C h a z z W r i t e s . c o m

See all my books at AllThatChazz.com.

02/28/2011 • 4:16 AM 5

Editing Tips Part 1: Story bible

Image via Wikipedia

Since I’m in heavy edit mode this week, it’s going to be all about editing all week. You asked. I give. And so:

A story bible is a document beside your manuscript where you keep track of characters’ names, ages and details. It will keep you from screwing up too much and make your revision process go faster. It’s very frustrating, for instance, to go through a 450-page manuscript looking for the hero’s little sister’s eye color page by page. It’s the equivalent of losing a productive hour to search the house for a misplaced checkbook.

Keep your story bible close so you can add to it without interrupting your writing flow. I use a yellow legal pad though if you have the document on-screen you could search it, I suppose. (A bible that is too long goes unread but is an excellent device to keep you procrastinating instead of writing and revising.)

Even if you’re less of a planner (the seat-of-the-pants writer) it helps to have some minimal plan or a story bible so you can keep track of characters and key details. It’s better than losing a character along the way. It is embarrassing to write an entire novel and think you’re done only to have one of your beta readers ask, “What happened to Mrs. Haversham? Did she survive the fall to the bottom of the stairs on page 139? And what happened to the alien prostitute who got locked in the truck?”

It’s a huge problem in self-publishing because there aren’t teams of editors and proofreaders combing manuscripts. It happens with traditional publishers, too (and will increase becaus of cutbacks.) For instance, in Lucifer’s Hammer, an astronaut is described as short, but by the end of the book he’s standing tall and commanding in the bow of a boat. In Under the Dome, Stephen King introduces a supernatural element on the good guy’s side that is never explained and seems forgotten, as if the angels whispered in the hero’s ear and then got distracted and wandered away. (When you write a book that big, it’s easy to lose threads and drop stitches.)

As you edit, things will crop up and it will help you to add edit points to your bible. Edit points are policy issues. It saves you a lot of time, and money, to have a clean manuscript. Decide up front, are you basically going with the Chicago Manual of Style? AP Style? Canadian or American spelling? Serial commas or no?

By keeping a list, you’ll discover some idiosyncrasies will crop up and it may grow to a long list. For one instance, you might type gray when you mean to write grey. In your bible under a heading that reads Editing Points, write in bold GReY NOT GRaY!

When you think you’re done your manuscript, drag out your list of troublesome words.

Use the Search and Replace tool.

You thought you got them all.

You didn’t.

Nobody does.

Related Articles

Writers: How I edit (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Edit Point: One another versus each other (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: Use a spill file as you edit (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: How to tell when your manuscript is ready (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: Five editing tricks and tips (plus editing marks) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: Books, Editing, Editors, getting it done, publishing, Writers, writing tips, American English, Chicago Manual of Style, editing points, editing tips, editor, keeping characters straight, Manuscript, Stephen King, story bible

02/25/2011 • 7:49 AM 3

Writers: How to find an editor & should you be a joiner?

There isn’t much of a trick to finding an editor to help you prepare your book for marketing or publication. Ask around. Ask your friends and acquaintances and colleagues. The way to find a good editor is the same way you find a good plumber or chiropractor.

Ask your friends who they use. Then ask why they like them.

It may be a good fit or it may not, but when you ask, you have a place to start. Some editors belong to associations. That can lend credibility, but it’s not the only criterion. The editor you choose should also have experience with your type of project and you should get some sense of how they work so the relationship can work. For instance I use free edit samples so both author and editor get a sense of what needs to be done and how much it may cost.

Personally, I was a member of EAC (the Editor’s Association of Canada) way back when it was FEAC (the Freelance Editors Association of Canada.) I’m not currently a member. I don’t have anything against them, but I don’t feel they are active enough in my city to justify the membership fee. I had a lovely experience and I’m very proud of representing FEAC to the joint Freedom of Expression Committee. If I still lived in Toronto, I would definitely still be a member of EAC.

Here’s the thing about playing with others: I’ve been a member on the executive or on committees in various capacities in a couple of associations over the years. They say membership has its privileges. I’ve found that the more responsibility I took on, the less privileged I felt.

What I felt was the weight of obligation, time pressure and ultimately harangued by members. (For instance, as a chapter exec for the Ontario Massage Therapist Association, it was like trying to herd cats. When a few members were rude to me (after I did a lot of work on their behalf for free) that did it for me. As a volunteer, I wasn’t even being paid for the hassles that accrued. So I opted out.

I haven’t been much of a joiner ever since. So, the point of today’s post is, there are all kinds of associations for writers and editors out there. They are often run by a small board of volunteers who are a harried, unappreciated bunch. If you want to join, great. If you want to help, fantastic. But make sure you’re getting benefits and not just giving.

If you join a critique group, a writers’ union, an authors’ union, are you getting good information and useful connections and most important, is participation cutting into your writing time?

Book Information Centre Blues (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Opportunity knocks? Self-published writers could unionize (plus association links for writers) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Here’s a good one on editors, authors & the dance we do (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: authors, Books, Editing, Editors, publishing, Writers, writing tips, Arts, Editors Association of Canada, Publish, writers, writers associations, Writers Resources

02/16/2011 • 5:11 AM 5

Edit Point: One another versus each other

Book cover (Dust jacket) for the 15th edition ...

Image via Wikipedia

“The pair looked at one another.”

No, they didn’t.

Editing is often intuitive. I could tell you, for instance, which usage is correct, but I couldn’t tell you why. It came up with a project and I got curious. Then I went to the Chicago Manual of Style. Here’s why for this one:

When two people are involved, the best way to write it is, “They looked at each other.” When it’s more than two people (or things, for that matter) use “one another.”

The distinction becomes clearer with things: “His eyesight was so poor that when he looked to the bowling pins standing at the end of the lane, they were just a soft white mass. Dave couldn’t distinguish one from another.” (That’s right.)

“Each other” in a group hits the reader’s eyes and ears wrong and they may not know why. (This is one reason reading aloud as you edit can be such a powerful trick of the trade.)

It’s not a big deal unless you’re a word nerd or getting paid to edit something. However, usually, if you write a passage that hits the reader wrong or makes them go back, there’s something quirky there that needs another look.

Writers: Use a spill file as you edit (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
[process] Revising versus editing (jlake.com)
Writers: How I edit (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Why you should never, ever use two spaces after a period. (slate.com)

Filed under: Books, Editing, Editors, manuscript evaluation, publishing, rules of writing, Writers, writing tips, Chicago Manual of Style, Copy editing, each other versus one another, edit, editing, language usage, Style guide

02/14/2011 • 7:02 AM 12

Writers: Four simple mistakes that ruin your reader’s trust (by Guest blogger Roz Morris)

Whether you write fiction or non-fiction, a mistake-free manuscript looks professional. It gives the reader confidence that they are in good hands. This is so important that publishers employ people specifically to worm out embarrassing errors so that the reader trusts what is on the page. I used to be one of them. But as we increasingly do it all ourselves, some howlers are getting through.

And not just typos. In self-published books, on blog posts, newsletters – and indeed query letters – there are four mistakes I see often that can seriously undermine the writer’s credibility:

Names are misspelt

The other day I came across a post on a blog I respect that referred to the heroine of the Tomb Raider game as ‘Lora Croft’. In editing circles, it’s a golden rule that if you use a name, you check it is spelled correctly. Then you check that when you typed it your fingers did what your brain wanted. ‘Lora Croft’ may have been an innocent typo but it makes the writer look like a twit.

Its and it’s are confused

Its means ‘belonging to it’.

It’s is short for ‘it is’.

If you’re still confused, ask yourself if you mean ‘it is’. If you don’t, it’s probably the other one. See how easy it’s?

There and their

If what you mean is ‘where’, the word you want is ‘there’. You may also use it without any meaning of its own in a sentence such as ‘if I see this mistake again there will be blood’. If you mean ‘belonging to them’, you need ‘their’. So there.

Reigns and reins

A horse has reins. A monarch reigns. You can have a reign of terror, but daily I see: ‘so-and-so took over the reigns of power’. This is wrong. They are speaking figuratively of leather straps that steer – and so the correct word is ‘reins’. I also see ‘we had to reign in our spending’. That refers to an act of braking – which is done with a rein. Nay, nay, nay.

These mistakes aren’t just irritating, like typos; they undermine your authority. Don’t lose readers by making them distrust what you write.

Roz Morris

Roz Morris is an editor, book doctor, bestselling ghostwriter. Now she’s coming out from under the sheet with novels of her own. She blogs, slightly less bossily, at http://www.nailyournovel.com, tweets as @dirtywhitecandy and is the author of Nail Your Novel – Why Writers Abandon Books and How You Can Draft, Fix and Finish With Confidence.

Find her book on Amazon.com http://ht.ly/3MWBC, outside the US from Lulu http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/nail-your-novel/5301103 and on the Kindle http://www.amazon.com/Nail-Your-Novel-Confidence-ebook/dp/B004LROOEQ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&m=A7B2F8DUJ88VZ&s=books&qid=1296691437&sr=1-2

Writers: How I edit (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: Why self-publishing sucks (and what you can do about it) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: How to tell when your manuscript is ready (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: authors, Editing, Editors, getting it done, Writers, writing tips, Nail Your Novel, Publish, Roz morris, Typographical error, writer, Writers Resources

02/07/2011 • 7:23 AM 8

Writers: How I edit

Image via Wikipedia

When I get a manuscript, I go through it carefully, of course, but there are many practicalities to keep in mind.

Most important commandment:

Make the author look good.

You want it to be correct and you want to preserve the writer’s voice and enhance the readability of the text. The author (if self-published) may wish to keep some idiosyncratic format (which is fine as long as it’s easily understood by the reader and consistent.) A publisher may have some requirements peculiar to that house. Some have preferred style guides, like the AP Style Guide or the Chicago Manual of Style or may prefer Canadian spelling to American spelling.

In the manuscript window I use the Track Changes feature in Word so the author sees every change I make, including my comments. The author then accepts or rejects each edit during the revision process.

I have some preferences, too. I avoid passive voice and too many adverbs where it’s reasonable to do so since those often indicate a weak verb choice. I strip out excess use of the comma. Commas used to be used more in text but now it’s generally accepted commas slow the reader. Semi-colons are used too much and are often used incorrectly (and almost always slow the reader.) Gratuitous exclamation points indicate drama where there is none. Excess dialogue tags (i.e. said, replied, said, replied) can also be stripped out. Run-on sentences must be broken up. Sentence length, paragraph length and order are more evaluations to make and may conflict with formatting considerations.

(There are numerous other considerations: factual issues, narrative arc, missed opportunities, missing scenes, orphaned characters etc.,… which I’m not going to delve into in this post.)

I also have a bunch of other pages ready in the background. They are typically these:

Google, Wikipedia, Canadian and American spelling dictionaries, Chicago Manual of Style (I have the hard copy, too), Ask.com, and my email window so I can quickly jump to query the author or publisher as necessary. I’ve also used a legal dictionary and a Spanish-English dictionary. Looks like I’ve attained my childhood dream of working on the bridge of the Enterprise.

I keep a legal pad beside me to make notes (and track my time so I know I’m staying on schedule for the day.)

Editing has changed a lot. Before the Internet, there was a lot more getting up and down to run to check a reference source. Now it’s all on my pixellated desktop. I take a break every hour to do air squats (it’s a 4 Hour Body exercise I like) and the rest of the exercise comes from running back and forth from the coffee maker to the bathroom. Ah, the glamor of being a book editor.

The take away is:

Your word processing program’s spell check isn’t enough.

NEXT POST:

MY REACTIONS TO AND REVIEWS OF THE WRITER’S UNION SYMPOSIUM ON THE STATE OF PUBLISHING.

Writers: Use a spill file as you edit

Image via Wikipedia

As you revise your writing, it can be difficult to let some passages go. Maybe a scene or chapter is just too long. Maybe one part of the narrative jigsaw puzzle sounds good but just isn’t working with everything else that works.

Editing yourself (before you hire an editor or send it on to beta readers) is difficult. You don’t want to lose gems, even when they aren’t working.

A spill file makes editing decisions easier. Open a blank document. As you go through your work, cut and paste passages that aren’t working into your spill file. It’s not just deleted and gone. It’s still there if you decide you want it back. Chances are that when you’re done, you won’t want it back.

The spill file is the writer’s wedding album: you make a big deal out of it and then hardly, if ever, look at it again.

But you’ll feel better, be more efficient and, if there is something to treasure in the spill file, you can easily bring it back into your story or start a new story from that nugget.

Writers: Take a penny, leave a penny (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: Five editing tricks and tips (plus editing marks) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers: How to tell when your manuscript is ready (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Editing: How to take advice (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: authors, Books, Editing, Editors, getting it done, manuscript evaluation, publishing, writing tips, Cut copy and paste, edit, editing, Writing & Editing

02/02/2011 • 2:54 PM 5

It’s official: Despite my weight loss, I’m an Editor-at-large

Image via Wikipedia

In addition to my regular projects, I’m editing books for Five Rivers. This was posted on the Five Rivers Facebook Page today by the publisher, Lorina Stephens:

This year marks a pivotal year for Five Rivers, with four books due for release, and the possibility of an additional two, many from debut authors, some from recognized and beloved experts.

Because of increased editorial demands, we’ve sought out another editor for our team, and are pleased to present our Editor-at-large, Robert Chute.

Robert “Chazz” Chute graduated from The University of King’s College with an honours degree in Journalism. After working in daily newspapers, he graduated from the Banff Publishing Workshop (Books and Magazines) and moved to Toronto to work in book publishing.

He has been a proofreader and slush pile evaluator (Harlequin), a publicist and senior editor (The Canadian Book Information Centre) and a book sales rep (Lester & Orpen Dennys and Cannon Book Distributors.) During that time he was also a co-founder of The Point, The Newsletter of Newsletters and junior editor for Film Canada Yearbook. He also vetted fiction manuscripts for authors.

After 16 years working in the alternative health field, he writes the regular back page column for Massage & Bodywork Magazine for which he was recently nominated for a Maggie Award. These days Chazz is writing and polishing manuscripts again full-time. And now part of Five Rivers’ editorial team.

We are thrilled to add Chazz to our masthead.

Writers Top Ten: Why blogging about publishing is important (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: Books, Editing, Editors, publishing, What about Chazz?, Five Rivers Chapmanry, Lorina Stephens, Publish

01/28/2011 • 7:00 AM 6

Editing: How to take advice

Image via Wikipedia

Mostly people follow the advice that appeals to them. If five people give them the same uncomfortable advice, they’ll keep asking until lucky advisor number 15 tell them what they were hoping to hear. That’s not the way to progress.

Blogging about writing and publishing can be a quixotic adventure. For instance, I went through an entire short story one time and showed the writer precisely how he could improve his writing. These were very straight-forward craft issues that got in the way of readability. The next piece he sent me had the same problems.

Not everyone has to write like I do. However, since he was so enthusiastic about my original suggestions, I wondered if it was a question of the writer needing more time to absorb the information and practice.

In a writing critique group, you can spot the defensive people quickly. They write Stet! beside each suggestion (including that tell-tale exclamation point.) Defensive writers spend a lot of time talking when their critique group colleagues ask questions or are confused. Instead, they should be listening. Any writer is free to disregard suggestions, but not during the explanation of the concern.

Is advice all for naught? Sometimes. But professional writers take advice most of the time. They aren’t so attached to their writing that they expect it will be 100% perfect on the first draft. That’s crazy-talk. Professional writers respect writing too much to make that assumption.

Just remember: an editor’s focus is the text. They’re trying to help you.

However, if you sense an editor is looking at it as a game where they’re tracking points, zeroing in on every error as if it’s a moral victory…well. Delete them.

Also, I have to mention that sometimes the advice is just bad:

At Psychology Today I found a great post called 11 Types of Bad Writing Advice.

Writers: Five editing tricks and tips (plus editing marks) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Writers Top Ten: Why blogging about publishing is important (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
[process] The best writing advice I ever got (jlake.com)
Writers: On sending your stuff (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)
Why did I get rejected? (writeanything.wordpress.com)
Fiction writing advice for the advanced amateur. (ask.metafilter.com)

Filed under: Editing, Editors, getting it done, manuscript evaluation, publishing, Rejection, rules of writing, Writers, edit, editor, Publish, short story, writer, Writers Resources, writing

01/24/2011 • 7:15 AM 5

Publishing: Change or Die

Cover of "Change or Die: The Three Keys t...

Cover via Amazon

I read a fascinating book called Change or Die recently. It documents what makes us change and what makes us resist change. Quoting heart disease and lifestyle specialist Dr. Dean Ornish, “People don’t resist change. They resist being changed.” But change is coming and it’s happening faster than so-called experts predicted just a few months ago.

The premise is that for people to adapt, they must harness the power of community, process and engagement. Leaders must lead by example. Facts and fear don’t change people, even in dire circumstances. The author looks research showing how heart patients and career criminals made real positive change and adapted. Real change is collaborative.

What’s interesting about the changes that are happening to publishing is that, despite a long history to draw on, the changes are still happening to publishers. Publishers are harnessing the awesome power of denial to affirm that they are still on top and will always be on top. We’ve heard this tune before and you know it ends with a swan song.

For instance, in Change or Die, we can see the same pattern with GM. GM insisted their cars were superior despite facts. GM execs even changed the scale of how they measured their success (i.e. number of car defects) to protect their illusions. Throughout, they would not acknowledge the superior reliability of foreign cars. GM had to lose a fortune before they began to see they sucked. Arrogance nearly killed them. Thanks to a huge reality check and huge government checks, they got saved from themselves. (Publishers aren’t too big to fail though, so we’ll see many big publishers disappear or become micro-publishers soon. Well, that’s really already happening.)

Traditional publishers have had market dominance so long, many still think it will last forever. They take the facts—self-publishing and ebooks are going through growing pains—and affirm their eternal dominance. Nevermind all those people buying e-readers! Nevermind the expansion of self-publishing and DIY due to technological changes. The e-book ad POD problems aren’t a sign of their demise. That’s growth. No technology emerges in its final form. There is no final form until we’re extinct.

The market is changing under publishers. They aren’t, on the whole, acting in a proactive way. And yet, we can’t scare them into believing the revolution is here. Facts don’t work, but fear doesn’t, either. (I’m not writing this to scare anybody, though inevitably it will scare some.) The publishers and agents of the traditional structure will survive long-term when they decide these aren’t problems but opportunities.

When they turn from despair for the old models to hope, then they can begin to adapt to new market conditions. Then they can change and thrive. There will be room for everybody. There are more readers reading more (but they are reading in new and fractured media.)

As a writer, I see the opportunity to promote my work. I might sell part of it myself and go the traditional route with other parts. (No, publishers can’t assume they get all the rights anymore. I’ll have to work harder and diversify and they’ll have to accept less or get nothing. Everybody gets to take part in the adaptation process and it won’t all be fun, but how much of business is all fun? Suck it up, writers and publishers.)

As an editor, I see more opportunities to work with diverse authors on their self-published books. I don’t have to live in Toronto anymore to work in Canadian publishing. In fact, where I am isn’t at all relevent. (Loved T.O, but I like raising my kids in a smaller city.)

As a reader in an electronic world, I can get easier access to books I never would have been aware of in my local bookstore. Yes, there’s more curation to do, but there’s always been curation to do. Now I can find out from friends and trusted blogs new stuff to read that isn’t on a top ten list.

Digital books are easier for me to access and eat. Digital books are easier for me to produce. E-books are easier to edit. Oh, look, I’m a curator, too! Look at all those links to check out!

And now you have another book to buy: Change or Die by Alan Deutschman.

Digital publishing should put design above file conversion (radar.oreilly.com)
The Felicities of New Publishing (or Why Traditional Publishers May Someday Die) (seedlingsinstone.blogspot.com)
Two mistakes Publishers keep making (ireaderreview.com)
It’s enough to make me cynical from Whitehall ParaIndustries (whitehall-paraindustries.blogspot.com)
Is Publishing Dead?: Wubbit’s Founder Says No…and Offers Five Key “Edits” That Can Revive the $40-Billion Industry (prweb.com)
Writers: Why self-publishing sucks (and what you can do about it) (chazzwrites.wordpress.com)

Filed under: authors, book reviews, Books, ebooks, Editing, Editors, links, publishing, Rant, self-publishing, Change or Die, changes to publishing, Do it yourself, E-book, Print on demand, Publish, publishers, publishing

01/19/2011 • 7:30 AM 4

Writers: Craft your pitch carefully.

Image by Nitin Parmar via Flickr

It’s very difficult to summarize your novel. When we pitch a story, we talk about broad strokes and the rest is about theme. The reason is that when we summarize in depth, the story often sounds dumb.

Let’s try it with a popular movie and you’ll see what I mean:

In the mostly great and totally watchable A Few Good Men, a Gitmo soldier is killed and two Marines are charged with his killing. So far, so good.

The base commander goes to great lengths (all behind the scenes) to cover up his part in the crime. The rest is about how a young lawyer who has never stepped inside a courtroom goes against the military establishment to get the commanding officer to admit in court that it was he who ordered the Marines to attack the soldier as a training exercise. The commanding officer will admit his guilt proudly and then be surprised he’s under arrest. The two Marines don’t go to prison but do get discharged dishonorably. The young lawyer feels good about himself in the end. And no, he doesn’t get to sleep with Demi Moore.

Were you to pitch it like that (and if you aren’t actually Aaron Sorkin) it’s very hit-and-miss…uh, no, actually it’s all miss. The context and detail is necessarily missing in a summary. The person you’re pitching won’t know about the nuance that the young lawyer will try to live up to his father’s courtroom legend. The clever sarcasm won’t be much on display to sell the idea of the script.

You would pitch about visiting the base and the sinister base commander. However, the subplot about the deputy-commander who can disappear because he’s former Special Ops (and turns suicidal) stretches credibility. It’s a spot where you could easily lose your audience. The pitch won’t get into the nitty-gritty of the interplay among the defense team. Kevin Pollak is the glue, but his role’s power would be difficult to flesh out in a short meeting and could derail you.

When you pitch a movie, play or book, the odds are stacked against you in a huge way. It is statistically very unlikely someone will invest in your art. Put a lot of time perfecting your query letter (or your pitch) so you cram in your art and style.

The inherent difficulties of the pitch reduce your work so you want to look for ways to show your competence and still stay within the parameters of the pitch (e.g. format, brevity and economy of communication must be balanced by characters whose motivations are compelling and narrative arcs that make people want to hear more.)

If you don’t pitch it well, they won’t get it. If you have no track record, the only evidence that they have that you can articulate and execute an idea is confined within the straitjacket of a pitch meeting or query letter.

That’s why so many unknown writers, directors and artists of all sorts stay unknown.*

*Or, as we’ve frequently discussed, you could reject the premise of The Man’s hierarchical paradigm and find a way to DIY. (See yesterday’s post for further thoughts on that.)

UPDATE: Here’s a great survey on the things that drive agents away from you.