiful, sweet concrete. Where smitten girls don’t make idiots of themselves.]

We bonded in a way that I hadn’t experienced before, and haven’t since. We were accurately finishing each other’s sentences within hours of meeting. There was a connect. A snap of awareness for each other that we discussed at length, our conversations peppered with words like destiny and yes, soul mates.

Did the relationship work out? Ah, no. Obviously. For a variety of reasons. We were too young and stupid and overly sensitive about . . . almost everything. Maybe I never forgave him for the fact that, had he been a true gentleman, he would have been walking on the outside of the sidewalk and I never would have embarrassed myself with that damn’ tree. Maybe he was secretly annoyed that my voice – that he admired in private moments – could suddenly drip with condescension when I felt threatened by, well, a lot of things in those days, not so long ago.

But for all it didn’t work out, for all that I’m done grieving the loss of that time, I still have a soft spot for him, and wonder what would have happened had we met just a handful of years later. Or yesterday.

Because yesterday I read Kendra, and for once, didn’t have any snark about the soul-mate paradigm.

Review – 5 stars for Kendra

I’ve read a smattering of Mr. Wolfe’s work. Even when not over the moon with it, I like it. He has an Everyman, natural style that is enormously accessible, in which I imagine I can hear his voice. And it is pleasant to the ear.

And now, Mr. Wolfe has produced this phenomenal work. Kendra is a bang-up romance, beautifully crafted and surprisingly unsentimental in its celebration of the soul-mate paradigm.

I’m uncertain what else to say about it, as just about everything constitutes a spoiler. But I’ll try.

Keith and Kendra meet by accident and instantly bond. Keith, whose voice in those early pages smacks of asshat-edness, sheds his veneer of cynicism when overwhelmed by the notion that he and Kendra are meant to be together. Happily, she feels the same way, and their relationship rockets along.

Tragedy strikes. The upshot is that Kendra winds up in a coma and on life support.

Now, the subtitle of this work is An Astral Lovestory, so I think it’s safe to reveal that Keith and Kendra’s temporal connexion transforms into a paranormal one. A meeting of souls – or spirits, or energy – who experience a resplendent communion on an astral plane, even though he is very much alive, and she, not so much.

Plot-wise, I can’t reveal more. I can reveal that I got misty reading this novel. I’m blaming the wine I was consuming along with it.

The narrative questions the ironic: that some who believe in God, spirits, and an afterlife can’t believe something outside their experience – the irony being that, for most of us on this side of death, there is no demonstrable experience with God, spirits, or an afterlife . . . so believers should be more open, more willing to examine the tenets of those beliefs. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio . . .

The novel also explores the meaning of life, issues of life-support and pulling plugs. The fine line between imagination and reality, and the even finer one between perceived sanity and insanity.

And love. The meaning of love. Kendra and Keith’s love is not gushy. Not corny or schmaltzy. It is as flawless as flawed humans can make it. Undefined, it reads as naturally and truly as breathing. It simply is. Meant to be.  

Time Out to Play #LuckySeven

I’m taking time out of my currently insane schedule to have a bit of fun.

The brilliant Katerina Baker, whose sample from her romantic suspense WiP The Secret Wife is posted on her blog, tagged me in this game.

The rules:
Go to page 7 or 77 in your current WIP
Go to line 7
Post on your blog the next 7 sentences or 7 lines – as they are!
Tag 7 people, who'll do the same.

Okay, must get back to work . . . but here’s my sample from page 77 of my contemporary romance WiP, Public Frenemy, due out in August.

 

“Why did he call you the other night?”

“Speed-dial ass call, I gather.”

“He has you on speed dial?”

“That was my reaction, if you recall.”

“I was paying closer attention to other things,” he pointed out, and pointed out.

She laughed. For the first time, a conversation about those days lacked some sting. “I thought we weren’t going to talk about our miserable former lovers.”

###

I am tagging:

Martyn V. Halm

Rosanna Leo

Susanne Matthews

Carrigan Richards

Marisa Oldham

Malia Mallory

Elodie Parkes

 

 

 

Formal Style – Let’s eat Grandma

I recently opened and closed a book without coming anywhere near the The End because of several issues, but mostly it was this error that stopped me: In dialogue, the missing comma before the name of the addressed.

I see it all the time. You likely see it all the time, and probably don’t get your knickers in such a twist as I do. And it doesn’t annoy me in the day-to-day, when some friend or business acquaintance shoots off an email to me: Hi Roberta. I always write back though: Hi, X. I’m not correcting the sender at all – merely writing it the way it should be written so I [hopefully] don’t make the error in my novels.

I tripped across the phrase “Let’s eat Grandma” a couple years back [though it might have been “Grandpa” in that instance] in an Internet meme about how commas can save lives. I thought it hilarious . . . but since, I’ve seen it all too often in published works.

The comma must always be there. No matter if it’s clear who the addressed is. No matter if it saves a life or not. Must have comma.

Maybe the trend away from the comma in this case is because of a misinterpretation that commas are only used as “pauses”; that you stick them in a sentence where you would naturally take a breath. That’s not a bad guideline for general comma use, but it isn’t the sole purpose. As the title of this blog entry alludes, direct address commas ensure there is no ambiguity.

There are three types of direct address: Beginning, middle, and end. Samples of each, respectively:

“Bob, thank you for . . .”
“I think, Bob, we should . . .”
“See you soon, Bob.”

Here are more examples, incorrect first; corrected following:

Incorrect:

“Hello Bob.”
“Hello Sue honey.”
“Show me dear Carol.” [If it is a demand to be shown dear Carol, it’s right. Otherwise, uh uh.]
“Yes sir.”
“I called my sister Bob.” [You did? Is your sister’s name “Bob”?]
“I called my sister Carol.” [This may or may not be wrong, depending on if there was indeed a call placed to someone’s sister named Carol. But if Carol’s the one being addressed, it’s wrong.]
“I was thinking Sue that we should go shopping.” [See how it can get mangled without those commas!]
“Happy birthday Bob.” [Just . . . no.]

Correct:

“Hello, Bob.”
“Hello, Sue honey.” [“Honey” is adjectival, and thus included with her name.]
“Show me, dear Carol.” [“Dear” is adjectival; a letter salutation would be “Dear Carol:”.]
“Yes, sir.”
“I called my sister, Bob.”
“I called my sister, Carol.” [If this is spoken to Carol; if there was a call placed to sister Carol, it would be: “I called my sister Carol.” I noted it above, but it's worth two mentions.]
“I was thinking, Sue, that we should go shopping.”
“Happy birthday, Bob.”

I wish I could say this error was limited to self-pubs. Actually, it has become such a pervasive error that it even pops up in professionally edited works from established publishing houses. Rest assured, I’m not one of those people who don’t like change. I love the way the English language constantly grows and evolves. I don’t mind that some words become obsolete. I don’t mind that the serial [or Oxford] comma is used less and less [though there are times it must be used . . . but that’s for a different post].

But the direct address comma can’t go anywhere. It might not save lives, but it will save your writing from at least that form of ambiguity. And while the occasional neglect of the rule is forgivable [who doesn’t make errors?], I’ve pretty much decided that I won’t be reading any more books that neglect the rule wholesale.

So, let’s eat, Grandma.

This post was originally published on my Goodreads blog.

Formal Style – Apostrophes

What is formal style? In an Internet search, it was “longer sentences” and “more complex vocabulary”. Well, it’s not. That’s style. Writing style, more specifically.

Formal style could be described as the equivalent of etiquette. But rather than what fork to use, it’s the correct use of punctuation and word case: title/sentence/camel case, how footnotes/endnotes are constructed, how dialogue tags are attached, the sort of dash used, how ellipses are inserted, where italics are used rather than quotes . . . ad nauseam. I am a stickler for formal style. That doesn’t mean I don’t make formal style errors [though I pretend I make none. Uh uh, no way, no how]. Ahem. Or should that be Amen?

Maybe you’ll think: “Roberta, that is not about writing. That is not a writing tip.”

Ah, but it is.

In an earlier post, I wrote that there were no rules, and modified that with “of course, there are rules.” The goal of every author is to keep the reader turning pages. That’s how authors get loyal fans, get chatter about their books, get reviews written. So, based on that goal, here’s my:

Cardinal Rule #1 –

Anything that pulls a reader out of the story is a bad thing.

Pulled out of a story is being distracted. And distracting your reader is something to be avoided at all costs. A distracted reader is missing your clever words. Notices other bad things that they otherwise would have ignored. Gets annoyed at you, doesn’t finish the book, doesn’t write a review, and says only negative things.
In this age of instant gratification and the quick scan of opening-chapter sampling to assess and reject/accept a book under consideration for purchase, an author can’t afford a single error that distracts. That’s it. No excuses about how the writing/story/characters are really fantastic and readers should be looking beyond sloppy formal style for the heart of your work.

That’s not going to fly.

Readers deserve better. They’re putting out their money for your work, taking the time and energy to read your work, and you want them to work harder? Don’t think so.

Today’s observation on formal style is about apostrophes. Not “its” vs. “it’s” or “they’re, their, there” – that’s grammar. I’m writing about a particular pet peeve that will have many who read this crossing/rolling their eyes, saying: “Really, Roberta? This is an issue for you? Pedantic idiot.”

Maybe. But I’m a reader buying your books, so my opinion counts. And I hate to have to say it, but an open quote is not the same thing as an apostrophe, as much as a period is not the same thing as a comma, as italics are not the same thing as boldface, a cat is not a dog, a shoehorn is not a power drill, and the word “wrong” is in no way the word “right”.

So, my formal-style apostrophe issue: I often see abbreviated words [about vs. ’bout; them vs. ’em; nineteen-seventies vs. ’seventies] where the apostrophe is actually an open single quote: ‘bout; ‘em; ‘seventies.
 
Don’t see the difference? Hm. I do. And it drives me wild. Does it take effort while you’re keying your eternal novel into Word to make sure you have the right punctuation? A tiny bit; sure. Is it worth it? That’s up to you. And ultimately, your reader - a.k.a., your customer.

This post was originally published on my Goodreads blog.

My Writing Process

Michaela Miles logo
courtesy www.michaelamiles.com

I’ve been invited to answer a few questions about my writing process by the inimitable author/blogger Michaela Miles! This particular blog hop is all about authors offering others a glimpse into their work, their work schedules, and perhaps their innermost thoughts.

Click here to find out how she does it! And be sure to explore her blog for her many gems of observation, reviews, and more!

 

 

Q. What am I working on?


The Value of Vulnerability
cover

I’m still editing my latest novel The Value of Vulnerability, a purely character-driven work about how people deal with personal damage – and in the case of my H, rather harshly! So naturally he needs an h who shows him better ways to deal. I’m hoping to have this to beta readers in a couple of days.



Public Frenemy cover

I’ll be following that novel with Public Frenemy, a story of two people trying to learn how to love again without fear, ultimately determining that it takes courage and self-confidence. Slated for April 2014 release, it’s probably going to be May instead. Q. How does my work differ from others of its genre?



For Those Who Wait
cover

My first novel, For Those Who Wait, is actually a nod to Harlequin Presents style – that genre that I love so well and inspired me to write romance in the first place. But within it, I broke some clichés, which was both hard and satisfying [That’s what she said!].

A Bird Without Wings
cover

My second novel, A Bird Without Wings is written around a h who is smarter than her H! Talk about breaking clichés! Considering the sophistication and education of the average romance reader, I thought it would be rewarding to read such a character. She’s complex and compelling. I love her. And so do the readers who’ve met her.

The upshot? I’m not out to reinvent the genre – it’s great as-is. But it’s fun for both me and the reader to invert tropes and dispense with stereotypes, so I do so as often as possible.

Q. Why do I write what I do?

Hmm . . . I write contemporary romance because I find the entire question of what makes a relationship work [independent of the ultimate conclusion of an HEA!] endlessly intriguing. What makes two people want to permanently join forces through their lives? How can one person rely on another to that degree? Still single, you can see how that would fascinate me!

Q. How does your writing process work?

I see a scene in my head. I write dialogue in my head. I create a new Word doc and get down as much of it as I can – frequently naming the characters “H” and “h”. Then I ignore it for weeks - sometimes months. Eventually, I drag it out and start poking at it, see what I can make of it, keying in little ideas that occur about backstory, characterisation, and conflict.

I’m a pantser who thinks she’s a plotter. This time, I’m going to write an outline! Never happens. Sometimes to get things moving, I’ll write whole stream-of-consciousness passages to help me get where I want to go. The characters – if strong enough – will write their own story.

Oh, and I drink loads of coffee. Sometimes wine – but there’s a fine line in creativity with wine . . . one point five glasses is my cut off before I lose momentum and focus!

Who will we meet next week?

Check out these authors and their processes:

Renea Mason
Noelle Clark

Anne Lange

And Lan LLP will be posting her processes on blog soon.

This post was originally published on my Goodreads blog.