Tidbits 12-31-2011

Some fun and newsworthy notes to end 2011.

Akel Studio has an informative breakdown for photographers thinking to buy new equipment in 2012. Do you really need it? ==============
The fun and social interesting list of Banished Words is now up. Amazing! (ha ha). ==============
For Writers, this post at Terrible Minds has good information to heed. ==============
Photographers, history buffs, nature lovers, make note of this National Park's Service announcement. On the dates January 14–16, April 21–29, June 9, September 29 and November 10–12, 2012, there is no monetary excuse not to visit some of our nation’s greatest beauties. ==============
Here's interesting feedback on the new KDP Select program Amazon is running. David Wisehart has put up his personal info on the Make It Free feature that Select offers to authors.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

Writing Fiction First Person

When I open a book and see it is in first person--where the main character personally tells the story—I expect an eloquent revelation of the emotional concerns of the character. In most cases, that's not what I'm finding. More times than not, I read a regular story told with a limited viewpoint. Often the story suffers because the emotions of other characters aren't revealed. Most of the books I've read could have been changed to third person without missing a beat. Nothing was gained by the first-person presentation, and I've occasionally found myself frowning when the "I" became really obvious; "That's right," I think, "This is first person," having forgotten the assumed style. A first-person viewpoint can allow for a more active voice, and in today's book marketplace active voice is a definite plus, but there are many pitfalls in using this voice. One of my own titles was a first person story. I recall the discipline it took to maintain the tone and voice of the character; there is no room to deviate. Yet in books I've read deviations are many. Examples:

1. A first-person character spoke of himself and acted like someone of minimal schooling, and yet many of the passages (through this first-person voice) used language and observations that bespoke a higher level of education.
2. In another book, the first-person adolescent protagonist was lamenting her strict and limited cultural upbringing, yet used metaphors and references beyond the scope of the aggrieved lifestyle and her age. This disparity was enhanced by the story being told in present tense—there was no distance of time to assume she had acquired the knowledge after she matured and left the community.
3. Another problem arose when the protagonist voiced a preference or prejudice, but didn't exhibit the emotions that go with the stated feelings. In one section, the character admits having the willies in a unclean environment, yet she didn't show discomfort when entering a dirty, rundown warehouse.
4. Really disturbing is when the protagonist becomes a sort of Houdini or Superman, reading post-a-note messages upside-down and half obscured on the desk so the reader can learn the information, or realizing someone is carrying an expensive brand of wine by identifying the cork emerging from the edge of the carry bag.
5. The worst problem occurs when first-person characters know bits of information that aren't revealed in their presence. To circumvent this, I read many books where the author resorts to the Device of having the character meet someone who knows all and proceeds to tell it to the protagonist. This slows the story to a halt, with too much discourse and not enough action.

Writing first person should draw the reader into the environment and emotions of the story: what the protagonist sees is what the reader sees; protagonist emotions and interests determine how other characters and circumstances are viewed. The main thrust of first person should be the impact events have on the emotions and psyche of the protagonist. If this personal impact isn't developed, the story becomes rather like someone telling about their vacation and giving way too much information (the shorter the better with first person). And like a vacation story, what's happening is only shown/told through one person's eyes. If that person isn't highly intuitive, extraordinarily impacted by the events, or marvelously eccentric, everything becomes rather bland. If you are writing a first person story (or planning to) here are some suggestions.

· Avoid the use of third person-type sentences: "I looked across the street and saw a dog running up the alley." In first person, it isn't necessary to identify the character—there is only one. If something is shown (the dog running) it's because the first-person character saw it: "Across the street, a dog ran up the alley." This corrected sentence provides a more active voice, and it insures the first person viewpoint.
· The same is true with emotions and sensations. "I went outside and felt the cool breeze on my face..." Saying "I felt" isn't necessary; just give the sensation and reaction: "The cool breeze felt wonderful after the stuffiness of the room." (More information, more action, no "I", no "felt")
· Avoid overusing the pronoun, "I". If the voice is strong, it shouldn't be necessary—as with the "breeze" example above.

A few examples of well-constructed first-person stories: Contemporary - Stephanie Plum series by Janet Evanovich, Historical - The Accidental Spy, by J. R. Lindermuth, Science Fiction - Muse of Fire, by Dan Simmons. (Please leave a note about those you've read and liked.) If you haven't read these, sample them at least, and think about the construction. A good test: In a paragraph, if you don't lose anything by substituting "he" (or the necessary third-person pronoun) for "I", then the first person isn't working. Writing in first person is more difficult than many people believe. When done correctly, it is excellent; when it's a bit sloppy--well, it's a bit sloppy. Of the recent first-person titles I've read, only one in four have been well constructed.

All right, Alright

According to Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, the phrase ALL RIGHT predates ALRIGHT by sixty-some years (1819 vs. 1887).ALL RIGHT, as an adverb to express agreement, began usage in 1837.

Today, more than 100 years from ALRIGHT's beginning, the single word is often considered poor style. But the use of ALRIGHT persists, most often found in journalistic and business writing, as well as in fiction dialogue.

Find answers to other word dilemmas at Confusing Words.

Compound Words

© 2008 Kae Cheatham (Previous published on a Goodreads Blog)

When I proofread or copyedit, I am always on the lookout for those compound and combined words (such as lookout, copyedit and proofread) that can be so troublesome. Improper forms of these English language anomalies occur even in published books. When do you use the hyphen? When are the words combined or separated? There are no reliable rules.

Single-word combinations and compound words can have different meanings, such as workout (n) or work out (v); freehand or free hand, wind bag or windbag. It is important to use the proper spelling to be certain readers know what you're talking about.

Here are examples that show the variations:
• You can go to the courthouse, but not to the highschool;
• use a coffeemaker, but not a coffeecup;
• Drink from a wineglass, but for the plain stuff, use a water glass;
• Houses can have a backyard (adj. & n.), and courtyard (n), yet front yard is never compound.
• Then there is bedroom, while livingroom and diningroom are incorrect (space between words, no hyphen), yet bathroom is okay and so is mudroom and workroom.
• Spell the word teenage, yes; but middle age is not compound, while middle-aged (adj.) has a hyphen.
• Snow plus another word is almost always compound: snowfall, snowshoe, snowplow, snowmobile, snowblower. Same with foot and door.
• But take special care with words beginning with half, variations are abundant.

If you type a word as compound, and the spellchecker (not spell checker, although spell check (v) is correct) gives it a red line (not to be confused with redline, which refers to the upper limit of acceptability), go to the real traditionally-bound, turn-the-page dictionary to see which spelling gives the meaning you want. Check, then double-check those pesky words to get your manuscript in the best possible form.

The following are correctly spelled, although they are often misspelled in publications. Do you see a pattern?
(Not)

airship, air force, airhead, air conditioner (n), air-conditioning (n), breakeven (n), break-even (adj), cutback, doorjamb, dark-haired, shorthaired, fair-haired, longhaired, long-sleeved, long johns, chuck wagon, street-smart (the same meaning as streetwise), longtime (adj.), long-term (adj.), long-standing (adj.), anklebone, cheekbone, hip bone, wellborn, well-bred, well built, cross-legged, crossover, crosscut, cross section, nerve-racking (also spelled nerve-wracking), landgrab (n), land-grabber (n), windowsill, windowpane, window shade, workday, pent-up, streetlight, majordomo, major general, searchlight, shoreline, workpeople, townspeople, firsthand, neckband, make-believe, make-do, makeover, make way, pinprick, wingspan, midday, midyear, mid-afternoon, day-to-day, show-and-tell, short-circuit (v), short circuit (n), wide-eyed, openmouthed.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg (not ice berg).

Metaphor vs. Simile

These two writing elements can be useful if used carefully.

• A SIMILE compares an event or object and usually provides a visual image: "It's like looking for a needle in a haystack." This example shows a simile that has become cliché. Best to avoid clichés.
  Here is a more original simile from a book I recently read: "maybe, like a dazzling supernova, I'll do something awesome one day."
• A METAPHOR replaces an occurrence or description with a figure of speech for which it is not literally applicable: e.g. nose to the grindstone, a cold fish feeling.

Problems can arise with both of these elements if they are overused or encompass too much of the text. The above-mentioned supernova simile was set up several paragraphs before the phrase with several space references intervening; by the time the "special" phrase arrived, the analogy seemed tired.

A Word on Words

This article, © Kae Cheatham, was first published in The Roundup, (Western Writers of America) December, 2003

Are your characters killing your history with their words? That could be happening if you aren't careful with your vernacular. Vernacular refers to those words that are native to a region, a people, or an era. The meanings of some words change, and some words used today didn't even exist in the 19th century.

I had always been aware of this, but until a few years ago I never realized how jarring a wrong-era word could be in text. At that time I took an assignment as rewrite editor for a children's historical fiction book. The setting was the Revolutionary War, and I carefully reworked the story and characters for that era. The company had wanted 15,000 - 17,000 words, and although my revised manuscript met that criterion, the story was shortened. An in-house editor assumed that task, and I didn't see the book until months later when a copy of the finished product arrived at my door. I gave it a read and came across the phrase in dialogue "You'll be joining too if Major Ward okays you."

Okays you? Surely I hadn't written that. I was certain that the word OK or okay wasn't in use until the 19th century.

At my computer, I pulled up the manuscript file I had sent to the publisher. Okays you was not there. Neither were other words of dialogue, such as impressive (used as an exclamatory) and protective barrier rather than redoubt. But okays you bothered me the most. I grabbed my dictionary. Sure enough, this word (and all its derivatives) was of 19th century coinage---not something an 18th century character would say.

I'm certain fourth or fifth grade readers will not be bothered by this glitch, but a misused word in historical fiction can garner negative responses from knowledgeable readers and reviewers. Mistakes are easy to make. In the last century, we have been bombarded by a variety of frontier stories and historical works in all forms: books, documentaries, movies, television shows both serious and snide, well researched and sloppy. Misinformation abounds. Just as an elementary school reader will process 'okays you' without blinking an eye, so have fiction writers of history often used words without thinking--without checking.

The "cowboy" era (1867-1900) has always been a favorite of readers and writers alike, and words associated with that time have permeated writing about times prior to that period. Is what we read always right, and is what we write correct? Here are some words to test your knowledge of often-used vernacular. chaps (as clothing), cowboy boots, cowboy hat, cowpoke, dogies, double-dealing, giddap (giddyap), hoopla, jeans, lariat, latigo, shill, shootout, sidekick, tarp, tomfoolery, waddies (referring to cowboys), yahoo.

The words in use prior to 1870 are: chaps, cowpoke, double-dealing, jeans, lariat, tomfoolery and yahoo. Yahoo goes back to the 18th century, and jeans is from two centuries before that. Of the remaining words, only dogies, hoopla, and latigo were in use prior to 1890. The terms cowboy hat (and boots) and shootout that today give an instant western image, are of recent vintage, with shootout popping up in the 20th century.

Therefore, an 1872 rider should not say "Giddyap [c. 1897], horse; we have be there for the shootout!" Also incorrect would be a California forty-niner reporting, "My sidekick [c. 1906] and me found gold at our first dig." Nor would someone before 1887 refer to his sideburns, or speak of an angry person as blowing a gasket (c. 1889). [Other words to check: glassies (marbles), long johns, mystique, potbelly stove, six-shooter (as opposed to six-gun), pushy, underdog.]

This does not mean that a writer whose backdrop is the 1870s should feel restricted to using words only available at that time. An author's narrative voice does not have to ascribe to the language of the era. As long as narration is consistent in tone and language, it will be effective (A narration that has the tone of a pensive philosopher should not veer off into down-home storyteller language). But correct vernacular is necessary in dialogue. Characters must adhere to the language, be it proper English or slang, of the day.

For instance, the reasoning of an 1860s character may be described in narration using these words: The whole wonderful affair enticed Barthelia to study the mores of her benefactors. But do not use that 1890s word, mores, in dialogue. Barthelia wouldn't know to say "It was wonderful! That's when I began studying their mores."

Definitions of some words have changed over the decades, too. The term cowpoke, for example, had its beginnings in the 1840 East and referred to a person who took the menial job of riding in railroad cattle cars to jab the steers so they wouldn't lie down. Yet since the 1870s that word has been attributed to someone working cattle from horseback and is the basis for the word cowpuncher (c. 1875). But beware of referring to "early cowpokes" in 1863 Colorado Territory; that would be incorrect because the railroad hadn't yet extended that far West.

Okay! Let's look at okay. As an adjective or adverb, usage began in 1839; OK or okay as a noun, in 1841; as a verb form, okay (okays, okayed), in 1888, and okey doke in 1932. This information was found in Webster's Collegiate 11th Edition (In Webster's, the earliest date of the word's usage is in parenthesis following the etymology of the entry.) Other lexicology books are A Dictionary of the Old West by Peter Watts, Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Dictionary of American Slang, and The Writer's Guide to Everyday Life in the 1800s; glossaries of many nonfiction books are also helpful. Because I often write stories set prior to 1850, I refer to Chambers 20th Century Dictionary to get the British slant on definitions. Historical journals and folk songs also contain rich phrases from other eras. By using these sources to double-check (c. 1944) your characters' language, you can avoid anachronisms. This will keep your history honest, and prevent picky folks (such as I) from frowning through your book.

Research Online

A good online information site is not hard to find for any topic. By typing a few key words into most Internet search engines, you will find pages of related sites, and each of those will probably have links, too. When you find an interesting article, be certain the material isn't copyrighted to the site or a certain author. Once you're certain the material is public domain, what is the best way to catalog the information?

Here are four ideas about taking "notes" from Internet sources.
1. MARK - First, bookmark (Favorites) the page. You should start a new folder for your subject so it doesn't get lost in a long list.
2. FIND - Use commands in your browser's menu bar to search for specific information in a site. On most browsers, "Ctrl+F" will get you there in Firefox and many other browsers, or you can pick out "Find" in the "edit" tab. By doing this, you can type in the name or phrase you're looking for and go right to that section of the page without having to read all the text.
3. SAVE - If you haven't already done so, make a folder on your hard drive for your subject. Then download the cyber page and read when you aren't online (Be advised, the consecutive pages and links won't always be accessible unless you're online).
4. PRINT - Don't forget to print what you need, especially for bibliographies and statistics. Some pages have a "Print Friendly" button to get material in the right format for your printer. If you don't find one, simply highlight the text you want and copy it (Control+C), then open a new document in your desk top and paste (Control+V). Now you can print it out at your leisure. When you copy and paste from a page, be certain to also copy and paste the page's URL. Put that in bold at the beginning of the material for documentation.

Always double-check any information you find online in Urban Legend sites and hoax listings. The Internet offers so many opinions and perspectives, you need to be certain you are reading a true fact and not someone's speculation.

Redundancies

A redundancy is a profuseness that exceeds necessity. In writing, this is an overflow of words that leads to lengthy and sometimes silly sentences. To an editor and many readers, redundancies mark a writer as amateur.

Adjectives often lead to redundancies, as with, "Not now!" he yelled loudly. The verb yelled means to speak loudly, so the use of the adjective is superfluous. The use of the exclamation point reinforces the redundancy.

Here's another redundancy: She ran at a quick jog, which is probably intended to mean she jogged; but the use of JOG as a noun implies she ran at something--in this case, at a...jog (whatever that might be).

Reporters and business people seem fond of saying and writing, "He has a great future ahead of him." Where else would the future be? Another common redundancy is tuna fish. This will probably be in our language forever, but think about it. Does anyone ever say they had trout fish for dinner?

By eliminating redundancies your writing will be tighter and much more professional.

Overuse of Words

Some authors have a propensity for repeating certain words throughout their work. At times this is done intentionally to enhance a visual impact, but often it is merely a bad habit.

A manuscript I recently read had an overuse of the word flew. "She flew to the door...", "The papers flew across the room...", "Ideas flew through his mind...". It was quite distracting.

In nonfiction a tendency is to overuse so as a transition word, or to give declaratives such as It is obvious. It's not so much that these writing tendencies are wrong, but they make a piece seem unprofessional.

Do a global search for sentences beginning with So. Other words and phrases to cull are there was, and then, and Soon. These weaken a piece, fiction or nonfiction, and would be better served with more descriptive and creative words.

Flaws Okay? NOT!

I was visiting another writer's site a few days ago, and in his "Writing Tips" he suggests "when writing popular fiction: the stuff that ordinary people buy. Write a wonderful story and editors will probably want to buy it even if it's got some flaws. Poor grammar or the odd writing flaw can be fixed, but if there's a lousy story beneath your scintillating prose, no editor will touch it."

An interesting concept; and I agree that a smashing story is essential to grab the reader (and the first true reader will probably be at a magazine or book publishing house). But poor grammar and writing flaws will usually have even the unique story quickly in the reject pile. Even this writer site hinted this when later was written, "More than 90% [of manuscripts] are rejected on the first page, and 99% by the end of the first chapter, so your absolute best writing has got to be up front, just to get the book read."

I see way too many manuscripts that read like they went from the author's brain to the keyboard through the printer and then to my desk. No rewrites, some with no spell check. "absolute best writing" can't be achieved that way.

Oh, did you noticed the infelicity in the quoted material? :-)

Infelicities

When proofreading your manuscript, be on the lookout for infelicities. Often these are misplaced modifiers, or phrases that were hastily written. You might know precisely what you're describing, but a reader will have to struggle.

For instance, it would be awkward to write, "He walked the hill up"; so why say, "He turned the light off". It should be, "He turned off the light."

Here are more examples: -o- "His hand reached for the glass." His hand...as opposed to his foot or elbow or nose? It should be "He reached for the glass." -o- "She dropped her eyes from his face." Too physical! The action is more correctly given with, "She lowered her gaze," or "She looked away." Let's keep those eyes in her head where they belong. -o- "He hurried through the fence to the house." We need a gate in this fence. "He hurried through the fence gate…"

Most editors are on the lookout for infelicities, but you'll help your publishing chances if you catch them before sending out your manuscript.

Proper Word Usage

A tendency to over explain is found in all types of writing. Often checking definitions in a dictionary will improve your text. Some words stand alone and need no embellishment. Here are a few. In each of these examples, the phrase becomes shorter, while imparting precise information.

-o- TIRADE means harsh and censorious language. Therefore, it’s overkill to write, "She couldn't endure the tirade of abuse." "She couldn't endure the tirade" is enough. -o- BEST means "exceeding all others". There can be no degrees. "It was the best thing to do", not "It was the very best thing to do." -o- ELUDE means to evade or escape. Hence, "The dog eluded them and escaped into the forest" would be better written: "The dog escaped into the forest."

In a first draft, these extra words are typical, but don't let them show up in your final piece.

A Bit About Pronouns

The pronouns that and which are often interchanged, and sometimes used incorrectly. That is a demonstrative pronoun. It defines and stands for the noun it replaces:

The blue chair in the corner--that one is most comfortable.

Which is considered a relative pronoun. It highlights attributes, but not necessarily the object:

The blue chair, which is most comfortable, is in the corner.

Which will usually indicate a clause and be offset with commas.

The spoken language used by most people is quite informal and doesn't always distinguish between that and which. When writing dialogue, not using the proper pronoun would be acceptable for realistic speech patterns. In narration, however, be careful. Switch out those misplaced whiches to make a more polished work.