A plea and a query

[Alex De Kok]

This is directed to the volunteer editors of Literotica.

So far, I have three stories posted on Literotica ('Aunt Ellen', 'Kate' and 'Meg'). So far, too, I have not sought the aid of any editor, mainly because I'm reasonably happy with my command of English. (That's English English, by the way).

BUT, should I have so sought? Would an editor have made the tales better? Yes? No? Give up now?

If any volunteer editor has the time to have a quick look at those tales and give me an opinion, I'd be grateful.

That's the plea.

The query? Above, where I've used parentheses, should the period be inside or following those parentheses?

_________________________________________

Alex de Kok, still trying to be a writer.

 

[KillerMuffin]

The period should be outside the parentheses. Whatever is in the parentheses really isn't part of the sentence.

The purpose of a volunteer editor is to catch those booboos you make, like "They big black dog if red."

Another purpose of an editor is that of a sounding board, someone who'll look over your story and tell you where the weak parts and the strong parts are. They don't just look at your grammar and punctuation, they look at the story as a whole. An editor can tell you if your characters seem real, or if they seem cardboard. They can tell you if the characters are developing well or doing things out of character. They can also point out places where characters are doing the physically impossible, which can happen frequently in erotica.

You aren't required to use an editor, but they can help. Just be ready to have them put red marks all through your work. If you can't handle criticism very well, and get defensive when someone points out trouble with your work, then an editor might be a bad idea. As hard as it is to write being edited is even harder, you lay your ego open to a whipping. Even the most politely couched criticism can hurt.

 

[Weird Harold]

BUT, should I have so sought? Would an editor have made the tales better? Yes? No? Give up now?

I did a quick read and spell check on all three of your stories. (Usually the first step for me in the editing process.)

Your stories would be a pleasure to edit, but you do need another set of eyes to go over them. Not because you have a poor command of the English language, but because you are too close to the work to see where it is weak.

When you edit your own work, your eyes tend to see what you intended to type rather than what is actually on the page.

I found a lot of fragments and long sentences in your stories. Most of them were, I suspect, typos. Mostly commas and periods interchanged causing Word's grammar checker to misinterpret what you intended.

The only consistant flaw I found was in the punctuation of "internal dialogue." Properly, thoughts should be in Italics. Where the submission process doesn't allow for the use of Italics, Single quotes are what I usually see. There does need to be some method of distinguishing thoughts from narration and other dialogue.

There were also a lot of minor changes to wording or punctuation that I would have suggested in a full edit, but nothing of real substance.

As a reader, there was nothing in your story egregious enough to comment on. However, when in "editing mode" and doing a detailed examination, looking for "errors," there is almost always something that I would have phrased differently, or bit of trivia the author may not have considered to point out. Sometimes, a missing comma completely changes the meaning of a sentence. I'll usually point that out, and ask the author which meaning he wanted.

I should point out that since the editors are volunteers, there is a wide disparity in style and accuracy of the editing. As WhisperSecret has said elsewhere, sending a story to more than one editor will gain you more than one viewpoint of your story. Multiple viewpoints, which seldom overlap.

If you decide to try the volunteer editors, try more than one until you find one or two who compliment your style. My style seems to fit most people, but I have gotten some rude feedback about my comments from a few authors. It often takes a Rhinoceros Hide coat to deal with editor's comments. Just remember that whatever comments an editor might make, it's your story and you have the final word.

 

[Alex De Kok]

KillerMuffin

Thanks for the feedback. I thought the period outside the parentheses was right, but had this sudden doubt and English Language lessons at school are a l-o-o-o-n-g time ago! Your comments about the editing process were also welcome. Thanks again.

WeirdHarold

Thank you, too, particularly for the 'your stories would be a pleasure to edit'. A real boost to the ego. Your comment about the extra set of eyes did not surprise me, because I have been thinking that, as you so rightly said, I'm 'too close to the work'. I have three more parts to 'Aunt Ellen' submitted and waiting to be posted. I'll await my fate with equanimity on those. I also have ideas for more work. These however will have to wait as I'm a mature student trying to get the degree I should have studied for years ago and I have two exams this coming week!

Thanks again to you both. I may well ask for editing help on future work.

 

[Whispersecret]

Actually, KM, you're mistaken.

In Strunk and White's Elements of Style, it says,

(When a wholly detached expression or sentence is parenthesized, the final stop comes before the last mark of parenthesis.)

So, Alex, because your sentence was completely detatched, it should have had the period inside the parentheses.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Well, just oh my gawd, I give up.

According to Websters here, when using parentheses with other punctuation marks, punctuate the main part of the sentence as if the parenthetical portion was not there. A punctuation mark comes after the second parenthesis if the punctuation mark applies to the whole sentence and not just to the parenthetical portion. Accordingly, place punctuation marks inside the second parenthesis if the punctuation mark applies only to the material within the parenthetical portion.

It's confusing me when they only tell me half the story. Apparently this only applies to parenthetical statements in the middle of a sentence or separated a sentence off by themselves.

 

[Weird Harold]

Accordingly, place punctuation marks inside the second parenthesis if the punctuation mark applies only to the material within the parenthetical portion.

Think of things inside paretheses as being a single word, or a separate page.

Punctuate things inside as if the rest of the sentence doesn't exist, then punctuate the sentence outside as if the parenthetical statement was a single word.

I think it is extremely difficult, (Hah! It's nearly impossible!), to come up with an example.

 

[Closet Desire]

Sources of authority...

Strunk and White is a brilliant book and we'd all be better off if journalists, politicians, and academics would read the tiny thing and take heed. But, I think the Chicago Manual of Style is the most widely used reference for writers intending to publish. You can usually get a nearly current copy off the bargain rack at Barnes and Noble for less than ten bucks. The information in it is logically arranged and quick to reference.

There are other references for academics like the MLA Style Manual (Modern Language Association) or the APA Style Manual (American Psychological Association), but they generally have the same information plus boring stuff for dried up papers that nobody's going to read anyway. All the publishers I've worked with insist on the Chicago Guide. Hope that helps.

Oh...jump into the fray you say? Punctuation goes outside the parenthesis. Better yet, try not to use parenthesis in popular writing and stories. There's usually a better way to include the thought without breaking up the flow of text. My humble opinion (of course)!

For the ambitious, parentheses and punctuation are addressed in the CM beginning in section 5.97. It does suggest the use of em dashes with the parentheses reserved for something more "digressive" from the relationship of the text.

[Edited by Closet Desire on 01-09-2001 at 08:29 AM]

 

[Closet Desire]

piqued my curiosity...

BUT, should I have so sought? Would an editor have made the tales better? Yes? No? Give up now?

The only consistant flaw I found was in the punctuation of "internal dialogue." Properly, thoughts should be in Italics. Where the submission process doesn't allow for the use of Italics, Single quotes are what I usually see. There does need to be some method of distinguishing thoughts from narration and other dialogue.

First, I have to say I admire those who have the patience and the skill to edit work as volunteers. For me, the only thing worse than editing someone else's work is editing my own. Well, grading papers is probably worse. Not because I don't like other people's work, but because I find it tedious and I worry that I'll do it "wrong".

"Internal dialogue" or internal discourse is something I have to admit not being terribly consistent about in editing so I decided to have a look at what is currently considered proper. Here it is for those who are interested:

10.32 Indirect discourse. No quotation marks are used with indirect discourse or with rhetorical, unspoken, or imaginary questions:

Tom told Huck they had to do it that way because the books said so.
What am I doing here? she wondered.
Very well, you say, but is there no choice?
He thought suddenly, I have been here before.
The question is, What do we do now?

(See also 5.17-19, 5.66.)

(from Chicago Manual)

As for using italics to set internal discourse off it appears that this is no longer fashionable and they should no longer be used according to a different section of the manual except to place emphasis on single words like "Why" or "What".

Thanks for making me get off my duff and look this one up!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: piqued my curiosity...

10.32 Indirect discourse. No quotation marks are used with indirect discourse or with rhetorical, unspoken, or imaginary questions:

...

As for using italics to set internal discourse off it appears that this is no longer fashionable and they should no longer be used according to a different section of the manual except to place emphasis on single words like "Why" or "What".

I don't know about "fashionable," but I still see italics to set off "thoughts" when they are worded as dialogue in the new books section of the library. As a reader, I find that some sort of punctuation is needed to distinguish them from narrative comments.

I think there should be some difference bewteen

He thought there was something strange going on.

And

There's something strange going on, he thought.

The advice I was given, (and pass on because it is logical,) was, "Internal Dialogue is the same as external dialogue, with the exception of Italics in place of double quotes." The use of single quotes in place of Italics is the most common method of punctuation I see where Italics isn't practical.

I don't pretend to be an expert on the "official rules" and base my comments on what I see as "common usage" in commercially published novels. It is interesting to see that the "official rules" are subject to what is fashionable.

I wonder if "Internal Dialogue" and "indirect discourse" are really synonymous? In my example above, I would consider the first to be discourse, and the second to be dialogue.

 

[Closet Desire]

Artistic license

My use of the term "fashionable" was a figurative way of saying that conventions change. Some years back it was convention to use full justification on text in magazine columns and books. This started out for practical reasons in setting hot lead type, but wasn't really necessay when digital typesetting entered the scene. Still, many editors and publishers thought it looked neater. Then, it slowly changed to ragged right because, it is said, it's easier to read. Same for underlining titles when the best tool a writer could have was a typewriter. Of course, now we can use italics for book titles and quotes for short story titles so we submit to publishers with proper form. It used to be "fashionable" to use commas before "and" in a series, now it's considered optional with a preference to not use it. Most of these changes I don't have a clue about so far as reason. I just know that academic publishers (of course, we're not concerned with them here at lit!) can be pretty pedantic.

I agree that many books use italics to set off internal discourse (yes, same as dialogue) and, personally, I like it myself...gives me that warm fuzzy feeling inside! Publishers, editors and writers have their own conventions and the first two rule. I don't think it really matters as long as it's consistent and the reader understands what's going on.

I think the point I'm really trying to make for writers is that you can't go wrong when using the standard reference. It gives you a consistent way of producing your work and will always have an answer for those tiny details that often cause confusion and is more reliable than asking others for advice. It's also easier than thumbing through a book trying to find out how someone else did it (guilty here!). What a publisher or editor does with it afterwards is anybody's guess, but if you want to publish it you follow their rules. Most of the US publishers I work with now, not all, insist that I follow the Chicago Manual. The exceptions are the academics who insist on the MLA Guide. Of course, many also publish their own guide.

Official rules generally reflect the most current trends in commonly accepted usage hence the gradual changes over time. Who dictates these changes I wouldn't even hazard a guess. The last ones to change are often the biggest, most influential publishers. I know how hard it is for me, as an individual, to change the way I was always taught so for a huge organisation I can imagine the resistance to change.

I do know that I have lots of friends who are "writers" but who refuse to edit their work to conform to standards requested by publishers who had seen their work. Rather than make the changes and publish they stamp their feet like little children, insist that it's art, feel bitter toward everyone, and go paranoid. Personally, for me, it's just business and publish or perish seems to be apt. When I've written a novel or article I want it published so I'll do what I'm told to make it so. I'm no martyr.

Good luck to all!

 

[KillerMuffin]

Thank you CD! I was going to buy another book, but unsure which to get for my future purposes as well as my present one. I was going to settle on the Strunk and whatever, too lazy to scroll for it! but now I think I'll settle for the Chicago book thing. I'm going to burst into tears when I toodle over to Amazon aren't I.

 

[Closet Desire]

Books...

Gosh...I love buying books. I must have million that I haven't even opened yet (I just put them on the shelves so visitors will think I'm intellectual!).

I was just thinking of getting a new CM on Amazon...I'm afraid to see how much a current edition is. I've always bought them an edition or two out of date. It's sort of frightening...the book would hold a door open in a gale.

Guess I'll mosey over there myself...

 

[KillerMuffin]

Oh my, that sort of reference book makes me drool. I have two dictionaries like that. Of course, one is the ol' family heirloom. Most people pass on bibles, we pass on a dictionary. This is my side, not StudMuffin side who has the family bible. I'm going to have to trot my happy lil ass over to the used book store, she gets in the oddest things at times, she may know where to pick one up.

 

[Closet Desire]

Man oh man...

I could use a good dictionary. Sometimes I have to write using UK spelling, sometimes US spellings and I get so confused anymore. I found a gorgeous Oxford in a book shop...about 50 pounds worth...even came with a magnifying glass to read the entries. Keep promising I'll buy it on CD but it's so expensive. I found a compromise...if I type a word and Word doesn't know how to spell it...I change the word to something else.

Now, for something completely different, which is proper? Cum or come or can you interchange the two? And, do you say after he came or after he had cum? CD-able and I have a long running debate on this. When I edit stories for our books should I change the author's spelling to one way or another? Things like this you just can't find in the Chicago Manual of Style.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I actually never change the author's spelling. I add the correct spelling next to it in red. However, if the author isn't American and he has colour instead of color, well, I don't correct that because it's not wrong and Lauerl doesn't insist that everyone spell american. Thank gawd! I would hate for stories to lose their flavor because everything must be spelled american.

Cum... now that would depend upon the story as well. Obviously if a fast furious lockerroom style fuck cum would be more appropriate than come. If it's a victorian style fuck, come seems to fit better than cum. I don't think they are interchangeable. Came is slangish for the act of orgasm, but it's acceptable now, mainstream. Cum is modern slang. If modern slang doesn't fit the character, then it shouldn't be in the story, even if the character isn't saying it. I recently wrote a story set in 1874 and I didn't use either word because she wouldn't use either word. Crisis is the word I used, but I wouldn't use the word crisis in Stalking Tango because Tango would cum.

Now, came or had cum, they are both correct, they are just different tenses. One is past one is past perfect. Simple past tense is usually an active voice and the tense I usually encourage in most authors since it's not only the simplest to deal with but the simplest to read connotatively. "I ran four miles today." is simple, no connotations other than the fact that I ran. "I had run four miles today." has a "but" in there somewhere. I had run, but... whether it's there or not doesn't matter, past perfect feels reticent. "I was running four miles today." is past progressive, it also also has a "but" feel to it. You can combine for more joy "I had been running." Past perfect progressive. I think English has 18 tenses at last count. Can't wait til we get back down to 9 or so.

Okay, my original point before the grammar lesson. Came and had cum are the essentially same thing. Came is just more active than had cum. The feeling is that a real man came and a wimpy man had cum. It's not actually a matter of correctness, but a matter of feel.

So both ya'll are right. Have a celebratory fuck. You will cum and she will have came.

 

[Closet Desire]

Ahhhh...

...it's great fun isn't it? Cumming...I mean! Hah!

If only my PhD supervisor knew what I ended up using my English degree for...tsk...tsk. Of course...she is carrying on an affair with a dom from Oxford...and at her age. For shame.

 

[Weird Harold]

I actually never change the author's spelling. I add the correct spelling next to it in red. However, if the author isn't American and he has colour instead of color, well, I don't correct that because it's not wrong and Lauerl doesn't insist that everyone spell american. Thank gawd! I would hate for stories to lose their flavor because everything must be spelled american.

This is why I prefer to edit in Word 97/2000 format with the tracked changes turned on. It automatically highlights changes and shows the deleted text as well. I can leave it up to the author to accept or reject the changes. The reviewing tools toolbar has next/previous change buttons to make finding all of the changes easy.

The separate comment window with only a marker in the main text for comments is also very useful for me. It allows me to explain why I made a particular change, or question a particular wording without grossly distorting the story and leaving things in the text the author may miss removing.

I try to use the same language setting as the author so that the spellings are consistently British or American. Colour should be spelled that way throughout and if it is, Marvellous should have two l's.

Like CD, I tend to change things so Word's spell-check likes the way I spell things. When Editing, I comment on words that Word "doesn't like." One I see a lot, is "musky" as in "her musky cunt."

Sometimes, the suggestions Word makes are pretty funny. I encountered Christina Aguilera's name in a story recently, and while Christina is just fine with Word, it suggested I replace Aguilera with "Uglier."

Cum... now that would depend upon the story as well. Obviously if a fast furious lockerroom style fuck cum would be more appropriate than come. If it's a victorian style fuck, come seems to fit better than cum. I don't think they are interchangeable. Came is slangish for the act of orgasm, but it's acceptable now, mainstream. Cum is modern slang. If modern slang doesn't fit the character, then it shouldn't be in the story, even if the character isn't saying it. I recently wrote a story set in 1874 and I didn't use either word because she wouldn't use either word. Crisis is the word I used, but I wouldn't use the word crisis in Stalking Tango because Tango would cum.

Like British vs American spellings, Cum should be consistently used throughout. I tend to regard "cum" as an alternate spelling rather than slang in it's verb form. As such, "came" would be the proper past tense instead of "cummed" which I see a lot. When used as a synonym for "ejaculate" or "jism" I usually suggest "cum" as the correct spelling.

My aim in editing is to make an author's story more readable, not to bend their style to match my conception of the "right" way. I treat grammatical errors inside quotes as characterization rather than "errors" unless the character wouldn't make that kind of error. I try to tailor my comments to the needs of the story and the style of the author.

Context is everything. Like using "cum" in a victorian setting, what is or isn't an "error" depends on the context. Slang or jargon inside quotes is acceptable, but should be avoided in the narration. On the other hand, if the narrator is a "character" then slang and jargon might be appropriate there as well -- it all depends on the context.

 

[Closet Desire]

If the omnipotent narrator...

...has to use proper grammar...what is the impotent narrator supposed to do.

Yes, questions like these and more will find answers here on literotica. Experienced writers, authors, editors as well as a few frauds will ejaculate their knowledge onto your sheets...of paper. So cum on over and ask anything you like!

What a riot guys!

 

[Alex De Kok]

I didn't realise what I was starting with my parentheses query. The replies have been enlightening.

I bought myself a copy of 'Elements of Style' today. Couldn't afford the CM. I'm not sure I could even lift it and I'm not going to try. One hernia operation is enough, thank you very much.

Alex

 

[Closet Desire]

Oh yeah...

...it was loads of fun.

Elements of Style is a great little book. I like it a lot. I could be mistaken, but I don't think it's ever been updated from the original edition (early 1900's isn't it?) so you want to watch some of the specifics because they've changed.

Curious anyway...you're in England and there are some difference in punctuation and other minor annoying things (that's was CD-able tells me...she's English and I'm disturbingly American). I don't even know what the equivalent handbook is here in England.

Anyway...thanks for stirring up all the trouble! (big grin)

 

[Alex De Kok]

CD

My copy of Elements of Style is a fourth edition, copyright 2000, 1979 by Allyn & Bacon. The original, so far as I can tell, was copyright 1935. There have been some amendments. Word processors actually get a mention.

I take your point about it being American, but I'm a book junkie. It looked appealing, so I bought it. Like yourself, I do not know what the UK equivalent might be. I have a little book entitled 'Write Right', published by the same people who publish the Writers News magazine here in the UK. I believe it is based on a US original as one of the credits is 'Anglicisation by...'. I had mislaid it when I raised my query!

On the subject of books, one of the UK computer magazines gave away a version of the Concise Oxford Dictionary on a cover CD some time back.

Alex