5 Commonly Misused Words in the English Language

The more I write, the more I become a grammar Nazi. I'm realizing one of my biggest pet peeves are misused words. To the point where if I'm not sure of a word myself, I look it up in a dictionary to confirm I'm using it correctly in speech. Wow. What a nerd I am. It's a good thing my husband loves me…although I don't think he loves it when I correct his speech…

Anyways, I've started to compile a list of words that drive me crazy. Feel free to add your own in the comments! (And look forward to more posts on incorrectly used words.)

1. anxious vs. eager

She was anxious that something could go wrong during her pregnancy.

I am eager to see my wife after six months' separation.

Anxious: 1 experiencing worry, unease, or nervousness, typically about an imminent event or something with an uncertain outcome

• (of a period of time or situation) causing or characterized by worry or nervousness: there were some anxious moments.
2 wanting something very much, typically with a feeling of unease

Eager: (adjective) wanting to do or have something very much

• (of a person's expression or tone of voice) characterized by keen expectancy or interest

2. peak vs. pique

The novel piqued my interest so I bought it.

I climbed to the highest peak.

Peak: (noun) the pointed top of a mountain

• a mountain, esp. one with a pointed top

• a projecting pointed part or shape

• a point in a curve or on a graph, or a value of a physical quantity, higher than those around it

• the point of highest activity, quality, or achievement

Pique: (noun) a feeling of irritation or resentment resulting from a slight, esp. to one's pride

Pique: (verb) 1 stimulate (interest or curiosity)

2 (be piqued) feel irritated or resentful

3. their/they're/there

What grammarian isn't annoyed by this all-too-common slip-up?

That is their sleeping bag.

They're coming over today.

I'm going over there tomorrow.

their: possessive pronoun

they're: contraction for "they are"

there: a place

4. irony vs. coincidence

This can be a difficult one.

How ironic that Sarah moved from Texas to New York to get away from Texans and ends up marrying a Texan cowboy.

Coincidentally, I met my husband in New York and we are both from the same, small Texan town.

The difference is that irony is deliberately the opposite of what is expected or planned for, while a coincidence is an often similar event that appears unrelated to another.

Irony: noun ( pl. ironies )
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect
• a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often amusing as a result
• (also dramatic or tragic irony) a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

Coincidence: (noun) 1 a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection

2 correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence:

5. literally vs. figuratively

I literally ate five Double Stuf Oreos.

I figuratively could have eaten a whale.

Literally: (adverb) in a literal manner or sense; exactly
• informal used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true: I have received literally thousands of letters.** 

Figuratively: (adjective) 1 departing from a literal use of words; metaphorical
2 (of an artist or work of art) representing forms that are recognizably derived from life.



*Definitions from New Oxford American Dictionary

**The fact that this definition is now included in the dictionary drives me figuratively insane.

What misused words figuratively drive you insane?

Five Rules for Using Pronouns in Fiction Writing (Part II of II)

A few weeks ago, I threw out some reasons for and against using pronouns in fiction. This week, I'd like to explain a bit about how these are pros and cons.

If you'll recall, there are five reasons I came up with to use or not use pronouns in fiction writing. This post will discuss them in a bit more detail (although there are links for each pro and con in last week's post).

1. Don't confuse the antecedent.

Typically, "he" or "she" refers to the person last mentioned.

Joni gulped from her cup. She lowered it and stared at Kim.

"Her" and "she" both refer to Joni.

If we rewrite the sentence to say:

Joni and Kim sipped their drinks. She put it down.

Then we get confusion. Who is "she?" Is it Joni? Kim? Neither? In a situation like this, reuse their name. Or, preferably, rephrase the sentence(s) to clarify.

2. Don't overuse "I" in first person POV.

In first person point-of-view, the page can be a minefield of "I." Not only does it make the book seem unreasonably self-centered on the protagonist, it can be distracting from even the best plot.

Consider the example below, taken from one of my recent WIPs, which I've referred to throughout my blog as "StM."

In retrospect, I was lucky I'd held on to my phone so I could dig out Mother's address from the depths of my contacts list. I hoped, as I begged directions from a stranger on the street, that she'd not moved in the two years since I'd seen her.

This is a rough draft of a scene where my main character is lost in London and has just been pick-pocketed. She's finally decided to seek out her estranged mother. But while the focus is on the main character, it could be written better. 

A revision trying to minimize "I":

In retrospect, holding onto my phone was a lucky break. In the dusty layers of my contact list lay Mother's phone and address. After accosting a stranger on the street for directions, I headed north, hoping Mother hadn't moved in the past two years.

This shows how many "I's" you can eliminate if you try. I got it down from six to one.

3. Make sure you know how to use pronouns correctly.

This is one of those cons which can be corrected by grammar lessons.

Remember: the pronoun should agree in number and person with its antecedent noun, as well as clearly refer to the prior noun(s).

E.g.

Incorrect:
She grabbed the violin off the stand and raised them to her shoulder.

Correct:
She grabbed the violin and bow off the stand and raised them to her shoulder.

Or:
She grabbed the violin off the stand and raised it to her shoulder.


E.g.
Correct:
The airlines had assigned Adrienne a middle seat—in cattle class. Which meant she was directly in the center of the aircraft, smashed between a generously proportioned woman who seemed to have poured a perfume bottle all over herself before the flight, and two boisterous talkers on Adrienne's left—one of whom was a middle-aged, lecherous flirt with a propensity for airsickness.

The Adrienne's is not "her" because it would create ambiguity to use "her."

Incorrect:
The airlines had assigned Adrienne a middle seat—in cattle class. Which meant she was directly in the center of the aircraft, smashed between a generously proportioned woman who seemed to have poured a perfume bottle all over herself before the flight, and two boisterous talkers on her left—one of whom was a middle-aged, lecherous flirt with a propensity for airsickness.

Whose left am I talking about in the incorrect version? Adrienne's or the woman with perfume?

I'm not even going to get into the grammar lesson aspect of this, but here are some great websites if you are confused about pronouns.

Grammar: Proper Pronoun Usage 101

Grammar Girl: Generic Singular Pronouns

Grammar Girl: Pronouns and Antecedents

Grammar Girl: How to Use "Myself" and Other Reflexive Pronouns
Purdue Owl: Pronouns, Using Pronouns Clearly
Purdue Owl: Using Appropriate Pronouns, Appropriate Pronoun Usage

Pros

Intimacy:

Only reflexive pronouns used--

The airlines had assigned Adrienne Talbot a middle seat—in cattle class. Which meant Adrienne was directly in the center of the aircraft, smashed between a generously proportioned woman who seemed to have poured a perfume bottle all over herself before the flight, and two boisterous talkers on Adrienne's left—one of whom was a middle-aged, lecherous flirt with a propensity for airsickness.

Sighing, Adrienne strapped herself into Adrienne's own personal ninth circle of Hell and winced at the screech of an infant behind Adrienne. Adrienne leaned Adrienne's head against the leather headrest, feeling the press of the woman next to Adrienne and the lech's broad shoulders on Adrienne's other side, reducing Adrienne's seat to the size of a postage stamp. These types of plane rides were the worst for people like Adrienne, who had personal bubbles the size of Alaska.

Yikes! Does anyone else's blood pressure rise at the second paragraph? Every repetition of her name grates on my nerves--I don't even want to repeat it here! Let's check out the example using pronouns properly.

Using pronouns--

The airlines had assigned Adrienne Talbot a middle seat—in cattle class. Which meant she was directly in the center of the aircraft, smashed between a generously proportioned woman who seemed to have poured a perfume bottle all over herself before the flight, and two boisterous talkers on Adrienne's left—one of whom was a middle-aged, lecherous flirt with a propensity for airsickness. 

Sighing, Adrienne strapped herself into her own personal ninth circle of Hell and winced at the screech of an infant behind her. She leaned her head against the leather headrest, feeling the press of the woman next to her and the lech's broad shoulders on her other side, reducing Adrienne's seat to the size of a postage stamp. These types of plane rides were the worst for people like her, who had personal bubbles the size of Alaska.

Aids suspension of disbelief:

According to Dictionary.com, the suspension of disbelief is: "a willingness to suspend one's critical faculties and believe the unbelievable; sacrifice of realism and logic for the sake of enjoyment." Similar to intimacy, when proper nouns are used repetitively in a passage, the reader is distracted from the story and removed from it. Like "said," "he," and "she" are nearly invisible. The reader's eye skims over them, and they can often be omitted from the story entirely. This is why the current fiction trend is to replace a tag (he/she said) with an action (E.g. "I've been waiting for this." He slid his finger under the flap of the envelope.)

The Verdict:

Pronouns go a long ways in creating intimacy between reader and protagonist. However, the danger is in creating ambiguity in the antecedent. 


~I.E.

I hope this has helped explain why pronouns are the better choice. If you've found this useful, please give it a share!

Follow me on Twitter @amor_scribendi, or like me on Facebook!

When to Use Pronouns in Writing Fiction, Part I

Pronouns in fiction are some of those "invisible" words that can create a lot of problems if not used correctly.

A lot of beginning writers seem uncertain when to use pronouns, and use them prolifically or rarely.  Before my overuse of proper nouns was pointed out to me, I'd never considered this subject. I didn't think I littered my manuscripts with unnecessary tags or names, and I tried to vary my sentences as much as I can, reducing such references to names.

However, since this had come up a couple of times, I decided it was time that I research the subject.

Here's some of the reasons I've dug up for and against using pronouns.

Pros:
Creates intimacy with the reader (link here)
Aids suspension of Disbelief (link here)

Cons:
Can create confusion concerning the antecedent (link here)
In first person POV (point of view), "I" can litter the page and distracting (link here)
Incorrect usage of pronouns (link here)

Since being told about this nasty little habit of mine, I've worked hard to eliminate as many proper nouns as I can. The pronoun, after all, is nearly invisible. As a writer, I want my reader's eyes to fly over the pages, devouring my text, not constantly stutter over my MC's name. 

Next week we'll go more in depth on the reasons to use pronouns. 

~I.E.

What do you think? Are there other pros and cons for using or not using pronouns? Feel free to share in the comments section!

Dialogue Tags-Part II of II

Last week I talked about basic dialogue tags. This week, I want to throw in a few more complex tags
and discuss the use of narration as a tag.

For our examples, I'll be revising last week's examples to fit this week's needs. I kept the tags in red, although it could be argued that some of the red highlights are not tags at all, but narration.

Complex dialogue tags:
A complex dialogue tag would be an added action or description accompanying dialogue.

Example A:

"Hello," Ralph said, grabbing Amy by the shoulders and staring her in the eye.

Example B:

"Hello," Ralph cried and seized Amy by the shoulders to stare directly into her brown eyes.

Replacing a tag with an action:

Nowadays tags are eliminated if at all possible. All that "Ralph said" tells us is who the speaker is. Instead of using the tag, we could eliminate it completely and still convey the information that Ralph is speaking.

Example C:

"Hello." Ralph seized Amy by the shoulders to stare directly into her brown eyes.

These are far from good examples, but I hope they do what I want, and that's show you how much more powerful a tag can be when joined, or even replaced by an action.

Example C could convey a need for Amy's attention or a desire to see if she was paying attention to him, or even that Amy is a youth and needs to focus on him. But adding "Ralph said" as in Examples A or B doesn't give us any additional information.


Rule of thumb: if it doesn't add anything, remove it.

Putting it to use:

Now let's go back to the examples from last week and make it more complicated.

Example 1a:

"How are you doing today? I heard you were sick," Rose said in greeting to her co-worker.

Amy looked up in surprise and said, "Fine, thanks."

Example 1b:

"How are you doing today? I heard you were sick." Rose grimaced at the pile of shirts she and her co-worker were supposed to price today.

Amy looked up in surprise. "Fine, thanks."

Example 2:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose whispered, not wanting her boss to overhear.

Glancing in her direction, Amy murmured, "Fine, thanks."

Example 3:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose said, pulling a shirt from the pile they were supposed to be tagging.

"Oh no," Amy said as she tossed a newly priced shirt into the pile, "everything's all better now, thanks."

"Really? I thought you were still sick this morning." She jabbed her pricing gun's needle into the cloth at the neck of the shirt and nearly got her finger in the process.

"No, I was better last night. I had a big breakfast this morning and feel fine now." Amy flashed a smile.

Example 4:

--

Example 5:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose grimaced at the pile of shirts she and her co-worker were supposed to price today.

"Oh no." Amy tossed a newly priced shirt into the pile. "Everything's all better now, thanks."

"Really? I thought you were still sick this morning."

"No, I was better last night. I had a big breakfast this morning and feel fine now."


Okay, now let's talk about these examples.

Example 1a:
Both these tags work fine. There's nothing fantastic about them, they are merely nametags for the dialogue. In other words, I believe there are better ways to do things.

Example 1b:
This example removes the tags from the prior example. I like it better, personally, for it identifies the speakers only by their actions in proximity to the dialogue.

Example 3:
Establishes the speakers with one "said" each, then uses actions to progress the scene. In my opinion, this example gets a bit too heavy on the action. What is the focus, the menial job they have or the fact that Amy was sick? That I don't know.

Example 4:
n/a

Example 5:
I think I like this one best out of them all. It's clear-cut and moves the scene along, it doesn't bog us down with unnecessary tags or description. But notice that there is not one single tag in this example, rather that action is used to establish the speaker, and then we trade off dialogue with the two speakers.

Like everything in writing, the use of tags is somewhat subjective. However, if you salt and pepper your dialogue with unnecessary tags, the reader is bound to get bogged down. Be as concise as possible to establish the speaker, and try to add things to characterize them amidst their dialogue.

Remember the rule of thumb: if it doesn't add anything, remove it.

~I.E.

How do you feel about dialogue tags? Do you love them, hate them? Avoid them? Use them for every bit of dialogue?

Dialogue Tags-Part I of II

Beginning writers have a lot to learn. Even things such as dialogue tags and punctuation can be overwhelming and hold back someone from their writing. Therefore, I figure a post on the proper use of dialogue tags may be helpful for someone out there embarking on writing.

What is a dialogue tag?

A dialogue tag is a subject and verb combined to indicate the speaker of a line of dialogue. To put it more simply, it's the "he said" before or after a bit of dialogue. In the examples scattered throughout, I'm going to put all the dialogue tags in red font.

Example A:

"Hello," he said.

Example B:

He said, "Hello." 

Simple tag:

A simple tag is the simplest tag you could come up with, using the verb "to say."

Example C:

"He/She said."

Slightly more complex tags:

Anything like, "he/she interjected," or "he/she admitted," etc. Any verb which indicates speech. Note that "he/she grinned" would not be considered a dialogue tag, as someone does not "grin" words. Some other "tag" verbs: concede, yell, shout, whisper, murmur, state, lie (as in to tell a lie), add, reply, gasp, etc.

Note also that while I tend to put my examples in past tense, books that are written in present tense alter the verb tense: "he/she says," "I say," "he admits," "she concedes," etc.

Generally "said" is considered the safest tag, although dialogue tags themselves have become less desirable. (More on this next week.)

Invisible Tags:

An invisible tag is when a tag doesn't exist, but is implied by the character interaction or the exchange of conversation surrounding it. 

Example D:

"How are you today," Rose asked.

"Oh, I'm swell," Amy replied.

"Are you sure you aren't feeling sick?"

"Oh, no, I'm much better today."

In the third and fourth line, there is no tag for either speaker, but it's assumed that they trade off speaking. This assumption is made clearer by what is being said. If there is any doubt of who is saying a line, a simple tag should be added.

When do you use a dialogue tag?

The may go directly before or after a sentence of dialogue in order to identify the speaker of the sentence. When using a tag, pay attention to how I use both quotation marks and commas in the example below. Also, keep an eye out for those invisible tags. Although some examples appear very close to each other, there's a reason I chose to include each (see below for a quick explanation of each).

Example 1:

"How are you doing today? I heard you were sick," Rose said.

Amy said, "Fine, thanks."

Example 2:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose whispered.

Amy murmured, "Fine, thanks."

Example 3*:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose said.

"Oh no," Amy said, "everything's all better now, thanks."

"Really? I thought you were still sick this morning."

"No, I was better last night. I had a big breakfast this morning and feel fine now."

Example 4: 

"How are you doing today? I heard you were sick," Rose asked.

"Fine, thanks," Amy said.

Example 5*:

"I heard you were sick. How are you today?" Rose said.

"Oh no," Amy said. "Everything's all better now, thanks."

"Really? I thought you were still sick this morning."

"No, I was better last night. I had a big breakfast this morning and feel fine now."

*The difference between Examples 3 & 5 are discussed under the punctuation section below.

Each of the changes I made in these examples are subtle, made to emphasize the proper punctuation with tags, but read on for a further discussion of punctuation.

How do you punctuate dialogue? 

Source

Quotes should obviously enclose all the dialogue being spoken, and in British English, single quotes are used instead of double quotes. However, the punctuation varies depending on the placement of the tag.

Tag follows the dialogue:

The comma should go inside the closing quotation mark, to be immediately followed by the tag and a period.

Tag precedes the dialogue:

This is a touch more complicated because of capitalization. 

When a tag precedes the dialogue, there should be a comma following the tag, then a quotation mark and then a capital letter to indicate the beginning of the sentence of dialogue. 

Note that when it goes , " it is followed by a CAPITAL letter (See Example 5). This is because the first word of a sentence is capitalized, and the first word of a speaker's dialogue is likewise capitalized. The exception is if your dialogue tag interrupts the speaker's sentence (See Example 3). 

Example 3 and 5 only vary by two very small things. Did you find them? A sharp reader would pick up on them. Go look, I'll wait. Back? Good. If you'll notice in Example 5, there is a period where a comma was in Example 3, and then a capital "Everything's" in Example 5 instead of a lowercase "everything's" in Example 3. The single reason for this is that I decided to have Amy split her response into two sentences in Example 5. Instead of rushing through her response to Amy, she took her time. 

An alternate way to write each line would be:

Example 3a: "Oh no, everything's all better now, thanks," Amy said. 

Example 3b: Amy said, "Oh no, everything's all better now, thanks."

Example 5a: "Oh no. Everything's all better now, thanks," Amy said. 

Example 5b: Amy said, "Oh no. Everything's all better now, thanks."

Both are equally correct, neither one is better than the other. (Well, none of this dialogue is going to win me the Pulitzer…) 

The slight difference suggests merely that Amy took her time replying in Example 5, that's all. Punctuation is a writer's friend, and can create a fast-paced, angry denial or a lingering, relaxed conversation.

Example 1 is the most basic example, simple dialogue exchanged.

Example 2 shows how a question mark takes the place of a comma before a closing quotation mark, as well as using slightly more complex tags with different verb choices. These verbs suggest that Amy and Rose are in a location which requires quiet voices.

Example 3 gives you an example of dialogue interrupted by a tag, as well as invisible tags.

Example 4 gives you an example for dealing with commas and the verb "asked."

Example 5 offers a variation of Example 3, showing how punctuation can affect the reader's interpretation of the otherwise exact same sentence.

Wait, what about other types of tags?

There are other ways to use tags, as well as invisible tags, but I'm running out of room on this post. So I'm going to wait until next week to discuss more complex tags. Check back next Wednesday!

Onomatopoeias

This month I'm participating in the A to Z Blogger's Challenge, found here. Every day of April (except for Sundays), we are posting a blog with the theme of A to Z.

O is for Onomatopoeia 

Today I wanted to talk about onomatopoeias (pronunciation: änəˌmatəˈpēə). If that's not a fun and totally underutilized word to say, I don't know what is.

An onomatopoeia is a word which sounds like what it is. Officially it is, "the formation of a word from a sound associated with what is named." 

Many common onomatopoeias are animal sounds. Bzzz, oink, cuckoo, ribbit, meow, etc. All these are spellings of what the sound sounds like. Non-animal onomatopoeias would be snap, crack, sizzle, splat, tapping, rapping, etc. 

The nice thing about onomatopoeias is that they paint an immediate picture in your mind about the sound. What does "oink" suggest to you? You'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't think of a pig.

In literature, words like buzz, snap, sizzle, etc. are all used frequently. Like an animal sound, they immediately offer the reader a metal image of what is happening on the page, an auditory image if you will. If you read, "knocked," you're probably thinking of someone knocking on a door, or a branch knocking against the house. That's because of the onomatopoeia essence of the word.

These can be incredibly valuable words to choose when writing fiction. They can also be some of the most annoying.

Personally, when I'm deep into reading a book and dialogue or narrative is broken by a two word sentence of: "Knock-knock!" I find the entire paragraph skip-worthy. It jerks me from the story I'm reading in order to interject an unneeded "sound"--a sound which comes off as "telling." Not to say that onomatopoeias are not useful or never appropriate. In fact, that jerking from the story may be exactly what the author intends--as the character is jerked from their daily life by a knock, so are you jerked out of the story.

But personally, I'd rather read something like, "The knock on the door had me jumping out of my skin." You still read the onomatopoeia, but you aren't jerked from the story in order to do so. Instead, it gently informs you of the auditory image in your mind, and you feel the tremble running under the character's skin from her surprise.

What are your feelings about onomatopoeias? How do you prefer to read them?

Examples:

Onomatopoeias are used in some of the most well-known poems and by the most well-known authors.

Nursery Rhyme Examples:

Baa Baa Black Sheep

Old MacDonald had a farm

Ee i ee i oh!

And on that farm he had some chickens,

Ee i ee i oh!

With a cluck-cluck here,

And a cluck-cluck there

Poetry Examples:

Edgar Allen Poe

The Bells

Hear the sledges with the bells - 

Silver bells!

What a world of merriment their melody foretells!

How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle,

In the icy air of night!

While the stars that oversprinkle

All the heavens seem to twinkle

With a crystalline delight;

Keeping time, time, time,

In a sort of Runic rhyme,

To the tintinnabulation that so musically wells

From the bells, bells, bells, bells,

Bells, bells, bells - 

From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.

Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Morte D'Arthur

"I heard the ripple washing in the reeds, [5]

  And the wild water lapping on the crag."

~I.E.

Getting Over Your Fear of Feedback

If you had told me when I first started writing that I would share my writing online with strangers and ask them to tear my work apart, I probably would have laughed at you.

The first few months (okay, years) of posting my work for feedback was, well, terrifying. My first real interaction with peer feedback was through F2K, a free fiction writing course given through Writers' Village University (WVU), where the slogan is "Writers helping writers."

I don't think I first realized just how much that slogan is true. But now that I've gone through F2K and joined the parent site, WVU, the words resonate with me. Giving your WIP to a friend to read is great, but if your friend isn't a writer or editor, they are going to miss a lot of things. Conversely, putting a chapter of my WIP up on an online forum of other writers guarantees that they are going to see something I missed. They aren't just going to tell me "I like it," or "I don't like it," but they're going to tell me why. That's how writers help writers. They explain what works and what doesn't work. And most importantly, how it can be fixed.

As I continued posting my work, first through F2K, and then finally screwing up my courage to begin posting a WIP that I'd worked on for years, it was tough. Tougher than tough. 

Every time I went to post a new chapter, I would spend hours and hours upon those 2000-4000 words. I would take a fine-tooth comb to them, and I would rewrite the same sentences dozens of times. I would doubt my characters, the actions the characters made, my plot... I would doubt that I could even write, that I could ever make it. I would think no one wanted to read this. The list goes on. Every writer's insecurity about their work, I probably had.

But my challenge didn't end with pressing the "post" button. I would finally find the courage to post, and then I couldn't bear to look at the feedback! *insert shamed face here* I'd thought I'd conquered my fear of posting--then it would seem so much more terrifying to read others' thoughts about my writing! I would be afraid it would be less than flattering, it would destroy the little confidence I had, or that others just "wouldn't get it." 

I was unable to face the truth about my work and preferred to live in my bubble where it was "safe."

This went on for months. Literally, months.

I still have some of those early scenes, unedited from some of the most useful feedback I've probably received, because I just can't screw up the courage to look at my faults full in the face. (And yes, there were most definitely faults in those scenes, some obvious and certain, others more subjective.)

It took me a long time before I finally realized what was happening. 

I was letting myself get too close to a scene.

It happens to all of us. We love our "darlings," we love our scene, our plot (or lack thereof)... We have embraced this story inside of us until it demanded release. Then we release it and think there could be nothing wrong with it--simply because we like it. And there certainly couldn't be a structural issue, or a flood of typos which make reading it a chore rather than a pleasure.

But when I couldn't bear to look at the feedback other writers had so graciously given me, choosing rather to ignore the most valuable tool in my writer's handbook, I had to do some searching. Searching inside myself, not online, not in books, not anywhere else. 

Where did this fear of feedback come from?

Well, for me, I think it's perfectionism. That dreaded desire to be infallible. Pride, to put it bluntly. Instead of acknowledging that I was still growing as a writer, I chose to shut my eyes to the very thing that could help me grow.

You see, by trying to have a "perfect" piece of writing, I failed utterly. Every time I posted, there was always something I had missed. Sometimes big things, sometimes just small things. But always something. 

This started to wreck my confidence.


It's been a long time coming, but I am finally starting to realize that I am more blinded to my own work than I think.

I admit it. I have a critical eye--of both myself and others. Yet I may read a sentence of my own creation and think it makes sense because I know what I want to say. Then I pass that sentence to someone else, and it doesn't make sense at all. In fact, it may be a sentence that I'm immensely proud of for the specific word choice I used, or the metaphor I so majestically laced through it (ha ha). Then the feedback comes in telling me to cut that sentence because it distracts or doesn't make a lick of sense. *sigh*

You see, I need those other sets of eyes to tell me, "I don't know what you are trying to say here." Or, "This has potential, but it's not fully developed." Or, "I need more description here. I can't see the scene you're describing." Or even, "I thought there were only two people in this scene now there's three?"

You get my point. Each writer knows what they are trying to show. But only by sharing your writing with someone else can you see what you're actually showing. And if it works.


Pride is no easy thing to turn your back on.

I can say the right words, acknowledge my shortcomings, but when someone blatantly (even if kindly) points them out to me, it wounds my ego.

I haven't completely conquered my fear of feedback yet. Not by a long shot. But I have been able to distance myself from my scenes much quicker than I did a few months ago. 

Instead of spending days editing 2000 words so that they might be "acceptable" to post, I spend a few hours and hit the "post" button before I can stop myself. I've accepted that there WILL be something wrong with it. 

Absolutely, definitely, most certainly, something will be wrong.

I've realized that every single time I spent days and days and hours upon hours editing the same scene, those were the scenes that came back torn to bits. Those were the scenes that everyone had found something big wrong with--sometimes each seemed to find a different thing wrong. Those were the scenes that needed a total rewrite. How frustrating, embarrassing, debilitating!

Lately, I've taken the tact of admitting straight up: "Here's my next chapter. I'm not really liking it. I don't know why. Help." Or "I have to post this before I tear it up and start all over again." I'm taking my pride down a notch. And although my pride doesn't like, I do. There's no place for pride when you want to grow.

When you go in with less pride, less ego, you have more room to grow. 

You can see what needs work, and you can take it to heart. You can improve. 

When you think there's nothing wrong with your work, you undermine yourself. You hinder yourself from growing. Even the best authors need a reader's feedback. Even the best authors need an editor.

So how do you get over your fear of feedback?

My answer for this is two-fold.

1. Throw pride out the window where it belongs.

2. Bite the bullet and press that post button--it will never be "perfect."

Romanus Eunt Domus? No...Romani Ite Domum. Or, the Importance of Grammar in Novels

This video was posted today by a bookstore I follow on Facebook in Snohomish, Washington, Uppercase Bookshop. As I enjoy studying Latin (not that I'm remarkably talented in it, but have more a stubborn determination to learn the language), I got a laugh out of it.

But another post on Facebook made me writhe. 

Can anyone tell me why?


Call it the grammar Nazi in me, but "your" and "you're" mistakes drive me absolutely MAD. I don't always get the grammar rules correct either, and I'm sure I make a lot more grammar mistakes than I say I do or think I do, but "your" and "you're" is really not that difficult. And I don't say that to sound condescending, but there's such an easy way to check whether "your" is being used correctly or incorrectly. 


If you can substitute "you are" for "your", then you're using "your" INCORRECTLY.


(That was a lot of yours.) 


So, the Monty Python video really made me laugh because Latin grammar is difficult in the best of times for me, but at swordpoint? Hilarious.


But this video also made me wish that we had Roman/some-type-of soldiers in the country/world that went around correcting bad grammar when they saw it--regardless of what was said. We let bad grammar go for so long, that when good grammar is needed, it's become an unrealistic expectation.


Call me a snob, but I cannot read a book with poor grammar. If the sentence reads awkwardly, I find myself mentally correcting it as I read. And this, in turn, removes me from the story no matter how much I'm enjoying it. When there are typos or a word is used incorrectly, I shudder. If it happens too often in a book, I can't continue to read it, regardless of the plot. 


Bad grammar is too distracting. 


I think it's sad that published writers are allowed to publish poor grammar. And I find it equally sad that some of these books sell reasonably well. It's indicative of how readers settle for mediocre writing because the story is interesting enough. Is it too much to ask that writers abide by the *laws of grammar? That writers use a dictionary when they don't know for sure what a word means? That typos in one edition be corrected for the next? That writers be expected to NOT violate point of view rules? (Okay, maybe that last one isn't really a grammar issue.)


I know my expectations for the written word are high. I rarely find a book that satisfies me, and that's the price I pay for having such high expectations all around. I want a provocative plot, compulsive characters, and great grammar. I don't want to have to settle--and when I do, I always walk away with a bitter taste in my mouth, thinking to myself, "That was an okay book, but it could have been much better."






*I'm well aware of the philosophy of knowing the rules so that you can break them. But there are rules for a reason, and you can only break the rules when you know them well and know how to break them. But that's really a discussion for another post.

"Toward" Versus "Towards"

Photo Credits: the_munificent_sasquatch's on Flickr.com

I never used to wonder about this until I started actively trying to learn how to write. For the past year, ever since I wrote "towards", I would engage in an inner dialogue, wondering if it should be "toward" and not "towards". Then I would wonder how I could tell the difference between usages--did it have to agree with the subject? Object? 


I no longer wonder. I finally Googled this very question today, and found this highly amusing post by Grammar Girl.


Now, let me say, the post itself is not amusing, but the comments afterwards are. Enjoy.