The 12 Editing Gifts of Christmas ... DAY #2!

Between December 1-23 I’ll post twelve editing suggestions I hope you can use in the coming year when you’re working on your manuscript. I suppose you could print them off and hide them under your tree, but don’t feel like you have to.

DAY #2:

Misplaced Modifiers

These can occasionally prompt giggles. Even so, you should avoid them.

First off, what’s a modifier? Words or phrases that modify other words or phrases. “Only” is a typical modifier, and one that is easily misplaced. Other modifiers of which you should be careful are: almost, even, hardly, nearly, and often.

Neither one of these sentences is incorrect, but look at how the placement changes the meaning.

• I only speak English.
  

This means: 
>I don’t speak anything but English. No French, no Mandarin, no Polish.

• I speak only English.
  

This means:
>The only thing I did with English was speak it. I didn’t write it or read it. 


Here is a valid example of a misplaced modifier.

Dressed all in blue, Susan paused to study the crowd of women.
Who was dressed in blue? Susan or the crowd of women? 
How about:

• Susan paused to study the crowd of women who were all dressed in blue.
• Susan, who had dressed in blue that day, paused to study the crowd of women.

And another example:

Walking home, the birds sang noisily.
Who was singing?
How about:

• Walking home, we were aware of the birds singing noisily.
• The birds sang noisily as we walked home.

These can be hard to spot. Read them out loud to be sure!

There are so many different usages for commas that I thought I'd address one at a time. Today I'm talking about something called a "serial comma". A serial comma can also be called an "Oxford comma" or a "Harvard comma".

Serial commas, I have learned, are a STYLE ISSUE, which means not everyone agrees on their usage. They are standard in American English but are used less often in British English. Some countries don't use them at all. But I'm going to address serial commas anyway because when my first novel came back from the editor at Penguin, she had added - oh, I don't know - I'll say hundreds of serial commas to my writing.

Kind of funny. I understand the reason for the term, since one the meanings of the word "serial" is: "of, relating to, or resembling a series" (www.dictionary.reference.com), and a "series" is "a group or a number of related or similar things, events, etc., arranged or occurring in temporal, spatial, or other order or succession; sequence." (www.dictionary.reference.com). The funny thing to me is that I can't help thinking "serial killer" every time I see that term.

I guess serial commas are kind of like serial killers in that they just can't stop.

When you are writing a sentence which includes a list of more than three items, you might be tempted to leave out the final one. It might feel redundant. But it's usually not, and it's often necessary to use one in order to avoid ambiguities. 

Here are a few examples of when the serial comma.

I'm going to a movie with Cathy, a teacher and a librarian.
hmm. Is Cathy a teacher AND a librarian?
or ...
I'm going to a movie with Cathy, a teacher, and a librarian. 
Ah. So you're going with three people, not just one. Or if it's two people, you could say "I'm going to a movie with Cathy, who is a teacher, and also with a librarian."


For dinner we had roast beef, salad, potatoes and ice cream.
Ew. Imagine eating potatoes and ice cream together?
or ...
For dinner we had roast beef, salad, potatoes, and ice cream. 
Yum. Now I'm hungry.

I love to ski, play tennis, ride my bike and juggle.
Wow. You can bike and juggle simultaneously? You should join the circus.
or ...
I love to ski, play tennis, ride my bike, and juggle.
That makes more sense.

And one more just because it makes me laugh:
“With gratitude to my parents, Mother Teresa and the pope.” (from the Chicago Manual of Style)

Keep It Simple, Stupid ... 

or 

Keep Inadequacies Sparce, Scribe

I find it hilarious that when I decided to write a blog concerning cutting unnecessary words, I couldn’t stop writing. And I didn’t even write all that I wanted. Granted, some of the words are in lists rather than examples, but the irony was still there. Weird sense of humour, huh?

Today’s blog is about reducing Redundancies, Pleonisms and Tautology in your writing.
 
Grammar God WIlliam Strunk Jr. said: 
Vigorous writing is concise.  A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.  This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Incorrect:  Each and every word has a meaning in a sentence.
Correct:    Every word has a meaning. 

Incorrect: When you review and examine the sentences you wrote, look carefully at each and every word that you used.
Correct: When you examine your sentences, consider each word separately. 

Incorrect: Do you believe each one of the words you used is needed in this particular situation?
Correct: Is each word needed in this situation? 

Incorrect: Or have you decided to include that word in this sentence because it is one you have heard before and it seemed like a good place to use it?
Correct: Or are you dropping in words because they kind of sound right? 

Incorrect: Or could it be the fact that using these words has become a habit and you have gotten used to doing it all the time so it is just out of habit? 
Correct: Or is it a habit?

Stop right there. Hear this: 
If the word is not needed, don’t use it. Simple as that. 

✔ Get rid of or replace unnecessary and/or meaningless adjectives and adverbs. 

Consider these words: really, very, quite, somewhat, good, nice, fine. What do they really add to a sentence? Seriously. Unless you feel it is very important to stress somethingreally, really nicely, leave it out. That’d be a good idea, huh? Use better words.
really pretty --------> gorgeous
very costly ---------> expensive or (just) costly
quite tired -----------> exhausted or weary
good time -----------> enjoyable experience
nice person ---------> amiable, considerate, friendly individual

✔ Combine excessive words to form a more concise statement.

Incorrect: Susan thought the red paint was very bright and cheerful. Mike said the same thing. Julie really liked the happy mood the red paint brought to the room.
Correct:   Susan, Mike and Julie liked the bright red paint.

✔ Consider each word individually. Is it redundant within itself? For example:
bald(-headed)
(advance) warning
collaborate (together)
could (possibly)
each (and every)
evolve (over time)
whether (or not)
(fore)warn

The terms “Redundancy”, “Pleonasm” and “Tautology” all refer to the needless repetition of words. Trying to differentiate the terms is (to me) similar to splitting hairs: it gives me a headache, and it’s not important.

Basically, “Redundancy” is made up of both “Pleonasm” and “Tautology”. I tried to divide them, but I might have gotten some mixed up. The fact is that using either is bad.
“Pleonasms” use more words than are necessary to describe something. 
“Tautology” repeats the same thing by using superfluous words or phrases.

Lists of redundancies are endless, so I’m only pointing out a few that you might have used in your own writing. I have to admit that since I’m somewhat of a grammar geek, I get a giggle out of some of these. Yes, I’m simple that way. 

Examples of Pleonasms: 
at this moment in time
square shape
large size
short in height
return again
eight a.m. in the morning
reiterate again
nodded(his head)
shrugged(her shoulders)
(the end) result

Examples of Tautology: 
true fact
free gift
foreign import
close proximity
return to where he came from
all alone by myself
(in my opinion) I believe
Suddenly,(all at once)
“You wouldn’t have won if we’d beaten you.” (Yogi Berra)
“Either ghosts exist, or they don’t.”
“Your missing shoes have to be somewhere.”

A few of my favourites:

• A.T.M. machine. “Automated Teller Machine” machine. Don't forget your PIN number.
  
• P.I.N. number. “Personal Identification Number” number. Keep it secret secret.
  
• R.S.V.P. please. R.S.V.P. stands for répondez s'il vous plaît, which means respond, please. So if you say Please R.S.V.P. or R.S.V.P. please, you’re saying please respond please or respond please please. Sounds a bit desperate, don’t you think?
  
• And in Canada, we have the N.D.P. party. New Democrat Party party. That's a lot of party.

Rhythmic Redundancy
I haven’t seen many references to this particular peeve online, but I would like to bring up what I call “Rhythmic Redundancy”. This does not apply to poets, who might actually be aiming for this exact method. If you are the next Dr Seuss, please look away.

Each sentence has a rhythm to it, whether it’s “The mouse ran up the clock” or “The mouse scrambled over the weary hands of the clock”. If every sentence sounds either phonetically or rhythmically similar, the reader will become bored. That’s just a fact, Jack.

Incorrect:
Same rhythm ... sing along, everybody!:
The mouse ran up the clock. She saw it was past one. The time for lunch was gone. They had to go to work.

*yawn* 

Correct:
Different rhythm ... better:
The mouse ran up the clock, attracting her attention. She looked up and saw it was past one. It was too late to have lunch now. She would have to get back to work.

Correct:
Different rhythm ... best:
The mouse scrambled over the clock’s cracked face, attracting the woman’s attention. Her eyes followed the scurrying movements then focused on the clock’s worn hands. How could it be past two already? Too late for lunch. Work beckoned.

Ridding work of redundancies is a big part of what editors do, but you can do it yourself if you are willing to take the time. Redundancies can be painfully obvious, or they can be nitpicky. Either one is bad.

There is no guarantee that deleting redundancies will increase or decrease your wordcount, in case you are worried about that. You can make it work either way, actually. The only guarantee is that your work will flow more smoothly, do more “Show” than “Tell”, and give your readers something interesting to which they can cling. 

And paying attention to every word will make you a better writer.


SO ... at the risk of repeating myself, today’s message:

Keep it simple. 

✔ Get rid of or replace unnecessary and/or meaningless adjectives and adverbs. 
✔ Combine excessive words to form a more concise statement.
✔ Consider each word. Is it redundant within itself?

There are times in literature, indeed in life, when a situation demands more than the usual amount of enthusiasm. When something incredible happens in real life, we jump up and down, we yell, we hoot and holler, and our expressions are usually full of emotion. When we write, authors often indicate this excitement by using an Exclamation Point (also known as an Exclamation Mark).

Let’s say we have a scenario wherein a man is meeting his long lost brother after twenty years of separation. He might say something like,

“It’s so good to see you!”

Perfectly acceptable, in my humble opinion; however, this is where some authors tend to go astray. Let’s continue this conversation, shall we?

“It’s so good to see you!”
“How are you?!”
“Wonderful! You look great!”
“I can’t believe this! I can’t wait to tell everyone!”
“I know! So amazing! How is everything?!”
"Fantastic! You?!"

Ow. My head is now officially pounding.

In effect, what is going on in this conversation is that the two men are yelling at each other. Personally, I am not a fan of a room full of yelling people. In fact, I tend to leave the room in that particular situation. It’s even worse in this case, because it’s just the two characters yelling at each other.

An exclamation point should be used for one reason only: to emphasize a point. To “exclaim” about a “point”, if you will. The overuse of exclamation points makes everything look exactly the same. Instead of the natural rise and fall of a story, it becomes one long yell. How is the reader supposed to differentiate between regular moments and more exciting ones when everything looks identical?

YA novels are often (not always!) salted liberally with exclamation points, presumedly representing teenage enthusiasm, energy, angst ...; however, using exclamation points too often makes a book looks even more ... um ... juvenile. And not in a good way. Oh, and even if your YA novel begs for an exclamation point, please, please promise me you’ll limit yourself to only using one at a time. Save multiples for texting, if you must.

OMG!!!!!   *sigh*

Children’s books usually contain even more. I understand why, but just because kids get excited and yell a lot that doesn’t make it right. The reader shouldn’t have to believe each sentence is as important as every other one.

Of course there are exceptions. Here’s a scenario in which multiple exclamation points work because the characters are yelling.

“Look! It’s a U.F.O.!”
“Where?”
“Over there! Look!”
“Where - Hey, I see it! Cool!”
“Wow. It looks like it’s coming this way,” Jim said, squinting toward the ship.
Pete nodded slowly. “Yeah, pretty quickly, too.”
After a moment of staring at the rapidly approaching lights, the men exchanged a glance of concern, then Jim spoke up. “How fast can you run?”
Pete took off. “All that matters is that I can run faster than you!” he yelled back over his shoulder.

I read a rule somewhere advising authors to limit their use of exclamation points to one per page. I’m not a great believer in writing rules, per se, but I do agree with the idea behind this one.
 
Can you use better nouns or verbs instead of having to resort to exclamation points?

How about using dialogue tags to indicate excitement? For example, instead of “It’s so great to see you!”, try something like: “It’s so great to see you,” he said, beaming with joy. That simple difference imparts so much more emotion for the reader, as well as getting rid of exclamation points. 

Some people use excessive semi-colons; some find joy in dotting their pages with exclamation points. Both tools should be used in moderation, if at all. Their ultimate function is to provide an editor with one more thing to delete or replace.

Okay, everyone. Back to work!

by Genevieve Graham-Sawchyn

Farther or Further?

I had to look this one up, so I'll save you the trouble.

"Farther" and "Further" are often used interchangeably, but here's the real scoop.

"Farther" is a reference to physical distance. (a long way, distant, remote)

• I drove farther than I ever have.
• "How much farther is it?" (whine my kids in the back of the car...)

"Further” can be used in the same way as "Farther"; however, it can also be used as a figurative word:

• Nothing could be further from the truth

as an adjective:

• I have no further comment

OR as a verb

• Hiring an editor can further your progress!            
• (And furthermore, I really like that example.)

If you're not sure ... nobody will notice, probably - except an editor! :)

By: Tracey Neithercott

Maybe because I’m a former copyeditor. But I’m incredibly Passionate about proper grammer and spelling because if you don’t have those things it can be very hard to understand sentences, your reader’s won’t want to waste they’re Time on you’re Book or you even if you think its good.

Editors and Agents too. They don’t like to read submissions from writer whom use inproper grammer or spelling even if you execute the story part good. Plenty of people say that its the storytelling that matters really but its not its a mix of Storytelling and Knowing how to write, that includes grammer and spelling and all that. Writers that submit they’re novels which are chalk full of mistakes frequently are rejected!

See Agent’s and editors’ don’t have a lot of time to waste deciphering bad-written novels; even if they may think the story is better than Harry Potter and Hunger Games and Twilight combined into one sparkling magical war book and even if they like you’re other ideas.

They just don’t want to waste there time making you’re Book understandable to readers. Those are you’re job.

Give yourself with a grammer book some help! Fine a astonishingly good text that can teach you the basic Principle’s of the English language and that you read on you’re own Time so that you can get better at the writing part. Also for spelling. It for some people is worser.

When it’s spelled good and has all the grammer right, you can submit a book that is your best work.

Just between you and I, learning the rules to the grammer isn’t the easiest thing but the good news is that its possible. Don’t loose hope!
Tracey Neithercott is a health journalist and former copy editor who writes YA fiction when she should be sleeping. She attempts to use proper grammar on her blog, Words on Paper.

- by Mark Nichol

There are two types of grammar: Descriptive, which describes what is customary, and prescriptive grammar, which prescribes what should be. A tension between the two systems is inevitable — and healthy; it keeps us thinking about what we’re saying and writing.

Allowing mob rule at the expense of some governing of composition is madness, but a diction dictatorship is dangerous, too. As with any prescription, an overdose is contraindicated. Here are some hard pills to swallow for language mavens who require a strict adherence to rigid syntactical patterns at the expense of, well, language:

1. Never split an infinitive.
It isn’t wise to always ignore this fallacious rule against dividing the elements of the verb phrase “to (verb)” with an adverb, but to blindly follow it is to prohibit pleasing turns of phrase — one of the best known of which is from the introductory voice-over from all the Star Trek television series: “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” (The original series, produced before the more recent sensitivity to gender bias, put it “no man.”)

2. Never end a sentence with a preposition.
This rule is ridiculous, to start with. If you believe it, please tell me what planet you are from. What are you striving for? Give it up. Am I getting my point across?

The stricture against closing sentences with words that describe position stems from an eighteen-century fetish for the supposed perfection of classical Latin, which allowed no split infinitives — for the excellent reason that Latin infinitives consist of single words. English, however, being a distant relative of that language, should be allowed to form its own customs.

3. Never begin a sentence with a conjunction.
And why not? For an honorable tradition of doing just that exists. But some people persist in prohibiting this technique. Yet we defy them. Or we simply ignore them or laugh at them, neither of which they appreciate. Nor do they understand our attitude, though we try to convince them, and will continue to do so. So there.

The words beginning each of these sentences are conjunctions, easily recalled with the mnemonic FANBOYS. Every one is perfectly acceptable at the head of a sentence. As is obvious from the previous paragraph, however, a little goes a long way.

4. Distinguish between while and though.
Petty prescriptivists would have you reserve while for temporal usage only: “While I agree, I resist,” they say, should be revised to “Though I agree, I resist.” I freely admit that I often change while to though, and while I understand — I’m sorry, I can’t stop myself — and though I understand that it may seem pedantic, I think though reads better.

5. Distinguish between since and because.
Ditto. And ditto. I concur that indiscriminate replacement of since withbecause may seem persnickety, but since — ahem — because I find the latter word more pleasing, I will reserve the right to prefer it.

6. Use data only in the plural sense.
Where did they get this data? The alternative is to use datum in the singular sense, which makes you sound like a propellerhead. (Look it up, kids.) People who say “datum” get data, but they don’t get dates.

7. Use none only in the singular sense.
None of these rules, followed strictly, allow for a vernacular ease with language.

Did that sentence hurt? Did the waves stop crashing to shore? Did Earth stop spinning? If you wish to replace none with “not one” or “no one” (“Not one person admitted guilt”; “No one saw that coming”), by all means, do so, but fear not none in a plural sense.