Frustrated Editor

[AchtungNight]

If I have committed any of the sins against editors mentioned in this thread, I apologize and humbly beg my editors' forgiveness. And Asylum, be glad you didn't get the crazily creative type of writer who gets new ideas while waiting to hear back from you, writes them down, and then sends out the new story version, prolonging your editing process. We are the worst. Trust me.

<waves to Lady Cibelle, an old friend>

 

[DeirdreThyme]

The problem with using 'she pouted' is easily fixed without changing the wording. Just make it a sentence.

"Dialogue." She pouted.

It's an action, not a dialogue tag. And yes, you can pout as you talk. That can be indicated this way:

"Dialogue." She pouted as she spoke.

I think some authors get too hung up on their own words, and it's difficult for an editor to make any headway with some. I don't know how to help that, other than be very picky about the stories and authors you work with.

Just my two cents.

Dee

 

[LadyCibelle]

If I have committed any of the sins against editors mentioned in this thread, I apologize and humbly beg my editors' forgiveness. And Asylum, be glad you didn't get the crazily creative type of writer who gets new ideas while waiting to hear back from you, writes them down, and then sends out the new story version, prolonging your editing process. We are the worst. Trust me.

<waves to Lady Cibelle, an old friend>

*waves back to Acht* Good to see you back, old friend. You were missed.

 

[_Lynn_]

If I have committed any of the sins against editors mentioned in this thread, I apologize and humbly beg my editors' forgiveness. And Asylum, be glad you didn't get the crazily creative type of writer who gets new ideas while waiting to hear back from you, writes them down, and then sends out the new story version, prolonging your editing process. We are the worst. Trust me.
<waves to Lady Cibelle, an old friend>

Yeah, poor editor.
Not that I would know what it's like, of course.

 

[Dinsmore]

I make suggestions and leave the changes open for the writers to either accept or deny, but then they post and say a public "thanks" to me for editing and then I discover my "suggestions", for one reason or another, were not enacted upon. So others will see the mistakes...

Don't get me wrong, I am highly appreciative of the thanks from writers, but at the same time it may prove to be problematic. It's not as if my livelihood is affected but just my fragile ego, lol.

You all see my plight. I'm wondering if I shouldn't just edit and hand them a corrected copy to post. But then that removes "control" of the story from the writer, which is never a good thing. Not sure if a good answer exists.

Maybe I should take Snooper's route (if I remember correctly) in returning both a "corrected" copy and a "clean" copy. They can "see" the corrections in a "corrected" copy and then post the edited "clean" copy without having to "clean up" the corrected copy (assuming all suggestions are accepted). This may simplify the process and I would be open to a little more work to reduce errors.

Your thoughts?

And to the writer in question should you see this, we're good. Just trying to see if a solution can be agreed upon to improve the editing process.

I've always engaged in a dialogue with my editors regarding significant changes they recommend. If I'm not going to use the change, I tell them so---and tell them why. Finally, I'll ask them to give the final draft, prepared for submission one last look. If they're not comfortable receiving editing credit, hopefully they will let me know.

The World change/tracking feature has worked well for me in the past.

 

[Elianna]

Much of this discussion is really irrelevant to the reason many editors won't permit something like: "I hate you," he pouted.

"Pouted" is a perfectly fine verb, but it isn't a vocalization verb--it's a borderline case, but anything that makes the reader stop to consider whether it's a proper use isn't a good thing to do.

Some action verbs are pretty much impossible to do at the same time as forming and vocalizing words--e.g., snorted, sneezed, coughed, laughed, grinnedl. So these really aren't acceptable as dialogue slugs--but this doesn't stop untrained writers from using them.

The better ones are ones like said, yelled, screamed, murmured, whispered, muttered, moaned--which are fully capable of combining with vocalization in one action.

Pouted is in the in-between zone, along with words like gasped, and sneered, grunted.

To avoid reader stoppage, even these are best used in combination: "I hate you," he muttered, his face turning into a pout that Hazel well knew. There'd be no pudding for young master tonight.

I guess my problem is that's a whole bunch of dialogue tag for a simple action. For someone who struggles with brevity, I was hoping to cut the,
"she said pouting impudently" down to "she pouted impudently." I don't know. It's kinda catchy.

Of course, I see no problem with saying "she laughed," either.

Then again, I didn't write the rules to American English.

Sigh.

 

[sr71plt]

I guess my problem is that's a whole bunch of dialogue tag for a simple action. For someone who struggles with brevity, I was hoping to cut the,
"she said pouting impudently" down to "she pouted impudently." I don't know. It's kinda catchy.

Of course, I see no problem with saying "she laughed," either.

Then again, I didn't write the rules to American English.

Sigh.

You could do it that way, but then it should be in a separate sentence: "Dialogue." She pouted impudently.

Because it's no longer a dialogue tag then, so it would become a dangling clause if you tacked it onto the dialogue sentence.

 

[Elianna]

You could do it that way, but then it should be in a separate sentence: "Dialogue." She pouted impudently.

Because it's no longer a dialogue tag then, so it would become a dangling clause if you tacked it onto the dialogue sentence.

Dangling shmangling... I'll try it out and see if I can be happy with it that way. Really, it's not much for my laziness. Just a period instead of a comma, and then making sure I'm not making a fragment, and then... aw hell. What's the rule? How many times must you do something intentionally before you break the unintentional habit?

"This sucks." I pouted irritably. "Now I have to think about what I'm doing!"

I just don't see why I can't 'pout' "This sucks."
(Yeah, yeah. It isn't correct. Period. But I'm sick and whiney today.)

I'll do it becuase it's correct, but I'm not going to like it.

 

[sr71plt]

Dangling shmangling... I'll try it out and see if I can be happy with it that way. Really, it's not much for my laziness. Just a period instead of a comma, and then making sure I'm not making a fragment, and then... aw hell. What's the rule? How many times must you do something intentionally before you break the unintentional habit?

"This sucks." I pouted irritably. "Now I have to think about what I'm doing!"

I just don't see why I can't 'pout' "This sucks."
(Yeah, yeah. It isn't correct. Period. But I'm sick and whiney today.)

I'll do it becuase it's correct, but I'm not going to like it.

I wonder what part of what I illustrated would both do what you want and be correct that you didn't understand.

"Dialogue." She pouted impudently.

In that construction, you don't need a dialogue tag at all. And it does exactly what you said you wanted to do.

 

[poppy_cock]

I guess my problem is that's a whole bunch of dialogue tag for a simple action. For someone who struggles with brevity, I was hoping to cut the,
"she said pouting impudently" down to "she pouted impudently." I don't know. It's kinda catchy.

Of course, I see no problem with saying "she laughed," either.

Then again, I didn't write the rules to American English.

Sigh.

Aw I feel your pain. And when I'm reading the works of others--published novels no less--I very often come across authors allowing their characters to laugh, smile and grin words. I must say I've never come across anyone pouting a word before but maybe those same offenders wouldn't think twice about letting their characters do that too.

But ultimately, I have to agree with the pilot on this one. According to 'the rules' (whatever they are, LOL) you can't really have "But I don't want to," she pouted. Cos you can't pout a word (except maybe in that old English context where to pout is to utter).

But then again, don't they say 'rules are meant to be broken'?

 

[sr71plt]

Of course in this case, you don't have to bend or break any "rules." I showed you where the water is. All you have to do is drink it.

 

[Elianna]

I wonder what part of what I illustrated would both do what you want and be correct that you didn't understand.

"Dialogue." She pouted impudently.

In that construction, you don't need a dialogue tag at all. And it does exactly what you said you wanted to do.

I suppose it's just a habit. I'll get over it. Probably not today, though.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Speaking of editing and not following my editor's suggestions...

I was wondering if anyone could just tell me the REASON why this is wrong. Is is SO wrong that I need to go back and change these in EVERY story?

"You mean you don't want me to?" pouted Leanne.

I've always written like this, but I'm trying to take some suggestions to heart. I know someone could "pout". I know you could say it while "pouting," so why can't you just "pout" something?

Sorry. I'm one of those that just has to ask WHY?

(MistressLynn rocks as an editor, by the way.)

Pick your poison, I'm thinking. Some editors follow the "rules" while others are less "strict". I have writers who have a style that I don't interfere with. After all, what is writing but self-expression? Incomplete sentences do annoy me a bit but once I get accustomed to a writer's style I don't let that bother me and won't make an effort to "correct" them. I have my preferences but don't force them on others.

That's why there are choices. Sort of like a drive-in, pick your combo... (1) laid-back editor who is open to freedom of style, (2) tight-ass who calls the Chicago manual the bible, (3) a college-educated english lit major who will fix every little grammatical mistake... Oh, and would you like an apple pie with that?

This is Lit, after all. The economic fabric is collapsing, Iceland is about to go bankrupt, I say "live dangerously".

And yes, MistressLynn does rock, though not for the same reason <smile>

Sorry, SR, no slight intended.

 

[_Lynn_]

Pick your poison, I'm thinking. Some editors follow the "rules" while others are less "strict". I have writers who have a style that I don't interfere with. After all, what is writing but self-expression? Incomplete sentences do annoy me a bit but once I get accustomed to a writer's style I don't let that bother me and won't make an effort to "correct" them. I have my preferences but don't force them on others.

That's why there are choices. Sort of like a drive-in, pick your combo... (1) laid-back editor who is open to freedom of style, (2) tight-ass who calls the Chicago manual the bible, (3) a college-educated english lit major who will fix every little grammatical mistake... Oh, and would you like an apple pie with that?

This is Lit, after all. The economic fabric is collapsing, Iceland is about to go bankrupt, I say "live dangerously".

And yes, MistressLynn does rock, though not for the same reason <smile>

Sorry, SR, no slight intended.

You're going to make me blush, AS.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

You're going to make me blush, AS.

I'm the one who's blushing..

 

[_Lynn_]

I'm the one who's blushing..

You look cute with red cheeks, too.

 

[LadynStFreknBed]

I just stumbled on this thread.

AsylumSeeker, I can understand your concern about a story with errors that includes a public thank you to the editor. There is one such story in the Halloween contest. Honestly, my first thought was,"Thank God AsylumSeeker edited my story. This editor sucks!"

But now, I see a whole other possibility. The editor might have done a fine job, but the writer didn't make the corrections. As a reader, there's no way of knowing what really happened.

For clarification, would you prefer that I did not thank you even though I made the corrections that you suggested? I know you weren't referring to me, but I would like to know your preference.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

For clarification, would you prefer that I did not thank you even though I made the corrections that you suggested? I know you weren't referring to me, but I would like to know your preference.

For the record, I don't really care one way or the other. If I was "competing" for editing "jobs" like a contractor trying to drum up work so he can earn a paycheck and feed the family, it might be different.

I just do my part to help out others as my limited time allows. If someone doesn't take me up on an offer for whatever reason I don't mind at all, that just means I can spend more time writing!

 

[JamesMcIntyre]

Poppy's right

Why not '"But I don't want to." She pouted.'?

I confess that having sought guidance in Hemingway (virtually no dialogue tags at all at times), Henry James (seems content with lots of 'said' with the occasional 'exclaimed', 'asked', etc), Dickens (like Henry James), Austen (usually 'said' but with a fondness for 'cried'), Eliot (again usually said sometimes with adverbs), Charlotte Brontë (surprisingly few tags, the few used are generally 'said' or 'asked') and Gaskell (sparing use of 'said', 'asked', etc.), I agree with Poppy.

Whilst language is an evolving thing, is there perhaps some correlation between the rapidly increasing level of abuse and increasing amounts of advertising? In particular the odd use of nouns as verbs; who can listen to adverts for sprays to 'fragrance' your house without cringeing at the Brobdingnagian scale of the ignorance?

Equally there is the new phenomenon of the abuse of reflexive pronouns. Can anyone shed any light on this? Movies, old TV and radio recordings show no evidence of it beyond the last twenty years or so. Is it perhaps just an example of the ignorant trying to hide their shortcomings behind multiple syllables? Is it really only my teeth that are set on edge by requests to 'please contact myself' or 'is there anything else I can do for yourself'?

Is there a duty on editors to try and preserve standards of language? Is this perhaps the subject for another thread?

 

[sr71plt]

Why not '"But I don't want to." She pouted.'?

Maybe this flies in the British system, but certainly not in the American system. The first level of quotes in the American system is always the double quote (Chicago Manual of Style 11.33). Beyond that, at least in the American system, there's no earthly reason for putting the two sentences in the example in quotes as a whole (the dialogue, yes, the whole thing, no). third, the "She pouted" isn't a dialogue tag at all here; it's a rather awkward standalone sentence that begs expasion of some sort.

On the misused reflexive pronouns, I generally see it used by folks who think they are being more intellectual and proper when they use it--when, in fact, they are just using it incorrectly.

Beyond that, I didn't really follow what you posted.

I don't know as it's a duty of editors to protect the language, but if I saw that example in American usage, I'd certainly do something to it to protect the manuscript from it.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... In particular the odd use of nouns as verbs; ...

Most of the people who write here are US residents, and there is the (possibly apocryphal) story of the New York cabby who said, "There ain't no noun that cain't be verbed." Ignoring the fine disregard for multiple negatives, this seems to be the philosophy of modern US English.

Edited to add The quote is by the late Alistair Cooke.

 

[CWatson]

Or, to quote Bill Watterson's Calvin, "Verbing weirds language."

(The key, though, is that even when verbing a noun, you can do it well or do it badly. And The Reader can tell the difference.)

 

[JamesMcIntyre]

Quotes

Maybe this flies in the British system, but certainly not in the American system. The first level of quotes in the American system is always the double quote (Chicago Manual of Style 11.33). Beyond that, at least in the American system, there's no earthly reason for putting the two sentences in the example in quotes as a whole (the dialogue, yes, the whole thing, no). third, the "She pouted" isn't a dialogue tag at all here; it's a rather awkward standalone sentence that begs expasion of some sort.

I'm usually the pedantic wanker but I bow to a true master.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm usually the pedantic wanker but I bow to a true master.

But, as noted, in the British system you might be right. I've never been able to figure out the hows and whys of single/double quotes in the British system.

 

[LadyCibelle]

I'm usually the pedantic wanker but I bow to a true master.

I like you, you're funny.