Should a Blogger Be Discreet or Discrete?

Stretching only a little with the literal definitions of the two homophones involved, bloggers can be discreet about their controversial opinions—keeping quiet about them—or bloggers can be discrete about their controversial opinions—using those opinions to separate them from other bloggers.

And I say that as someone who adheres to some mighty controversial opinions.

Most of them, I'm discreet about. You can identify at least some of them if you find me on some specific sites online, but I don't use my blog as a pedestal and proclaim to the world that I'm a six-day creationist. (Er, oops.)

Okay, so I don't use my blog to proclaim or explain why I'm a six-day creationist.

But some opinions, like my thoughts on how to price your writing and my belief that there are no bad words—those opinions, I announce, proclaim, and explain.

Why am I obvious about those, but not about others?

Any time a blogger gives an opinion, they're giving some readers an excuse to stop reading.

And any time an author gives an opinion, they're giving some readers an excuse to avoid their writing, be it fiction or non-fiction.

This blog is entitled "Another Author's 2 Pence", making obvious from the get-go that it's an author's blog. I therefore have no qualms about admitting writing-related opinions, because authors write. That's what we do. So duh, we'll have opinions on it.

(Frankly, when an author has a blog and never so much as mentions writing, it bewilders me. Even the so-hilarious-her-books-are-on-my-to-buy-list-and-I've-not-yet-read-one Twitter feed by Kiersten White sometimes mentions writing. Often facetiously, because it's mostly intended for her YA-reading fans. Lindsay Buroker's often-O.O-worthy Twitter feed is more chatty, but it still mentions writing at times.)

Authors/writers write.

And we have therefore opinions on the process.

Other things, like my my allergies, my hobbies—I really need to finish knitting that garment, because if it works, it'll save me a good $250—my faith, my beliefs about the world… Those color my writing, so there's a sense in which they're pertinent.

I mean, Zoe Winters is a Buddist. Her paranormal romance world features reincarnation. Those two things are kinda related.

Zoe Winters even comes from a Christian background—possibly Southern Baptist if not fundamentalist, from what she's mentioned on her blog—so when she explains a point of view on her blog, the line of reasoning she sets out makes sense to me. I won't exactly agree, but I can at least follow what she's thinking.

Her novels and blog aren't preachy. Her beliefs are…there, and she doesn't hide them, but she doesn't prosthelytize, either.

Some folks believe that such presentation of personal beliefs is unprofessional.

By that argument, the only "professional" way to write is as an effectual agnostic.

That type of writing has its place. (Example: Press releases.) But agnostics generally believe people are basically good. That produces an entirely different way of looking at the world from someone who believes people are basically bad—a perspective that colors opinions, story worlds, character development…

See the problem?

Your beliefs affect what you write, be it a story or a college essay.

So let's step back and bring up the detail I mentioned about being a six-day creationist. That's actually very pertinent to my writing.

Say what?

Standard evolutionary thought is that mankind is getting smarter through the generations, better, as mutations improve the human race with each generation. I doubt that's news to any of my readers.

Due to how mutations have only been demonstrated to delete or rearrange already-existing information (never creating information), six-day creationists believe mankind is actually losing ability and intelligence with each generation.

That's a fundamental detail that influences the development my characters and story worlds.

For example, due to the belief that genetics are getting progressively worse, my Darkworld stories feature a world wherein originally, everyone could do multiple types of magic, like Destiny Walker of Destiny's Kiss. But by the twenty-first century, she's a freak rather than the norm. Most folks can't do magic. (And that world's scientific community attributes that change to bottleneck effect.)

I'm sure some of you readers are intrigued by that detail—you might not agree with me, but you might like the peek into how another person views the world.

And I'm every bit as sure that some of you readers will now refuse to read anything more that I write.

Will the number of readers who like my forthrightness outnumber the readers who dislike it?

I don't know.

I can't know.

And therein lay the danger of being discrete as a blogger.

Being discreet offends no one, while being forthright about opinions will offend someone.

There's a marketer whose e-mail list I stay on for the sole reason that he's unapologetically Christian. I get a kick out of analyzing his writing, which combines intentionally low-brow grammar and unabashed declarations that "Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life"…

So unprofessional, if you ask most experts.

But he gets attention. (Mine, anyway. ^_^)

Discretion is one tactic; forthrightness is another.

I think every blogger should evaluate the potential gains and losses before picking which to be.

And I think it's rude of folks to pitch fits when others don't adhere to some ideal view of "professionalism". Everyone's opinions and worldviews are different.

What's rude to one person is polite for another. And vice versa.

Unfortunately, a lot of folks are stuck on one definition for "polite" and get indignant over others' presumed idiocy when they demonstrate other perspectives.

Do you prefer when a blogger is discreet about their opinions or when they let their opinions make them discrete from other bloggers?

—Misti

---

I hope you're getting value out of these blog posts. Each one generally takes me an hour or two to write. That's an hour or two that could be spent doing paid work. Blogging doesn't pay any bills.

So if you've found the post valuable, please consider leaving a sign of your appreciation in the tip jar. Thanks!

2 Types of Editors in This World

If you've ever started poking into online information about editing, you've likely discovered that the job descriptions for editor are myriad, and they differ from situation to situation. Some make sure all the content lines up and the plot works; some ensure that all the commas are in the right places. Some verify your data, while others make sure you're suitable for publication.

But when you get right down to it, there are only 2 types of editors:

1. "Big-picture" editors who focus more on the forest than on the trees.
2. "Little-picture" editors who focus more on the trees than on the forest.

Content editors, for example, are the first type. This is also the type of feedback you usually want from a beta reader. Does this plot work?

Line editors, copyeditors, and proofreaders are the second type. The technical aspects are their forte. Are my mechanics right?

A good editor of any type will have crossover in what they see, like a copyeditor who catches that your villain speaks like the heroine in one scene. That's a detail catch, but it's based on the big-picture analysis of who your characters are. The content editor who says you should study dialogue tags is catching a little-picture issue.

But every type of editing is skewed towards the forest or the trees. The skew might be slight, but it'll be there.

Acquisitions editors, for example. Acquisitions editors often don't edit at all but just make executive decisions about acquisition. They can lean either way. Both sides of editing will usually be important to them, because they're trying to find a piece to accept. They ideally want to find something that'll fit their publication or company as-is.

But what if an acquisitions editor needs a piece, nothing in the slush pile is ideal, and the choice is down to two pieces? One that's a little weak on the plot (forest) but that she couldn't put down for the beautiful prose and grammar (trees), and another that's missing a comma or two (trees) but that she couldn't put down for the compelling story (forest)?

Some acquisitions editors will prefer one, some the other. That's to be expected.

Because editors aren't the only ones like this. Some folks enjoy a movie or a story as a whole, while others enjoy them for the details.

Consider your average book review that's left on Amazon, which answers "Did you enjoy this story?"

A big-picture answer could be "I loved how Joe Blue always made lemonade from his lemons!" or "Suzie Maye was so annoying, but I couldn't help but love her anyway!"

A little-picture answer might be "I loved the poem headings to every chapter" or "That scene where Joe had to fish Suzie Maye from the semi filled with whipped cream made me cry!"

Neither type of enjoyment is better than the other. They're examples of how we're all different.

It probably doesn't surprise any of you to know that I (a proofreader/copyeditor) am a "tree" person. Sudoku's a breeze for me, and checkers isn't too hard, but chess? Eeek. So much to keep track of and analyze! (Interestingly enough, as I've gotten better at analyzing the "big picture" for stories and my own writing, I've gotten better at chess, too.)

What about you? Do you tend to analyze and enjoy things on a "little-picture" level or a "big-picture" level?

—Misti

Editing Ability, Muphry's Law, and the Overconfidence Effect

Okay, for two weeks now, I've been addressing self-editing. First, I asked "Is Self-Editing Unprofessional?"; then I asked "Must Writers Be Professional?".

I admit that I hadn't heard of Muphry's [sic] Law before I went searching on Wikipedia for the name of the concept I'm actually wanting to bring up, but this one also works.

Muphry's Law

"if you write anything criticizing editing or proofreading, there will be a fault of some kind in what you have written"

Source: Wikipedia

Nobody's perfect. For everything, there's a point where you have to say "It's good enough" and let it go.

But is that thing actually good enough for general consumption?

I noticed something, even as a teenager when I was hanging out on fan fiction sites (…and learning how to balance critique with praise).

As a general rule, the more confident someone was about her writing, the more her writing sucked. (Saying "her" because so many fanfic writers are female.)

The less confident someone was about her writing, the better it tended to be—until it plateaued at a point where someone was fairly confident that they could put a sentence together without being convinced that "My writing is the bestest thing evah!" Those coolheaded ones were the fantastic ones, mind you, but they didn't realize that or even believe it of themselves.

The tendency to overstate your ability in a subject has actually been researched. I thought there was some "law" about it, but what I'm finding is the term "overconfidence effect."

Overconfidence Effect

The less you know about a subject, the less you assume there is to know, and the more you overestimate your knowledge of that subject

Source: Wikipedia

So let's try a quick quiz to test if you might be able to self-edit your own work. Answer honestly, now.

1. You know everything there is to know, everything you need to know, and everything you should know about editing.
2. You know a little, but you know that there are many things still need to learn.
3. You know some, but you're not sure you know everything you should.
4. You know a fair bit, though you're sure you don't know everything.
5. You know a lot. You're sure it isn't everything, but you know where to look things up.

Now let's rate your score:

• If you answered 1: forget it. You have a long way to go before being able to edit your own work—and event that can't start until you have an attitude change.
• If you answered 2: keep heart. You have a way to go, but you're on the right track!
• If you answered 3: keep at it. You're getting there…
• If you answered 4: try it out. You might be ready; at any rate, practice will do you the most good, now.
• If you answered 5: get to it. You're a good candidate for self-editing; at worst, you'll clean up your strong points to make it easier for someone else to identify your weak points.

I'm not going to gracefully bow out of this one. I'm an editor for my "day job", so of course I consider myself a 5. But in my own writing, my weakest points are transitions and plotting. I brain functions in odd, transition-less ways that loses folks who know me well, so I have to focus to make sure I connect the dots. I can also produce individual characters, situations, and scenes that make a pre-reader plea for more, but stringing them together into a plot? That's harder for me. (That's part of why I have so many WiPs—some are only characters and situations, right now; no plots.)

Even in day-to-day life, I have a tendency to think too hard. That's part of why I've been making myself write so many short stories; they're making me focus on Ockham's Razor, to produce plots that fit in about 3k words.

Might you be an exception to the above rules of thumb? Possibly. But I can't think of one exception that I've ever encountered in more than 5 years of working professionally—if you count my time as a hobbyist, we're entering two-digit territory—so forgive me for being dubious.

Now that you have some idea of if you're a good candidate for self-editing or not, this series will continue, addressing issues like the different types of editing and tricks to help yourself see what's actually on the page instead of what you thought you wrote.

How'd you score on the quiz? What are your thoughts on Muphry's Law and the Overconfidence Effect?

—Misti

Happy Thanksgiving, fellow USians!

Must Writers Be Professional?

As a recap from my post last week, let's look back at Merriam-Webster for a some pertinent definitions (according to the unabridged online dictionary):

professional

participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs (definition 2a)

professionalism

the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person" (definition 1a)

Ergo, if you're seeking financial return from your writing, you're a professional. If you're not seeking financial return, you're not.

Notice that there's no time limiter in there. Someone who has a plan for financial return in the long run despite a plan for no financial return in the short term would still count as a professional.

But must writers be professionals?

In self-publishing, in freelance writing, there's a common attitude that you must be professional, else you shouldn't be writing.

Funny. It was my dabbling (for fun) as a teenager that gave me the skills to be what I am now: author, proofreader, tutor, etc. I didn't even know freelancing existed at the time, but I unprofessionally wrote articles to help friends, critiqued their papers (and they mine), and proofread everything I saw or heard. (There's a reason my mother adds "Do NOT proofread this!" to notes she leaves around the house for me.)

I would spend hours teaching basic grammar to fellow fan fiction writers. Some of you readers even know me from way back when. I remember reading comments on someone's story, to see someone respond to my comment: "Oh, don't mind her; she's rude and a little mean." I remember the time I spent a good hour per (short) chapter, critiquing someone's story per that author's request, and the author having to defend me publicly when her other readers came after me.

Any hobby has its dabblers. The artist who takes a year to make a painting for a friend. The sculptor who produces clay objects now and again when she wants them. The knitter who makes toys to give away. The poet who only bothers to write poetry if she forgets to buy a card for a friend's wedding. (Only those last two are me.)

Okay, so others might tell such creative folks that they should sell their work, but if they don't want to, nobody will flip out and ask them why they even bother with their hobby.

Whereas a writer who insists on being "unprofessional" and giving their work away for free gets insulted and pressured to stop writing.

Why?

Okay, so I suspect I know why. Writers are generally under-appreciated and underpaid. Look at how often writers are pressured to accept "exposure" as appropriate payment for something. (Dude, if I want exposure instead of payment, I'll make that call, thanks.) Newbie freelance writers, seeking work online, are often pressured to take paltry amounts of a few cents per word—

And I bet that paltry amount, offered to freelance writers, stems from fiction markets. See, magazines and e-zines are deemed as "pro" 'zines if they pay a minimum of 5¢ per word for fiction. A would-be freelancer (or someone looking to hire freelancers) might see that, not realize the distinctions between fiction and nonfiction—or between FNASR and "all rights"—and therefore offer something that seems reasonable to them… with it actually being a fraction of standard freelance rates.

Many types of freelancers give up all rights to what they produce. Add a "0" to the end of what's generally offered for fiction, and you'll be closer to hitting a standard freelance rate.

That difficulty many writers have finding respect and appropriate payment probably makes them a wee sensitive when someone waltzes in and says, "I don't care about the money! I just want to be read!"

You know, there are music artists who offer their music free, too, as downloads or just for streaming online. Maybe it's just where I hang out online, but I haven't heard anyone accusing such artists of devaluing music.

Not everyone's trying to write for their "day job", just like not everyone's trying to paint or sculpt or knit or sing as a job. They might do it for fun and share it for fun.

So no, I don't think writers must be professional, whether they write fiction or non-fiction.

What's your take?

—Misti

Is Self-Editing Unprofessional?

There are two main schools of thought in self-editing:

1. Nobody can adequately edit themselves.
2. Everybody can (learn to) adequately edit themselves.

My "day job" is as a freelancer. I proofread, write, edit, and write—for small businesses, with small businesses, for individual entrepreneurs and self-publishers, etc.… My first freelance job ever as an 18-year-old college chick was writing online articles, and I was expected—required—to adequately edit my own work. But as an editor for self-publishers, I'm expected to insist that everyone needs an editor.

I can't be the only one who sees the inconsistency there.

Business writers, students writing term papers and test essays, professionals writing their own e-mails—all of them must edit and proofread their own work. Okay, in some cases, editing can be outsourced, but on a test essay? My best essay grade in college was one where I was given the topic and had an hour time limit to produce that essay. My teacher gave me a 99% and later apologized for not giving me 100%, because she hadn't found any errors and the essay still resounded with her.

(Anyone thinking "But wait! Freelancers go through editors, too!" Yeah, for some types of writing, but in my experience, those are acquisitions editors; their job is to make sure you nail the tone and angle that the publication wants, not to play English teacher for you. And I know of one university that doesn't allow undergraduate students to get help beyond "You have comma splices in your paper.")

Self-publishers, though, are often told that they're being "unprofessional" if they don't hire editors and proofreaders for their manuscript. While I agree that most writers need or can benefit from a good editor, and a proofreader's often a good idea, I disagree that hiring an editor makes someone professional.

Hiring an editor doesn't do you diddly squat if you don't understand what that editor's supposed to be doing—and if your editor doesn't actually do her job. (Saying "her" because so many of us are female.)

A (near-)"flawless" manuscript isn't what makes you a "professional," either.

Look at Amanda Hocking. She's a nice girl, polite and treating her writing like the business it is. But all the editors she hired—and there were more than one—evidently didn't catch something in her My Blood Approves series that struck me as a large plot hole, which probably could've been fixed with little tweaks. (I still read all four and don't mind recommending them to people who enjoy that kind of paranormal romance.) Am I to consider her "unprofessional" because her works aren't "flawless"?

Look at Dean Wesley Smith and Kristine Kathryn Rusch, pro writers who probably have more stories under each penname than I have ideas. They know what they want to do with their writing, and they're more concerned about getting quality stories out there in enjoyable form than flawless form. Rusch has been an award-winning short story editor. Am I to consider these two "unprofessional" because they don't even aim for technically "flawless" stories?

Merriam-Webster is the dictionary of choice in US publishing, in my experience. The pertinent definition of professional (2a) is "participating for gain or livelihood in an activity or field of endeavor often engaged in by amateurs" (according to the unabridged online dictionary).

Professionalism is "the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterize or mark a profession or a professional person" (same source, definition 1a). So it's how you behave and what you want out of your chosen profession.

That makes "professional" a matter of attitude, an attitude of seeking financial return from your chosen profession. (You don't have to be "professional" and seek financial return from your writing if you don't want to—but I'll get more into that in a later post.)

A professional freelance writer, one who wants to make money at writing, must self-edit and self-proofread to get assignments, unless they seek clueless clients. (I'm sure this happens, and I feel sorry for the deluded clients.)

A professional author, on the other hand, can hire a pro editor or self-edit, depending on what they need. I find many more typos in, for example, work by another author I like who's a NYT bestseller and gets edited and proofread by one of the so-called "Big 6", then particular self-publishing authors I enjoy, some of whom I know don't hire out.

Now, notice that I'm not saying "You must self-edit your story" or "You must hire a pro editor."

I'm saying your choice on whether to self-edit or hire out editing does not have any bearing on being a professional author.

(Yes, I intend to return to the topic of self-editing next week.)

What are your thoughts on (self-)editing and professionalism?

—Misti