Tag Archives: editing

Work is not an excuse

In case anyone was wondering, I haven’t died or finally been committed to an asylum (though I expect both in due time.) Rather, I’ve been completely immersed in a wonderful manuscript project with a lovely client who happens to be an art historian. That has meant end notes, figures, captions, appendices, an index, and Chicago’s 16th Edition – an editor’s dream job!

For years I’ve told told everyone (myself included) that editing uses the same parts of the brain as writing, so when I’m working on an editing project I’m not able to write. I now realize that isn’t true. Although there’s a certain degree of overlap, editing uses a good deal more left-brain function than writing, which relies primarily on right-brain operations.

The upshot of this discovery is that I can no longer use work (editing) as an excuse not to work (writing). It’s surprising how liberating that feels.

Resolve

I woke this morning from sound sleep
and poetry – no words remained
in mind, only the clear knowledge
I had shaped verse as I went about
the business of the dream.

So today I wrote again
after too many weeks of letting life
and other work take up all
available space and time and energy –
but no more.

On voice

Voice is an unavoidable component of all forms of writing. To slightly paraphrase Janice Hardy, voice is the sense that there is a person behind the words. That sense of person is how the reader connects with what the writer says. If there is a problem with voice, the connection will be faulty or won’t be made at all.

How can there be a problem with voice? Isn’t the writer always the person behind the words? Well, yes and no. Yes, the writer is always somewhere behind the words, but often the writer wants to communicate or connect through a particular perspective or persona, even in non-fiction. Any time the words don’t clearly convey that perspective or persona, the connection shorts out.

Although this can happen in several ways, inconsistency is the most common problem with voice. It’s like someone changing channels during a broadcast without warning: inconsistent voice makes it hard to follow what’s going on, whether that’s a line of reasoning or a plot line. The simplest way to be consistent is to maintain the same perspective throughout a written piece (much harder than it sounds). This is not to say, however, that shifts in perspective make for poor writing or need to be avoided. When executed properly, they bring a delightful complexity and nuance to writing.

How can changes in perspective, by their very definition, be consistent? They happen in a manner that makes sense, that arises naturally from the plot or argument and advances it. They follow a structural pattern, usually visible, occurring at section or chapter breaks. They take place when a scene changes or when new source material is introduced.  Here’s the real kicker: when shifts in perspective add to the plot or line of reasoning without disruption or distraction, they weave together to form a single, rich, complex voice.

The writer’s voice.

W is for work

I need to finish an editing job for a client, so this will be my post for today. It feels a little like cheating, but I will be using the written language portion of my brain, and I will be writing comments and corrections and such. I just won’t be posting them here. Sorry. 😦

Facing facts

Today is the first day of NaNoWriMo 2010 — National Novel Writing Month, although it is quite the international movement at this point. The idea is to complete the draft of a novel by the end of November: 50,000 words in 30 days. It’s fun, it’s insane…and it works. I’ve wanted to take part ever since I found out about it, but certain inconvenient facts stand in the way:

Fact 1: I work in short media/genres.

I’m a short-work writer: poetry, flash fiction, blurbs, reviews, letters. I don’t think I even have anything novel-length in me. That’s why blogging appeals to me and actually sort of works for me: it’s perfectly structured for shorter pieces. But even then I have difficulty showing up at times.

Fact 2: I work as an editor/proofreader.

That uses the same parts of my brain as writing. Today, for example, I easily wrote the daily NaNoWriMo target number of words (about 1600, as I recall) in comments, corrections, suggestions, and correspondence with clients. The written language portion of my brain is pretty tired right now. I love what I do, and my clients seem to love it, too; I don’t resent or regret that my work on other people’s writing makes it very difficult to work on my own writing. But it is a factor that affects my identity as a writer and my ability to pursue writing as an activity (let alone as a career).

So there they are, the facts that face me on this first day of one of the coolest celebrations of writing ever devised. I have to remember that I am a part of it; my part just comes after the drafting stage, and sometimes not until right before publication. And for right now, at this time and place in my life, that will have to suffice.

I somehow think it will.

To dunk or not to dunk

While attending a worship service last week, I found a typo in the bulletin. I can’t help myself; it’s what I do. It was the sort of typo that is clearly created by that two-edged sword of blessing and bane, spell check.

The bulletin had directions for communion: “after receiving the bread, you may either drink from the first chalice or instinct in the second chalice.” Once I finished snickering over what it might mean to instinct in a chalice, a little linguistic red flag popped up in my mind: is it proper to use “intinct” as a verb?

After the worship service, I went on-line in search of evidence of usage. The vast majority of occurrences were typos, where “intinct” appeared instead of “instinct.” The few non-typo examples were ecclesiastical. The noun form, “intinction,” appears with far greater frequency, even in ecclesiastical texts.

Nothing remained but to turn to that arbiter of all things English, the OED, which says that the use of “intinct” as a verb is obsolete and historically associated with coloring and dyes. Ecclesiastical use of the noun form, “intinction,” is not attested until 1872. The edition of the OED I consulted was published in 1971, so the ecclesiastical resurrection of the verb form usage must be a very recent phenomenon.

This is what happens when you send English majors to a church assembly.

Harder than I thought

It’s astonishing how difficult is it to write something cogent and interesting every day! I have no problem blathering on about all manner of inconsequential things in e-mails or my journal, but the realization that a large number of relative strangers will have access to my blog brings the internal editor out in full force. This entry is, in fact, an effort to push past that obstacle. I guess I’ve been successful, to a point. For today.

Stay tuned for further updates.