Cough*Giggle

Possessive

I came across this in a favorite song, A Good Year for the Roses:

And the sound of our one baby's crying goes unheard.

Now I usually listen to the Counting Crows' version, and that above is how the singer renders it. our one baby's crying.

But this is a popular song to cover, and other singers say what probably I'd say:
And the sound of our one baby crying goes unheard.

Do you see the difference? The first has "baby" as the possessive noun and "crying" as a gerund (an -ing word used as a noun).

The second has "baby" as a noun, and "crying" as a participle modifying that noun.

Let's try it structurally--
The sound of our one baby('s) crying (subject phrase)
goes unheard (verb phrase)

Then let's break down the subject phrase:
The sound (noun, actual subject)
of (preposition)
our one baby (noun, object of preposition)crying (adjectival participle, modifying the noun)
our one baby's crying (object of preposition-- possessive noun and gerund noun)

That is, in both cases, the "of" phrase is modifying "the sound"-- telling us what the sound is, and the verb phrase ("goes unheard") explains what the sound DOES.

So... are both "our one baby's crying goes unheard" and "our one baby crying goes unheard" correct?

I think so. It's actually a similar issue to:
I spoke to him about his/him speeding.

That is, is the noun there going to be possessive or not? Is the participle there a gerund (noun) or an adjective?

Minor point, I know-- both are perfectly correct. But I wonder why we'd choose one over the other.

(Yes, this is the place you come when you really want to contemplate the sound of one hand clapping. Or one's hand clapping. :)

Alicia

Tales from the Slush Pile

Recently found in the slush (identifying details obscured to protect the writers)--

1. An author who spends an entire paragraph explaining, in carefully worded but deceptively vague terms, why her submission fits our guidelines. In fact, it doesn't even come close, and even a cursory glance at our website should have proved that. It's a canned letter, which is fine, but these "spaghetti on the wall" submissions sometimes irritate me. This one sure does. Why make such a grand point about fitting our guidelines if you're just going to ignore them anyway?
   
2. Several manuscripts in first person pov. We don't publish these. It could be brilliant, and the publisher will still hold to her rule against this style. I used to sometimes ask for revisions on these, but not so much anymore. I just don't have time for that. I am tempted to start a drinking game, though. First person? Drink! Who drinks? "I" do! Alas, that would slow my response time even further. Better stick to coffee and tea.
   
3. A clutch of stories with wives cheating on their husbands. This is a trend now? Cheating spouses almost always going to come across as unheroic, unsympathetic characters. There are exceptions, which typically involve some sort of heroic self-sacrifice or permission from the non-cheating spouse. That is, the "he pissed me off, so I'm gonna get him back by doing his brother" motivation probably won't work. Plus, we say "no marital infidelity" in the guidelines.
   
4. Double bonus: A cheating wife story told in first person. Everyone drinks twice!
   
5. A half-dozen or so stories with jailbait characters. There's no way we'll publish stories like this. Not gonna happen. I'm not going to jail for anyone's youth fetish. With several of the particular stories under consideration, it would be so easy to age the characters by a year or two and avoid the problem. So why even go there in the first place?
   
6. Several very good stories in the 70-100k range. Word must be getting around that we're looking for these. Here's a submission tip -- anything over 55k is an editorial priority right now. There are reasons for that, but we're not ready to make any announcements yet. Details will follow when there are share-able details.
7. Two -- yes, two! yay! -- that were referred by in-house authors. Real referrals, too, not just the "I met your author once and am trying to make it sound like a referral" referral. I love the real ones. It's a sign that our authors are happy enough to recommend us. I route these submissions to editors with somewhat lighter loads right now, with notes pointing out the connections, and with high hopes that a fast response will be given.
   
8. Verb tenses matter. I can forgive an occasional error with the past perfect tense or the subjunctive mood (which can trip up anyone, really). But random uses of present, present progressive, etc., in place of the narrative simple past are probably going to undermine your credibility as an author. We're also seeing a rash of improperly conjugated conditional verbs. Verbs are too important to be treated so poorly.
9. Know what else matters? Two things-- EROTIC CONTENT and ROMANCE. (Sorry to get all shouty and capital, but sheesh.)
   

All told, I knocked out about 80-ish submissions. About a half dozen either were routed to editors for further review or triggered an automatic request for a full. I'm also pleased to note that, due to our new procedures and system, our response time on initial queries is improving. This is a good thing for everyone.

Theresa

POV Glitch

I had not noticed it when she first arrived: the way she leaned too far toward him as he kissed her hand, the hint of surprised recognition in his eyes.
~ A Fatal Waltz, Tasha Alexander

That's the first line of the third book in the Lady Emily Ashton series. I've already read the first two, so I already know we're dealing with a competent, controlled author. Even the best can run into these small pov snags, though.

What's the problem with this sentence? We're dealing with a first-person narrative. This means the narrative should be confined to what is within the scope of the viewpoint of the narrator. So, if the narrator didn't notice these things, how can she report them? She can't, not without breaking the pov. Or, if she did notice them, why does she say she didn't?

Can anyone see a way to read this sentence so that it doesn't break pov? There is a way, but you would need to spell it out for the reader in the next sentence or sentences, I think. In the alternative, there might be a way to tweak that sentence so that the meaning is slightly different but the pov remains pure. Anyone care to take a stab at this as an exercise?

Theresa

Making it plausible

Sometimes even the best writers seem to take the easy way out, presenting something implausible or character-inconsistent to the reader. For example, I was reading an Ellis Peters book (and I esteem Ellis Peters-- I read her books over and over), and there was a scene where Cadfael (the monk-detective) double-crosses a knight (who is amused and will become a friend). The "MacGuffin," as Hitchcock would call it, is some treasure of silver and gold plate that Barringar (the knight) knows Cadfael has. Cadfael wants to give this to a young couple who are fleeing England's civil war. But Cadfael, when caught, sits on a burlap sack full of clanky things as if he's trying to hide the treasure. And Barringar falls for it and seizes the sack.

So far so good-- the implausible part comes after. The young couple get away with their goods (and the treasure, of course), and Cadfael allows the knight to escort him back to Shrewsbury (keeping him occupied so that he doesn't go after the youngsters). The knight talks merrily of how, when he gets back, he'll open the bag and have the treasure to fund his marriage. But... he never opens the bag. And of course, we know and Cadfael knows... the treasure is on the way to France with the young couple.

Why doesn't Barringar open the bag? Because the author needs him to be occupied and not chasing the real fortune and the young lovers. And that's not a good enough reason. It's not plausible that he would ride along with the bag tied to his saddle and not at any moment stop and look. Humans aren't built that way ("look, shiny!"), not to mention he knows Cadfael is a sneaky old bugger.

But Peters just doesn't make that plausible, perhaps because she didn't realize that it would jolt with us as "unlikely." So often we don't notice when something is implausible or inconsistent in our own story, though it would really stick out when we're reading someone else's. And it's often necessary to have this thing happen, for example, Barringar -can't- open the bag too early or he will discover it doesn't contain the treasure-- 1) so that the young lovers can safely escape, which he wouldn't allow if he knew the truth, and 2) he has to show that he has underestimated Cadfael's brilliance, and 3) he has to show that he is capable of laughing at himself later.

But you see, all this can be accomplished AND also be plausible. So if you were writing this, how would you make it plausible that Barringar doesn't open that bag?


I'd have some reason he couldn't open it here, like it's chained closed and he needs equipment to open it, and that's back at the castle. So that bag can't just be burlap (easily cut with a knife), but maybe a couple layers of leather, or chainmail (oh, btw, this is medieval, so no Samsonite :). And of course, it doesn't have to be a bag. Anything that can be tied to a horse (a small trunk?) could work.

So what's a simple, believable reason why Barringar has to bring the bag intact back to the castle before he opens it?

Alicia

On Hiatus

We're taking a short break from blogging due to personal matters this week. I might have time to sneak in a post later in the week, but don't hold your breath. Regular posting should resume next week.

Sorry, folks. Sometimes the planets align, and sometimes they collide and explode.

Theresa

Quick Tip for Hyphens and Adjectives

This just came up in correspondence with an author, and I thought I would share it here.

There's a quick and dirty test for knowing whether you need to hyphenate adjectives. Let's say, for example, you're pondering the phrase,

mind blowing images

and debating the hyphen between mind and blowing. In order to decide, just split apart the pieces and see if it still makes sense:

mind images
blowing images

Er, not so much. You really need to link mind and blowing because these two words form one conceptual unit, so you need a hyphen. Contrast this with,

tall cold beer

which can be split into

tall beer
cold beer

and still make sense. In that case, no hyphen is needed.

This isn't an all-purpose rule. There are exceptions, such as

beautifully made gown

because the -ly adverb used in this compound way never requires a hyphen. And then there are borderline cases, such as

ruby red gown

in which ruby modifies red, but can also be said to modify gown. These are sometimes called squinting modifiers -- modifiers which can be read to modify two different pieces -- and are held by purists to be evidence of imprecise writing. If you want to eliminate the squint, hyphenate ruby and red. Alternately, choose either ruby or red to modify gown. But, honestly, this is one of those areas of style and grammar in which reasonable minds can differ. You might choose one method and find that your copy editor changes it on you.

Theresa

Personal news

You might have seen this in Pub Marketplace:

From Publisher's Marketplace: Alicia Rasley's THE RICHEST GIRLS IN TOWN, in which a woman's life unravels when she discovers her husband's love child, to Debra Dixon and Deborah Smith at Bell Bridge Books, in a nice deal, for publication in February 2011 (World).


This is the dratted Book of My Heart, and I'm glad it found such a good home (and that I get to go with it :).

Alicia

Special Guest Post from a Contest Winner

Faithful readers will recall that in December, we hosted a contest on this blog to celebrate our second anniversary. We chose two winners, and each submitted sample pages and a synopsis for a spin through the professional editor's machine. Alicia's winner, Jill Stone, graciously agreed to provide us some feedback on the process.


Critique coping skills from a writer who is learning to love the red.

The critique, a rite of passage for any writer, has always been an uneasy process for me, so when I got word I had won a chapter critique from Alicia and Theresa at Edit Torrent, I looked forward to their insight and commentary with eager...wariness.

I’m strong. I’m tough. I’ve been in an on-line critique group for a year and I have a critique partner who is my biggest fan and worst nightmare critic. So I am used to critical commentary, right? Well, yes and no. I will be the first to admit that I was not entirely prepared for what I got back from Edit Torrent. A scene by scene plot and character analysis, as well as detailed remarks throughout the chapter. Nearly a month later, I still open the critique file and work on edits, carefully considering the editor’s remarks as I make revisions.

Over the past year, I have learned a few critique survival techniques, which I am happy to blog about. For example, the first thing I do is read through all the red, close up the file and take a deep breath. Let the process percolate, especially when contemplating major changes, like the suggestion below I received from the editor. Ready? Here goes:

“First, I think that initial scene could be trimmed or deleted. Unless those characters come in again {and there's no sign in the synopsis that they do), I'm not sure you want to waste the opening on them. The lack of setting and positioning suggested to me that you weren't really committed anyway-- the scene and characters didn't come to life, and you weren't really in any viewpoint, and it was impossible to visualize the scene.”

Excuse me while I let that ricochet off the inside of my skull and through my cerebral cortex. (My version of a deep breath.)

Let’s break it down, shall we? First of all, the editor is at a disadvantage because she doesn’t know the characters in the opening scene do have roles to play throughout the novel and are more than just colorful props. I write an assortment of eccentric minor characters into my romantic suspense tales and they don’t all fit in a four page synopsis.

On to the next comment about lack of setting and positioning. Now that is something I can work on. I like to open my stories in the middle of a scene and allow the reader to get to know the characters through their dialogue as the action unfolds. Will I ever be the kind of storyteller who opens with paragraphs of narrative that stage the scene? Probably not. (Being influenced by Elmore Leonard doesn’t help matters any.) But I can add a descriptive sentence here and there which will enhance the story and slyly reveal information to the reader.

“The characters do not come to life.” Here, I have an honest disagreement with the editor’s opinion. Enough said. “And you don’t really have any viewpoint.” I would say the majority of my rewrite time is spent on deepening my protagonist’s POV, so I shall continue on in that direction. It is obvious I need to develop greater brilliance in scene staging using dialogue, action and a few sentences of narrative. (I like to think of narrative as internal dialogue. I reminds me to tell the story through all the senses of the protagonist).

Also, I do not focus solely on what needs fixing. I learn from the positive remarks I receive, as well. The encouraging comments tell me what I am doing right. They underline my strengths as a writer and give me the confidence I need to take risks and find my own voice. How about these from Edit Torrent:

“I love the way the two detectives talk to each other. They are so cagey, and yet understand each other. Very nice! And their voices sound so right. Thanks for letting me read this! I think you have a great project here, and your voice is sure and your dialogue rings very true to me.”

Here are the truths I have come to accept about the craft of writing: A writer needs both praise and criticism in order to grow, and the critique/edit process is never easy. Let’s face it, how much better am I going to get as a writer if I receive a few grammar marks and a chat room smiley face at the end of the story? Not much.

My heartfelt thanks to both Theresa and Alicia for the time and effort they took with the chapter and synopsis. I will try to remember that red is good for me, and that someday there may be less of it.

G. Jillian Stone

There are fields in time that burn with desire. Meet me there.

Jillian is currently finishing the second manuscript in The Yard Men Series. Set in late Victorian London, Scotland Yard detectives have never been as wickedly sexy or as brilliantly clever. To read more about her latest work in progress, THE SEDUCTION OF PHAETON BLACK, please drop by her website: www.gjillianstone.com