I would just like to offer this thought, to those like myself struggling to be published:

‘There’s only one difference between published and unpublished writers and it is this – the first group see their work in print on the shelves of Waterstone’s or Tesco or online at Amazon; the second group are yet to have physical evidence of the hours, weeks, years spent fashioning words into their patterns. You are already a writer.’

Kate Mosse

I’m getting lazy, or something, about working on the revisions. I haven’t touched it for a couple of days now. I find the idea of plugging in the USB drive I keep it on, opening the menu, finding the file, clicking “open” and waiting for Word to open, then trying to scroll down to wherever I left off too annoying. What I want to do is work on a hard copy, paper and ink, but the idea of burning through all that paper and ink (upwards of 300 pages) seems wasteful. That’s how writers used to do, it was the only way to do it, but in this electronic age, supposedly paperless society it just seems wrong, but like e-books, I can’t seem to stand having it only electronically. I just can’t get used to reading so much on the computer. My green, eco-friendly side is at war with my neurotic, writer side.

‘Why shouldn’t truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.’

Mark Twain

I spend a great deal of time dissecting and shredding what I write if I don’t think it could actually happen in real life. But the reality is, life often doesn’t make sense. People do stupid things, irrational things, react illogically all the time. So why do we demand so much logic from fiction?

How often have you watched a tv show, or a movie, and groaned at something one of the characters did, thinking (or saying) “Oh come ON! Nobody would do that!”

Well, maybe they would. Yet when we encounter these incidents in fiction we often lose interest. It’s one thing if the author is purposely writing a character who parks in front of fire hydrants, or swallows their dental floss, but to have a character who doesn’t do the ‘right’ thing in every situation in a story is inexcusable. Sometimes people have a bad day, and they’d rather stay home and read a book than go to a big party (ok, maybe that’s not so much of a stretch for us writers. We can be a reclusive bunch). The only time you’re likely to see this in a fictional character is if the character is also some kind of social outcast, or unstable, unbalanced. These often descend into caricatures and stereotypes. The truth is, most people have aspects of all kinds of personality ‘types’ in them. Personally, I don’t hold with the whole Meyers-Briggs typecasting, anymore than I do the daily horoscopes in the paper. We all run the gamut of emotions, we have moments of brilliance and moments of utter foolishness, moments of bravery and shyness. People don’t always rise to the occasion, remember to put out the trash, use their best judgment.

I need to let my characters not listen to what they’re told, to go out at night when they should be home with the doors locked, have one too many drinks and wake up in a strange place. It won’t always make sense, but that’s the way it is.

And that’s the truth.

‘The books one reads in childhood, and perhaps most of all the bad and good bad books, create in one’s mind a sort of false map of the world, a series of fabulous countries into which one can retreat at odd moments throughout the rest of life, and which in some cases can even survive a visit to the real countries which they are supposed to represent.’

George Orwell

In my admittedly limited travels around the world, I have found there is much truth in this, that the few countries I’ve visited have differed in some respects from the images I had built up in my mind of how they were, based on books I had read about them. But how could they not?

When we read about a place, we get only bits and pieces of what that place may be like: an exotic bazaar filled with the smells of pungent spices and cooking, merchants loudly hawking their wares, oppressive heat, streets filled with bike-taxis. But no matter how many details the writer gives us, it’s still only a small portion of what that place may be like in real life, for the people who actually live there, day in and day out. Vacations tell only part of the story, and how can they not? You can’t really know a place in a quick two-week visit. Most vacationers see only the best parts of any place they stay, but for people who live and work there, who deal with the politics, the job market, housing prices, lack of social mobility, isolation, walking past the same weed-choked lots every day on their way to work, they probably wonder why anyone would pay to come and vacation in their town. I know I’m always surprised to hear people actually plan vacations to my city. I think, of all the wonderful, unusual, exciting places in the world, why would anyone come here for a vacation? I’d probably think the same thing if I lived in Manhattan (ok, maybe not Manhattan).

To live and exist in a place makes it look very different from someone who only comes for a short stay and spends the time doing the things most natives never get around to doing. Maybe it is a different place. I’ve never set foot on any local golf course, but we have a couple of world-class courses here that people actually deliberately travel here to play. I find that strange, but I know that to anyone not familiar with this area it could very well seem exotic to them. What is mundane to me could be remarkable in someone else’s eyes. Some of the books I read as a child (and even as an adult) are more real to me than some of the places I’ve actually been to, especially the ones I’ve read multiple times.

One of the stories I’m working on, which began life as a NaNoWriMo novel, is set in a location that is only partially known to me. I know the present day area, but I’m setting it in the past, and so much research and imagination is coming into play. The past is as exotic to me as an Indian bazaar. In the end, I want people to think they could still travel there, walk those streets, and look at the houses, and say, “Oh that must be her house!” Can I pull it off? Time will tell.

A couple more words I see people mixing up all the time:

Averse and Adverse

While similar in some ways, they are not interchangeable. First, let’s look at averse.

According to Merriam-Webster online:

Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin aversus, past participle of avertere
Date: 1597

: having an active feeling of repugnance or distaste —usually used with to; averse to strenuous exercise

Ok, so it’s an adjective most of the time, such as in the usage above. This is when you don’t want to do something, like you’re averse to going to work on Monday morning (welcome to my world).

Now, adverse, again from Merriam-Webster online:

Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French advers, from Latin adversus, past participle of advertere
Date: 14th century

1 : acting against or in a contrary direction : hostile
2 a : opposed to one’s interests (an adverse verdict) (heard testimony adverse to their position); especially : unfavorable (adverse criticism) b : causing harm : harmful (adverse drug effects)
3 archaic : opposite in position

Also an adjective, but more in the sense of something outside you being bad for you, working against what you want.

The first is more what you feel about something, the second shows how something affects you (adversely).
Like your girlfriend will probably have an adverse reaction when you tell her you want to break up with her and start seeing her best friend. Good luck with that. Most people are averse to being dumped.

“Even though not every book will be right for every reader, the ability to read, speak, think and express ourselves freely are core American values,” said Barbara Jones, director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom. “Protecting one of our most fundamental rights – the freedom to read – means respecting each other’s differences and the right of all people to choose for themselves what they and their families read.”

As much as I have slagged on the Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer (and I have done my share), I will also stand up and defend these same books as suitable for anyone who wants to read them. I may not enjoy the stories or the writing, but that is my choice. This is the first year Twilight has made the list, and the objections apparently encompass “Sexually Explicit, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group.” Since I haven’t read them in their entirety (bits and pieces, enough to convince me I had better things to do with my time), I don’t know what the religious objection is (Meyer is Mormon, but I don’t think there is any Mormon doctrine explicitly mentioned). Unsuited to age? What exactly are tweens (the target age group, ostensibly) supposed to be reading? The eleven and twelve-year-olds reading these books are on the cusp of the angst-ridden teen years, reading about other teens (even silly ones, vampire and werewolf teens) is exactly what they need to be reading.

J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series is the most-challenged of the decade from 2000-2009, for “occult/Satanism.” I must have missed the Satanism when I read them, I’ll make another pass through and try to find it. And “anti-family” themes. Anti-family? Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon are strange and unusual, but they’re not unlike members of my own family. C’mon, who doesn’t have a relative (or three) they’d like to keep hidden in the family closet? Raise your hand… anybody? I loved the Weasley’s, I wish they’d adopt me. You couldn’t ask for a more loving, concerned, involved, tight-knit family.

Anyway, the top ten list (taken from the ALA Web site) for 2009 is:

1. “TTYL; TTFN; L8R, G8R (series), by Lauren Myracle
Reasons: Nudity, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group, Drugs
2. “And Tango Makes Three” by Peter Parnell and Justin Richardson
Reasons: Homosexuality
3. “The Perks of Being A Wallflower,” by Stephen Chbosky
Reasons: Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Anti-Family, Offensive Language, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group, Drugs, Suicide
4. “To Kill A Mockingbird,” by Harper Lee
Reasons: Racism, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
5. Twilight (series) by Stephenie Meyer
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group
6. “Catcher in the Rye,” by J.D. Salinger
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
7. “My Sister’s Keeper,” by Jodi Picoult
Reasons: Sexism, Homosexuality, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age Group, Drugs, Suicide, Violence
8. “The Earth, My Butt, and Other Big, Round Things,” by Carolyn Mackler
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
9. “The Color Purple,” Alice Walker
Reasons: Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group
10. “The Chocolate War,” by Robert Cormier
Reasons: Nudity, Sexually Explicit, Offensive Language, Unsuited to Age Group

If that’s not enough, check out the list for the Top 100 Most Banned/Challenged books for 2000 – 2009.

I think I’ve hit the point in my vampire story where I want to bring it to a close. I could easily drag this on, take it off in other directions, but at this point I’m not sure that’s the best course of action. I have other characters that I’d like to introduce, more plot elements, but in the back of my mind something is screaming “STOP!” I have this suspicion that going on and introducing more new stuff is the wrong idea, that it’s going to end up a little too sprawling, disjointed, and devolve into incoherence. Ok, maybe that’s a tad melodramatic, but I’ve got this sense of enough now, and adding more will seem like aimless meandering. Perhaps a sequel, a whole separate book focusing more on these other characters and situations would work, rather than abandon them entirely. I think they will haunt me if I try, and I’ve got enough going on in the haunting department as it is these days.

As usual one thing spurring the decision to break off is more music. I have discovered more new (to me) bands, and when a song hits me, I get whole plotlines spreading out and unfolding in my head. If I follow these threads I can see it turning into way too much for one book, especially a first book. So now I have to fall back and regroup, and somehow find a good conclusion. This will probably mean a substantial rewrite, but that’s good. Some of this wandering around feels like a lack of focus anyway, like I’m dragging it on because I can’t figure out how to end it. Not a good way to go about things. I guess that means it’s crunch time; time to pull it together and either get it lined up for a sequel or end it completely.

Of/Have

This is one I’ve started seeing used incorrectly fairly often in print. Confusion around the use of these two in phrases such as ‘should have,’ ‘would have,’ ‘could have,’ no doubt arises from the contracted forms:

should’ve
would’ve
could’ve

Now I see in print “I should of” or “We could of” when no doubt the writer meant “I should’ve” or “We could’ve.” They sound the same when you say them, but they are completely different. “Of” is a preposition (I know, we’re getting technical), whereas ‘have’ is one of the three helping verbs: have, be, and do.

Let’s just try substituting one for the other in a less ambiguous context. For instance: You wouldn’t say “We of been here for an hour.” You would say “We have been here.” Similarly, you couldn’t say “She thought have him,” but you would say “she thought of him.” Hopefully this shows that they’re not interchangeable.

Lose/Loose

Under most circumstances, one is a verb, the other is an adjective. “Lose” is the verb. You can lose your keys, lose your mind, lose your lunch. If you lose something, it’s lost. Until it’s found.

Loose is, most often, an adjective. Loose rhymes with goose. You can have a screw loose, in which case you might lose it. If you lose weight your clothes will feel loose (how nice).

There are other uses for each word that you can look up in any dictionary of your choosing, but these are the most common situations where these two get mixed up.

Somehow I’ve now managed to involve myself in a fourth blog, which is probably not a good idea since I’ve rarely been updating my existing three as it is. However, the fourth is a collaborative blog that was started as a lark with two others just for some fun, comedic writing.

It all started when one of the visitors to my other writing blog said he’d be willing to read my vampire story, as long as there were no “sparkling douchebags” in it. And one thing lead to another and before long we had a little round-robin story started about a glam-punk band known as the Sparkling Douchebags who sing about vampires and wanting to be one. So now we’re all pitching in and creating backstory and character bios, and writing the scenes. I’ve never been involved in a collaborative project like this, so even though I’m the blog administrator I am hesitant to seem like I’m running the show. After all, the story wasn’t my idea to begin with. This has been a learning experience already in how to set up such a blog and have multiple authors, and since it’s all in fun I have to remind myself not to take it too seriously.

I just wonder if I’ve bitten off more than I can chew with everything else I’ve got going on. Then again, there’s no rush to write the story of the Sparkling Douchebags so I probably shouldn’t stress about it anyway. It’s been good for a laugh, and I’d like it to stay that way.

If you’d like to watch the story unfold (albeit, it’s likely to be a slow unfolding) it’s all over at Murder in the Mosh Pit.

On top of four blogs, I’m still working on the vampire novel. So, we’ll see if I have more on my plate than I can manage.

I wanted to point out a couple of things that I constantly hear, from people who should know better. Without getting too technical and invoking a lot of grammar jargon like predicate and participial I’ll just briefly mention a few things I hear most often.

He/Him, She/Her

What I hear is “Him and I talked…” or “Me and her met…” I hear it at work, on television (you’d think the writers of the shows would know better, wouldn’t you?) This does you no credit, because you’re bound to end up working for someone who knows better and will cringe everytime you say something like that.

The word “and” is a signal that both halves of that conversation are the subject. Here’s what you can try: Remove the “and” along with either the first or second party, and what do you have? “Him talked…” or “Me met,” or “Her met.” I know no one would say those things, but for some reason when they’re together, people can’t see it. Simply put, whichever pronoun you use in front of and after the “and” has to be able to stand on its own, as if the second one wasn’t there.

Correct: “He and I talked” or “She and I met”

The Death of the Infinitive “To Be”

Another trend I’ve noticed over the last several years is that of dropping the verb “to be,” as in “I need briefed,” or “He needed taught.” It makes it sound as if “briefed” and “taught” somehow became nouns, things you could pick up at the grocery store. This is not just slang people use in informal conversation with friends, I hear this from degreed professionals in the office. How did this happen? Where did this start? The first time I heard it was from a guest speaker at a convention who uttered the first example phrase, “I need briefed.” I’ve been scratching my head over it ever since, and that was probably 20 years ago, and the usage seems to be picking up steam over time. It’s such a tiny little verb, maybe that’s why it gets overlooked? It may be trendy, but it sounds, and is, wrong.

Than/Then

Now this one I see in print All.The.Time. Most often I see then used when it should be than. ‘Than’ is comparative, as in “Steve is taller than John,” or “Marcy’s cookies were better than Sue’s.”

‘Then’ is used in time situations. “If he arrives on time, then we’ll go to the movie,” which specifies “That is when” the event will occur. Maybe the ‘e’ in ‘when’ and ‘then’ can work as a little mnemonic?

Went/Gone

Wrong: Had went.
Right: Had gone.

Go-Went-Gone. I go. I went. I had gone.

There are more I could get into but if you have questions, here’s a great site which can help with a quick question, and minimal, but effective, explanations: Common Errors in English Usage.