All that red ink

The first time a writer receives his or her edited ms back from someone like me, I am told, the sheer volume of corrections can be traumatic. For years I wondered why this was so, because I understood how minor 90% of the edits were. I wasn’t seeing it through my clients’ eyes, for whom lots of corrections make it appear that their brainchildren have been found very wanting. I need an explanatory document to cover this subject, and this is a great chance for the general readership to see how the sausage gets made.

All this, of course, is my own practice. Other editors may do things differently.

The ms comes to me as a single MS Word document, in .doc or .docx format. If it is not in that format, I will convert it. There are specialty writer packages like Scrivener and so on, but I lack the patience or need to adapt to these. Compose it in whatever you like, up to and including Notepad, but I’m going to work on and submit it to you in Word format, at which time you can again do with it however you think fit.

Word has a feature called Track Changes. I use this feature in every case, and I can’t imagine a situation where any editor would not, even if the client stated that it was not necessary (which I also can’t imagine). This feature enables me to add comments in the margin, and will remember the original document as it was before I got freaky. When Microsoft figured out that change tracking was fairly easy to use, it launched immediate efforts to confuse the issue by renaming this the Reviewing Pane. No new features, just everything has to be rediscovered again. That’s all MS does these days, push the user interface around and make the software worse each time. This is why I cling to outdated versions until something forces me to downgrade (i.e. switch to a later version, which is never an ‘upgrade’ in any sense of the English language).

The differences between the original and my edited version will become the tracked changes. Each change will show as a strikethrough and replacement, taken out to the margin. The deletion of a loose space will show the same red line out to the margin as the deletion of a paragraph. Any formatting change, any minor typo fix, does not matter how great or small: it will produce yet another line of ‘red ink.’

The first thing I will do to the ms is a global search-and-replace (SAR) for two blank spaces, replace with a single blank space. This will remove all the incontinently loose spaces the client has left in the ms, including those s/he used to align text horizontally (rather than use tabs in the correct manner). If the client is older, and has clung to the obsolete standard of two spaces after a period, colon, or exclamation point, surprise: the ms has just received hundreds and hundreds of tiny edits, each of which has its own red line stretching out to the margin. If the client is younger, there will be fewer, but I can still anticipate a great many. I will repeat this process until it returns zero replacements.

As I make my first editing pass, I will correct any typo that I find. Some are usage typos, such as single quotes where doubles would better suit, misspellings, little stuff. I can expect several per page. Each will result in one more red line out to the margin.

Of course, I am also editing and commenting as I proceed. I want to explain some of my edits, partly for teaching purposes, and partly because I believe that my client has the right to know my reasoning. The client is far more likely to accept an edit if s/he gets some idea of the logic that prompted it, right? This is also more collaborative. Maybe I didn’t quite get the client’s meaning in a given passage. If I didn’t, and my edit distorted something, the client should reject the edit, reword it him or herself, or confer with me to decide upon a good solution. Adversarial editing, in which the client can’t wait to “fight for her words,” doesn’t happen with me because I’m not interested in clients who want to fight. If you’re a writer, and part of your career dream is a hostile editorial relationship, I am not the right provider for you. I’m interested in clients who want to produce and sell better books in which they can take more pride, and in doing my all to help them grow. If my input is unhelpful to a given client, there is no meaningful relationship in play.

When I finish that first pass, I will usually take my eyes off the ms for a couple of days, then do a second pass that I call the normalization pass. As I did the first pass, I missed some things. I should rethink some things, and I should definitely tone down the sarcasm in some of the comments. Above all, my handling of the author’s habits evolved over the course of the edit, which means the first part sounds different than the latter parts. The second pass allows me to make that voice consistent, to apply the lessons holistically. It also generates a bunch more red lines out to the margin, both comments and new edits.

So now approaches the magical moment, the time when I will return the edited ms to my client. This person trusted his or her months of effort to my good offices. I am human, and I like to make people happy. I’m a businessman, and I like to meet and exceed the client’s expectations. Thus, I hope that s/he will love the outcome. I desire to hear that s/he finds the read smoother, clearer, more economical, and better than s/he imagined s/he could sound. I hope s/he will absorb the lessons I took time to impart, and is eager to publish and move on to the next big project, energized by a sense of quantum leap in ability. I understand that s/he will reject a few of my edits, and that’s fine. I hope I did a good job making the case for most of them.

While I’m all jazzed to hear my client’s impressions, on the other end of the wire, my client is opening the Word document to a sea of red ink. S/he can’t even follow all the changes; it seems I found multiple faults with every single sentence. To him or her, nothing s/he wrote was ever just good as it was, or so it appears from the storm of crimson lines. It must surely be a horrible shock, at least the first time.

And probably 80% of those red lines, perhaps more, are loose spaces, punctuation fixes, and repaired typographical errors. Their quantity says nothing about where the client is as a writer, except that:

  1. The client is still using extra spaces. They all do. I have never yet broken a single client of this. I guess I should rejoice that this will save them from outgrowing my services.
  2. The client made typos, as I do, as does everyone, and each one found is one fixed, thus reason to sigh with relief.

In other words, that the client is much like most writers, and the quantity of red lines by itself says nothing. Truly. It lacks even correlation with quality of writing. Someone could write a lousy novel requiring full rewrites of many chapters, yet do the SARs him or herself and have it proofread before it went to me, and there would be fewer red lines when I was done–yet those red lines would mean much more, edit for edit.

Before you get your work back from an editor who invested any effort at all, and had any sort of standards, be prepared for tons of red lines, and realize that the majority are nearly insignificant. And don’t take one look at it and think: Oh, good lord, I’m a disaster with a keyboard. I should just shove this in a drawer. I’ll never make it.

The true message is quite opposite. Absorb that one.

New Author Syndrome

For some, it doesn’t wear off with the first book, and for some, it kicks in well before the first book.

I was reading this great post on Ajoobacats’ blog about how rude and pushy some authors get when soliciting reviews. She has a prominent platform, and they’re willing to throw a few elbows to get her attention. The post made me realize that I can explain their behavior.

As someone who deals with quite a few new authors in his professional world, I can tell you: some of them become a pain in the ass. Not to me as their editor (they either sack me or embrace what I have to say; there isn’t much middle ground), but to nearly everyone else they know. And I know it because, when I first started thinking I could write fiction, and for some years afterward, I was such a pain in the ass about it.

For everyone who distanced themselves from me back then, I understand.

For everyone who continued to like me anyway, thank you, you’re saints.

For everyone who is now dealing with New Author Syndrome, whether in a spouse or a friend or a co-worker or a review demander, read on.

Here’s what happens. In a significant percentage of writers and authors, there develops this desperate hunger for feedback, critique, but especially approval. If it continues into the timeframe of publishing one’s own book, it takes what is a strong positive, namely eagerness to get in there and market the book, and turns it into a reek that drives away those near them. It can be found at SF cons with minimal effort, usually by the socially awkward person with the urban paranormal time travel zombie steampunk horror thriller romance who thinks that half of the panel’s time is rightly his.

In New Author Syndrome, the author’s world has narrowed down to two classes of individuals: those who embrace the faith and are useful, and the infidels who are useless. Everyone in that person’s world, and especially every new contact, is either on board with that person as a writer or is insignificant/annoying/counterproductive/The Dreamslayer. The faithful are those willing to read the book, review the book favorably, praise the book to the author, and otherwise touch up on all key points of promotional faith. The infidels are those who decline to sign on to any particular of this fanboyism/fangirlism.

Here is how you get past this phase.

If you find yourself buttonholing people in your world to read your stuff, and having trouble taking “no” for an answer, you need a critique group. This is going to hurt. The critique group’s job is not to fluff up your ego, but to tell you the truth as they see it. There are many forms of critique groups out there, but any environment whether online or in person, in which you cannot simply delete any feedback you dislike, will serve the purpose. This is how you become the writer you imagine you are.

If you have just completed your manuscript and you want first readers (there is no such thing as a beta reader, as beta testing applies to software, not literature; please discontinue that loathsome term, thank you), you need to find them without driving your friends away. It’s damnably hard, especially if you were so afraid of being a lightweight that you wrote a Michenerian opus. You may have to find someone willing to trade reads and critiques. Here’s what’s sure: your spouse may be willing to read it, but your spouse has a number of biases. Your close friends may say they will read it to please you, but may not really do so, or not quickly enough to satisfy your hunger. The pressure will impair these friendships if you are not careful. You might even end up hiring an editor to critique it (and no, I don’t mean me, unless you seek developmental editing and you are intent upon its publication). If you do engage a substantive or developmental editor at some point, and he or she is worth anything, you’ll get hit between the eyes with the most compassionate version of the truth that editor has the power to deliver. If up to that point you have tuned out everyone but fangirls, this may be devastating no matter how compassionate it may be.

If you are about to publish the book, or have just published it, yes, you must be out there marketing your work. The world expects a certain amount of this from you, and will endure it with tolerance provided you follow a golden rule: if you sense no interest beyond a very perfunctory acknowledgement, change the subject. Your need to market your book does not constitute urgency on everyone else’s part, or on anyone’s. If you are pushy toward reviewers, or fail to see the world through their eyes, you will either get no reviews, or you may wish you had got none rather than the blisterings you will earn. If your close friends do not want to buy and read your book, you will know that because they will congratulate you, ask a polite question, then wish you success. If they don’t offer to buy a copy, they don’t want to read it and they don’t want to promote it. This is not Amway.

Being a new writer/author is a lot like dating. The more desperate you are, the more of a turnoff it is. The more your world narrows to the faithful and the infidels, the more desperate you seem. Remember this: there is a whole world outside your writing and your book, a world in which everyone else has interests that are not you. If you take some time off from your writing and your book to show interest in that whole world, whether or not it helps to build your ego or sell your book, you’ll get past this phase and reach your writing maturity.

Some very famous authors never do. I recall the opening ceremonies for a science fiction convention, in which the guest of honor was a fairly famous author who is becoming fairly famous for phoning ’em in (I think he’s just hiring ‘lancers to do the actual writing). The MC introduced Famous Author. He smiled, waved, and said: “Thanks. Buy my books.”

Ever since that day, I admit, whenever I leave a review of one of his books, I admit I put a little extra mustard on the bad parts.

Book Quote Challenge: Day Three

By now you know why I’m doing this.

Well, you know partly why. The real reason I am doing it is not because I was invited, though that helped. It is because certain utterances have stuck in my mind, guided my thinking, provided me with insight over the years. And without fail, when I extemporize them, I forget their precise wording. That’s no good, because a quote symbol must mean: “these were the actual words, perfect or imperfect.”

“And don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”

–Leroy (Satchel) Paige as told to David Lipman, Maybe I’ll Pitch Forever

“The summer wore on and it proved a dismal season for the Imperial marshals. On August 1 Brune was caught and killed. On August 2 Ney was recognized and arrested. In October Murat appeared in the south and was promptly stood against a wall and shot. Two months later Ney was dead, the victim of a ruthless persecution by men who were unfit to polish his boots.”

–R.F. Delderfield, Napoleon’s Marshals

“The ruffians gave back. Scaring Breeland peasants, and bullying bewildered hobbits, had been their work. Fearless hobbits with bright swords and grim faces were a great surprise.”

–J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King

Book Quote Challenge: Day Two

As mentioned yesterday, this is my participation in this event at the suggestion of noted review blogger ajoobacats. The idea is to come up with three quotes a day, and suggest participation to three other bloggers, for each of three days. I have decided just to do the first part, since I’m good at book quotes but lousy at asking people to do anything.

“For years I have with reluctant heart withheld from publication this already completed book: my obligation to those still living outweighed my obligation to the dead. But now that State Security has seized the book anyway, I have no alternative but to publish it immediately.”

–Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago, back cover

“‘We mustn’t run short of filmbase,’ the Duke said. ‘Else, how could we flood village and city with our information? The people must learn how well I govern them. How would they know if we didn’t tell them?'”

–Frank Herbert, Dune

“Let us be fair. Ford Frick does not try to do the wrong thing. Given the choice between doing something right or something wrong, Frick will usually begin by doing as little as possible. It is only when he is pushed to the wall for a decision that he will almost always, with sure instinct and unerring aim, make an unholy mess of things.”

–Bill Veeck with Ed Linn, Veeck as in Wreck

Book Quote Challenge: Day One

So what happened is that fellow traveler ajoobacats, a gracious soul, challenged me to participate in this. I’m supposed to post three of my favorite book quotes per day, and nominate three other bloggers to do the same each day, for three days. While I’m not comfortable approaching three people to participate, let alone nine, I like the fundamental premise quite a bit. Unless I get caught up in my work, that part I’m going to do.

For today:

“You must love Big Brother. It is not enough to obey him; you must love him.”

–George Orwell, 1984

“If you put away those who report accurately, you’ll keep only those who know what you want to hear,” Jessica said, her voice sweet. “I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections.”

–Frank Herbert, Children of Dune

“For example, since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations. No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book.”

–Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

 

Ordering your clauses

It’s writing guidance time again, and I want to talk about order–word and clause order. We often write like we think, tacking on clauses in whatever order, because we know what we mean. The reader may not, or s/he may be able to decode the meaning but doesn’t want to have to.

I’m going to show you some sentences, and why the order of clauses matters. I guess technically they may not be defined as clauses, but it’s easier to say that than ‘pieces of speech one may switch around,’ and I can live without looking for the definition of that.

“Ronda Rousey made her first major public appearance since she was knocked out by Holly Holm on Saturday Night Live.” [Yahoo Sports, reporting on a January 23 airing.] The writing is unclear, even misleading, because it implies that Holm knocked Rousey out on the TV show. Better: “On Saturday Night Live, Ronda Rousey made her first major public appearance since Holly Holm knocked her out.” Clarifies that the knockout was prior to the show, doing away with passive voice into the bargain.

A better sentence yet would add the date of the knockout to the end, but the original’s biggest problem is that it forces the reader to stop and sort the words back into the correct order. The writer who thinks readers enjoy having to do that is a clod, and should change his or her thinking. It’s not that the reader can’t figure out your meaning with effort; it’s that this is a poor reason to force him or her to do so.

“2016 commit Van Soderberg finished his last high school class on Friday and will enroll at UW for the Spring quarter in March.” [UW Dawg Pound, January 31, 2016] Awkward, because it implies that there could be multiple Spring quarters, some of which do not occur in March, and we know that’s not possible. Better: “2016 commit Van Soderberg finished his last high school class on Friday and will enroll at UW in March for the Spring quarter.”

Better still, leave off “the Spring quarter.” What other quarter or semester would begin in March?

“As you can see, each service thinks Petersen’s classes at Washington have improved each year, and while the 2016 class is a smaller one due to a small graduating class, it’s the best on a per recruit basis of his three classes.” [UW Dawg Pound, February 3, 2016] The word order jolts the flow near the end. This is a sentence that sounds all right when spoken, but does not read as well in print. To write like one talks is not an asset, because people do not read like they listen. Better: “…it’s the best of his three classes on a per-recruit basis.”

Better still: “…recruit for recruit, it’s the best of Petersen’s three classes.”

Get it? If you think about the clauses relate to one another, it will not be difficult to arrive at the clearest possible sequence.

Every new author does this. Why?

When I take on a new client–whether this writer has previously published, or is green–I can count upon one thing.

No, it’s not an emotional quirk, like fear, touchiness, defensiveness, resistance to change.

It’s not a need to educate about The Comma Formerly Known As Oxford, adverbs, show over tell, or other common writing issues.

It is not a need to impress the urgency of marketing.

It is so much more basic. It involves two keystrokes that are by custom invisible: the space and the hard return, and their misuse and abuse.

I get mss full of stuff that has been aligned on pages by just hitting Enter however many times. In some of those mss, the writer has also gaily aggregated five spaces at the start of each para, or more when the writer wanted to center something on a line. This is all stuff I end up fixing. Yes, I charge more for it, and no, I am not eager to find it nor to make the money fixing it, because it’s so avoidable. I would rather help my client tell his or her story, not clean up the client’s inability to grasp the word processor’s basics.

And no, this is not becoming a computer nerd. This is learning how to use the modern equivalent of your typewriter: the word processor, the writer’s primary tool of expressions. The writer who thinks s/he is too good, too artistique, too airy to learn to use the tool is like the painter who refuses to use the right lighting, or an auto mechanic with a wrench aversion, or a banker who won’t buy a suit. Doing it wrong doesn’t add to your charm and mystique.

Let us define. The single space is not an emptiness. It is a character. A character is one of the discrete letters, numbers, or symbols that make up the full set of little pictures one may cause to appear in one’s word processing software, blog platform, whatever. The space has a defined width in each typeface. (A font is not a typeface; a font is a combination of typeface and size, measured in points, of which 72 equal one inch high. Arial is a typeface. Arial 12 is a font.) Thus, when one hits the space bar, it is not the clever placement of a void. It is the placement of a symbol normally invisible to the reader. It can be underlined, for example, or struckthrough, and one will see it.

The hard return, or Enter, or paragraph break, is what you get when you hit the wide key at right of the keyboard that now goes by the name “Enter,” usually with an arrow symbol going down and to the left. Elders like myself, who took typing in high school, remember its origins: on the manual typewriter, it was a manual handle one had to pull after typing each line, called the “carriage return” because it returned the roller carriage to the left margin and rolled the roller one line downward. Then we got electric typewriters, and the carriage return became a key to the right of the home row. Then we got computers, and Return gave way to Enter.

Somewhere early in the computing age, Return/Enter became the key of choice for “make a selected thing happen.” Happily, word processing brought word wrap with it, which gave us the “soft return.” When you type to the end of a line, without hitting Enter, and the text begins a new line, the software has automatically inserted a soft return. And if you change your margins later, the soft returns will shift. To know how beautiful this is, one perhaps must have had to type all his college papers on an electric typewriter (three drafts per paper).

When you hit Enter in a word processor, you achieve precisely what we used to call a carriage return. When you hit it on a line that contains nothing, you begin a new line, leaving a line that has no characters other than a paragraph break. Yes, a paragraph break is a character, as surely as the e with an accent aigu (é) or octothorpe (#) or lower case p. When you hit the space bar, you type the character known as a space.

Also worth knowing: the software doesn’t see a page of text as a rectangle. That is just how the software presents it to the user. To the word processing software, everything you write is a straight line leading out toward infinity. We who used to use Word Perfect’s Reveal Codes function came to a very good understanding of this, as do HTML developers. To explain, let me write a sample para containing features, bearing in mind that this platform will not let me insert some mistakes (such as extra spaces or loose tab stops):

One may not normally underline text for emphasis, and bold is also bad form. Italics are correct, but are seductively easy to overuse. If I find

more than roughly one use of italics per chapter, it’s too many.

Here is how software is seeing that para, described in colloquial plain English rather than computerese, with hidden stuff in blue:

[Word wrap is turned on, so insert soft returns at the ends of lines] One may not normally [turn on underlining]underline[now stop underlining] text for emphasis, and [begin boldface]bold[shut off boldface] is also bad form. [turn on italics]Italics[shut off italics] are correct, but are seductively easy to overuse. If I find[para break in stupid place for demonstration purposes] more than roughly one use of italics per chapter, it’s too many.[para break in sane place]

Does that make more sense now? This is why, when I italicize something, I shut off the italics before I insert the next space. Have you ever meant to type after something that was in italics, and the stupid word processor thought you still wanted to be in italics? That’s because the writer, like nearly every writer, committed the error of hitting the space bar before turning the italics off. This way, if I put my cursor before the space, I’m still in italics. If I put it after the space, I’m out of italics, and won’t have to go back and repair it.

Just as there are soft returns, there are soft page breaks. If you want to force a page break, the software permits this. A forced page break is also called a hard page break.

Now, when we want to align text on a page, word processors give us tools for that. If we want to center our title on a title page, we don’t have to hit Enter a bunch of times until our centering meets the eyeball test. We just change the vertical alignment for that page from ‘Top’ to ‘Center,’ and it will align automatically. And since we did it that way, we do not need another dozen or so carriage returns in order to reach p.1. After our title, we can insert a hard page break (in Word it’s done with Ctrl-Enter). That is what we should do any time we want the software to begin a new page, most commonly at the end of a chapter. (As opposed to the lamentable yet common practice of just hammering the Enter key, inserting para breaks until one reaches the top of a new page.) Aligning it horizontally is even easier: there are buttons at the top for it. The spaces are cluttery garbage.

And when we want to move text a distance from the left margin–most notably, to begin a paragraph–that is what a tab stop is for. In the typing days, we had a little guide we had to drag to the right spot, then a key to set a tab stop. When we began a new para, having carriage returned our way back to the left margin, we would hit Tab to jump forward (indent) five spaces. This is also called indentation, but Word has confused the issue–and not for a bad reason. One may want to indent just the first line of each para, or one may want to indent an entire para (quoted material, for example), and the software needs to satisfy both feature needs.

So. If you’re a writer, and anything I am teaching you here is new to you, your word processor use is at the amateur level and needs to grow. And that’s okay. That’s why I wrote this, so I wouldn’t have to teach grade school stuff. Now that you understand how this all came to be, and why it works the way it does, please learn:

Space bar: between words. The standard is now one space after all punctuation, not two, no matter what Mrs. Nitpickering taught you in high school typing class. However: Tab (or indent or horizontal alignment): position text relative to left margin, right margin, both, or center.

Enter: to force the end of a paragraph. However: soft return will happen automatically when you are using word wrap (the normal default) and needs no attention.

Hard page break (Ctrl-Enter): to force the end of a page. You can display the para symbol (¶) to see these. However: soft page break will happen automatically when you hit the end of a page.

Know what is the first thing I do when I begin to edit a ms? I look at how the author aligned the title on the title page. If the author merrily spacebarred the title to a center position, I realize that my client doesn’t understand even the basics of how the software works, and I prepare to fix that. If the author blissfully aligned it vertically by just banging Enter a bunch of times, same conclusion. I will have to fix not only the writer’s English, but the basic misunderstanding of the tools, like a carpenter noting that someone did a lot of cross-cutting using the rip fence.

Then I do a global search for instances of two consecutive spaces, replacing each instance with one space. The older the client, the more instances there will be. Then I repeat the S&R, and again, until it finds no instances of two consecutive spaces, since there is nearly never a need for that. All those spaces the author merrily used to align his or her title (completely unnecessary at this point to begin with, but they all do it)? All gone. All those five-space fake indents? Reduced to single spaces.

There being no search criteria I can use to eliminate a single leading space at the start of each para, I’ll have to fix those manually. Every single one. Every para in the whole book, cursor to the start, hit Delete.

As I go, I will eliminate all instances of more than two consecutive hard returns. A good way to spot them is to push the button that displays para breaks. I’m okay with one hard return to end the para, then one to space between paras (though ideally I would do a little growing of my own, and use the software feature that will automatically insert extra space between paras, which I confess that I do not, but at least I’m a little ashamed of it). Any more than two is nearly never desirable.

I will also have to spend a lot of time unjunking the way the client did things like italics. If you want to add any kind of formatting (bold, italic, underline, strikethrough) that overlays the given typeface, do not include the leading and trailing spaces in the italicized area.

Here I am doing it right.

Here I am doing it_wrong.*

If means that if I want to insert a word after “it,” that word will be italicized as well. I will have to switch the feature off, and nullify underlining on the space preceding my new word. If I had done it correctly, as in the first example, I could simply begin my new word after the space following “it,” and my text would not be in italics. But what if I want to be in italics? I can just begin inserting text before the space, starting of course with a new space. Solved. That is why formatting continence matters, and one should not include leading or trailing spaces in formatting. Yet writers don’t know (or don’t care).

*Actually, the blog platform made it worse. It did not display the underlining of the trailing space, as Word does. It didn’t even show me the problem so that I might correct it. I had to cheat by typing an _ (underbar) in place of the space. How it looks here is designed to mock up what Word will do naturally.

And because writers blithely include the following space in their formatting, they make–and are charged full price for–a lot of extra work.

In the ideal reality, pride would demand a basic grasp of the software’s concepts. If that is not enough of a motivator, then perhaps money will do the trick. When clients garbage up a ms in these ways, I must and do charge them more, and not with any joy. If clients want to save a little money, there’s the path.

And if you have been making these mistakes, either with me or with another editor, it is okay. It really is okay. Push comes to shove, I can fix these forever. I would rather have a great ms to edit, yet junked up with loose spaces and flagrant hard returns, than a crummy ms done with fine technical acumen. I am not mad at you (can’t speak for other editors). But if you want to make me happy at you, you can start doing it right, so that I can start charging you a little less–and so that we can focus on big kid stuff like how best to develop your characters and present your ideas, and so that I can stop focusing on trivia that must be addressed yet represents mainly avoidable busywork.

By viewing our site, you agree to reams of crap

We see it all the time, do we not? “Use of our site constitutes agreement to [a massive Terms of Service that has probably been read once in history, by the paralegal who mashed it up for the lawyer’s signoff, and contains gods only know what].”

I am making the case for paying such TOS little to no heed.

Here’s my approach: I don’t recognize them. Yes, they probably in theory have the law on their side; no, I don’t care. I will not comply, and they can go to hell for trying to give me orders. Here is my reasoning:

  • No one put a weapon to the organization’s head and caused it to publish a website viewable by the random general public. The information now has the moral privacy rights of a billboard, or the side of a city bus, or the painted front window of a business.
  • I am not planning on misappropriating their information, nor plagiarizing it. If the site has downloadable content, it looks to me like a pile of flyers with a sign that says “take one.” Any information whose distribution they wish to restrict, they will put behind closed doors (requiring login and password, perhaps more). The New York Times does just that. In turn, I decided not to keep visiting the Grey Lady in her assisted e-living home.
  • If the site doesn’t like people using itself unless one allows all the data mining and other widgets to work, fine; have the designers break it for anyone who will not. Oh my heck, they say, but that results in a lot of complaints? Too damn bad, not my problem. If the company does not care about my problems, as evidenced by a bulky TOS, it gives me no moral reason to care about its problems. I have the loophole here and I see zero reason not to use it.
  • Absent some moral reason, only enforceable laws and claims matter. One can claim that someone ‘signed’ an agreement all one wants, but unless one is willing to sue to enforce it, and would win, it means nothing. If the law or claim cannot or will not be enforced, the question then becomes whether it has moral force. For example, taking too many napkins at the burger joint: how many is too many? Legally, it’s probably as many as you can pull out before being noticed and kicked out. Morally, it’s as many as necessary to maintain some semblance of civilized dining. Morally, the business has trusted you without putting up an admonishing sign, or putting the napkins behind the service counter, or trying to tell you that your eating here constitutes acceptance of these terms. Trust deserves validation.
  • The best case for a moral reason comes from sites which ask politely, but do not penalize anyone for declining. Fark.com is one. DuckDuckGo is another. In those cases, with no compulsion, the site’s offer has moral validity and deserves reasonable consideration (and will get same from me).

The same is true for license agreements. The law has let the software industry construct a bizarre situation which now allows, for example, a car company to install software in your vehicle and thus claim that you haven’t really purchased all of your vehicle, that you don’t really own it. In service of the legitimate cause of fighting piracy, the law has let them construe it that you don’t ever actually own anything tangible, just a license.

That’s crap. To me, morally, a piece of software looks more like a book (or a coffee maker, etc.) than like a legal right to do a thing. I believe that if I bought a copy, I own that copy. The law says otherwise, and I do not care. If I duplicate the book and sell copies, that’s morally wrong. If I copy part or all of the book and claim it myself, that’s morally wrong. But if I tear a page out of the book because for some reason I don’t like it, I see nothing morally wrong with that. And if I want to hack the software for my own use and purposes, I see no moral problem with that either. It’s when I rob the producer of sales, or misrepresent the producer’s work as my own, that I step over the moral line. If it’s shareware, though, I should (and often do) pay if I plan to use it.

It is an example of how corporations and government frame a situation the way they prefer, and we allow them to get by with it by speaking in their terms, acknowledging the moral legitimacy of their framing. We could cease to do that.

  • “The TOS says you agree to take cookies and not to block our ads.”
  • “That conflicts with my own TOS, which say screw you, since there’s nothing you can do about it.”
  • “But you made a legal agreement!”
  • “Great. Sue to enforce it, and see how well that works. I don’t recognize agreements done in slimy ways, like four pages of fine print written in legalese full of hidden gotchas. If you want us to make an agreement, make it up front, sensible, and readable. If it’s not stupid, maybe I’ll agree to it. If it’s stupid, I’ll just say screw you.”
  • “You can’t do that!”
  • “Then stop me. There are a lot of things I would stop you from doing as well, perhaps, but I can’t. Better hope I never can. In the meantime, tough; screw you.”
  • “But the ads are part of our revenue stream!”
  • “The implication is that I care about your future. I don’t; we all have our problems. If you feel that way, then break your site for anyone who blocks them.”
  • “That’s not feasible!”
  • “I’m still waiting to hear how your problem is my problem. Some of your scripts, cookies, and such serve useful purposes for site operation; some are just data mining and shoving stuff in my face. My own TOS, which are not written down but which I consider binding, say that I should avoid all data mining that I can, and that once your site attempts it, you forfeit all moral anything and I can use your site however I want provided I don’t damage it.”
  • “If everyone looked at this your way, we’d have to become a pay site.”
  • “No one held a knife to your neck and required you to publish a website. You think it looks like your office filing cabinet. I think it looks like a billboard. I can look at the billboard all I want, and I don’t owe the billboard any data about myself. And if the billboard demands data, I get to flip off the billboard. Do what you have to do, but I’m not letting you frame this from a standpoint of legal or moral superiority. Legally, there’s nothing practical you can do. Morally, you have done the opposite of establishing moral high ground, turning the gesture of flipping you off into a pleasing act of rebellion. Party on.”

The philosophy in play here is simple: we are not morally obligated to comply with a situation/agreement/TOS just because it has some tortuous legal basis. Law is not morality and shouldn’t ever be mistaken for it. And when we forget that, we are letting government and corporations define all the terms, set all the parameters, dictate right and wrong.

They’d like that, wouldn’t they? They do like that. They hope you will troop along in submission.

And what of my own website, this one? Well, I’m the maintainer, not the user. I can’t do anything about whatever rules WordPress imposes; it imposes some on me, and I have to abide by them or they’ll kick me off. I have no difficulty with that in an ongoing relationship as a trade for a permanent hosting platform, since I get something of value.

But perhaps some users don’t like something about whatever TOS WordPress may have. If so, someone will probably circumvent them, with a minor impact on me–one is user data. But how, then, do I feel about the missing visitor data? I feel great about it. My right to compile visitor data doesn’t reach the moral level of my readers’ right to privacy, and if I ever try to say that it does, someone needs to put me out to pasture. Therefore, if you are reading this yet blocking a bunch of cookies or scripts or what have you, okay. I have no opinion on it. If I were the type to set up hoops for you to jump through, I’d be doing that. I am not, and it’s not feasible, and you could just ignore them, so it’s a stupid discussion that we need never have. I am just glad you are a reader, and that you visited today, and I hope you come back again regularly. Thank you for not plagiarizing or misappropriating; those are all I do ask, and I appreciate that you do not do them.

I hope more of us, in more situations, will require a better reason for obedience than “because a corporation tells us so.”

Typifying headlines

Whether or not I place faith in the media, I feel I need to know what most of them are saying. In most cases, I do not find it hard to imagine a sample headline message that–while perhaps never to be seen word for word–sums up what I expect from them.

Here are some of the places I read:

Fark: “Dragging junk over prosecuting attorneys’ table in courtroom trifecta now in play. Fark: all perps are pregnant females”

Marketwatch: “Dow squats, strains, groans to reach positive territory”

Coaches Hot Seat: “Give those OVERPAID underworked LAZY upper-case-shirking PUNCTUATION-DEPRIVED fools HELL JOHNNY CASH! Even though YOU HAVE BEEN DEAD since 2003!”

Accuweather: “WIND ADVISORY: there will be slight wind, everyone take cover immediately”

Al-Jazeera: “This is what news looks like when America is not special”

Tri-City Herald: “Contractors to trim Hanford jobs, as usual”

Centurylink: “Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot found, no, really”

Oregonian: “New restaurant boasts pizza crust one molecule thick, competition vows thinner crust”

BBC America: “Americans mostly arguing about guns”

RawStory: “Woman fights to wear colander on head on witness stand”

Ehowa: “New online ammo shop now offering free breast pics with purchase”

Nextdoor: “We stupidly let our cat get out, now we want you to help us find it before the coyotes do”

Salon: “This just in: no matter what it is, whatever you are currently doing is the worst and most racist, sexist, homophobic, immoral thing you could possibly do”

Seattle Times Huskies: “Here’s your recap of everything you already learned from harder working sites”

ODOT Tripcheck: “If you came here, you already know the roads suck right now”

EW: “EXCLUSIVE VIDEO FROM AWARD CEREMONIES: actress gains two ounces…or is it a BABY BUMP?”

Fidelity: “We’ve redesigned our whole website to make it so you’ll have to rediscover all the same old clunky features you know and loathe!”

Yahoo NCAA: “#1 team’s best player pulled over for DWI, status for Saturday’s game uncertain”

ESPN NCAA: “Scientific proof that the worst of anything in the SEC is superior to the best of anything else outside the SEC, because SEC”

Amazon: “What the bloody hell will it take to suck you into Prime? We shall not rest until we have the freedom to charge you an annual fee to buy things!”

Addicted to Quack: “Booo hooo hooooo! We experienced a slight setback of the type that every team experiences, and life as we know it is over!”

Angieslist: “No matter what your search results said, you don’t get shit from us unless you pay; and when you do, shit is what you get”

Demystifying Editing and Proofreading

I wrote this for Ajoobacats, an influential and popular book reviewer. It was very kind of her to invite me to weigh in. Special thanks to Diane Anderson, who made the piece better in every way through editing. One of the best ways to learn that one needs an editor is to be an editor, write a piece, find oneself stuck, have another editor look at it and see the problems with ridiculous ease, and sigh with relief at the things she caught that I would not have.

ajoobacats's avatarAjoobacats Blog

Many times, whilst I am reading a book for review, I find the pace varies, the plot stalls, there’s a lack of consistency in the narrative or it is full of little errors and I am left thinking that the book could have been much better if it had been proofread or edited.

However, editing for me is a subject I know little about so I was delighted when freelance writer, editor and proofreader Jonathan at The ‘Lancer generously offered to guest post and explain to me and my readers the technicalities of editing and proofreading in a clear concise and easily understandable manor.

I am honoured and delighted to learn from an experienced and candid literary professional and I hope you will find his thoughts informative too.

An Editor’s Thoughts on Hiring an Editor, by J.K. Kelley

Ajoobacats was so kind as to invite my thoughts on the value…

View original post 1,374 more words

Blogging freelance editing, writing, and life in general. You can also Like my Facebook page for more frequent updates: J.K. Kelley, Editor.