The List

Okay, so I came across this online. Also this and this (thank you the daily wh.at) but those aren’t relevant. Just awesome.

But it got me thinking about what the rejection slips of today would be like for those of us who have sent query after query only to receive the polite brush off of: “It just isn’t right for me.” Granted, there are some occasions where a manuscript really isn’t what the agent represents, but when it isn’t right for anyone, you start to think maybe it’s the writing, not that it’s inappropriate.

So for you, I made the Agents Rejection List that I’m sure you hope will never come with a returned mail/email. Feel free to add more in the comments!

Dear Writer:

Thank you for the opportunity to look at your work. Unfortunately, I must pass for the reason checked off below:

1.     I’m already representing something similar.

2.      I don’t represent that particular genre.

3.      It just didn’t resonate with me.

4.      You had “was” nine times in the first paragraph. It’s like you live in the past tense.

5.      I’m not sure if what you sent me is actually in English.

6.      Unoriginal. There is already a book about a vampire boy falling in love with a human girl.

7.      Not interesting. The first five pages you sent me are all background on the main character. So were the second five pages.

8.      150,000 words? It’s freaking middle grade!

9.      100,000 words is still too much.

10   I doubt I can secure the one hundred thousand dollar advance you requested.

11   You used the phrase “fiction novel.”

12   You misspelled my name.

13   It’s “heroine,” not “heroin.”

14   I’m leaving agenting to be a rodeo clown. Don’t try to find me.

15   Is this a joke? Okay, Chris, you got me. I fell for it. But no one could write a book this bad and mean it. Wait, you were serious? Let me laugh harder.

16   I’m pretty sure I rejected this book last week.

17  Have you even heard of spell check? F7 buddy. F7.

18   My client list is full.

The Language of Confusion 2: The Legend of Curly’s Gold

And if you don’t get the reference, you don’t watch enough old comedies.

Anyway! How about we look up some more double meaning words? Today: right, right and right. As in, you are right, you have the right to turn right whenever you want. Obviously, no one ever mistakes the Bill of Rights as a law about right-hand turns. But how can three words that mean mutually exclusive things all be spelled and sound the exact same way?

Ah, English. I’d say it’s the most confusing language, but I took German. Do you know how many words they have for the? A lot.

First, let’s look at the right that means correct, proper. It comes from the Old English riht, which itself came from rekhtaz, a word from Old English’s ancestor Proto-German meaning good, fair, proper. There are several other relatives including the Old High German (prevalent around the sixth to eleventh centuries) reht, and from that the German recht, the Old Norse (the language the Viking invaders to England spoke in the Middle Ages) word rettr, and the Gothic (around 1000 CE) word raihts. All the words stem from that rekhtaz. But whence rekhtaz?

Its parent is the Proto-Indo-European (which is from a long time ago, as in 4000 BCE) reg-, to regulate, make just, or reign. That word has more cousins (in that they’re all descended from the same word) in the Greek orektos (stretched out, upright) and Latin rectus (straight, right). Really, almost every European (and even Old Persian as well) word for right descends from this reg.

Now let’s look at the right defined as “the opposite of left.” I don’t know how many of you have heard of this, but about fifty years ago, when my parents were in school, there was no such thing as “left handed.” Children who favored their left hand were punished and forced to use their right, which I bet resulted in a lot of messy handwriting.

For some reason, there was a lot of stigmata associated with left-handedness. That is also the reason the word right -> has a similar history to the proper-and-correct right. In around the twelfth century, the opposite of left started to be called riht in Old English, the good, fair and proper word.

Man, people did not like lefties. Many of Old English’s Proto-Indo-European cousins also associated the right hand with the word right (the French word, droit, comes from Latin directus—straight). Except, interestingly enough, the actual Proto-Indo-European word for that side is dek and from that, the Latin dexter (think of dexterity, not straight and proper).

As for having rights, that most likely comes from Old Irish recht, which also stems from the straight, rule, put right reg. However, the Old Irish were the first to use it to mean law, so they get the credit for that invention.

In the end, I guess you would have to say all three rights do have something in common: they come from a word for making something straight and good (although I obviously don’t think lefties are bad and think the whole idea that they aren’t good is ludicrous). But laws are attempts to make society correct (or right), aren’t they?

I guess they weren’t so different after all : )

Much thanks to:

Douglas Harper’s Online Etymology Dictionary where I got a lot of these definitions and histories. Honestly, it’s a great resource.

University of Texas at Austin, Indo-European Lexicon Pokorny Master PIE Etyma A great resource for that era.

The Latin Dictionary and Grammar Aid

Research THIS! Wait…I already used that one.

You try coming up with witty titles every day. Well, most of you do, but…shut up! (Real mature).

How do you guys research? I mean, those of you still reading this after I told you to shut up. Pretty much any book needs research at some point. A fantasy might require looking into magical rituals; in sci-fi, you have to make it sound plausible; mysteries often need research into criminal procedures. So what do you use?

Me, I like Wikipedia. No, I don’t use it as a source! I like to go to the bottom and click on the links used as references. Unfortunately, there are times when it leads to a dead end. Or the article is so incomprehensible you need a fresh source. In this internet age, we have access to all powerful search engines, but they can be as frustrating as Wiki. I type in truck engines and all I see is page after page of shopping sites. Nothing on how they work.

And sometimes, there are things you just can’t find in a search engine. They are the finer points of writing. For example, I wrote a book where the main character was a cop. I looked up as much as I could, but I still felt a lot was missing. If I ever get back to it (and I hope I do), I’m definitely asking for help from someone who knows. That’s why I love Twitter!

Twitter, Facebook (though I’m not a fan), and forums can be as strong a tool as an encyclopedia. I’ve met a lot of people on there and I’m sure if I tweeted a request for expertise, someone would be happy to oblige. Because sharing is the backbone of social networks.

What about you? What do you use? 

PS: Look for word-nerdery tomorrow!

Some things aren't as fun as they look.

Yes, I really did get jury duty. And yes, it isn't as fun as it looks. "Well, I don't think it looks that fun," you say. "Shut up," I reply. And then: "Wait! Don't leave! I'm sorry! Really!"

It wasn't bad, it was just tedious. I had to be there for eight fifteen yesterday. Actually, more like eight o'clock because if you want free parking, you have to park about a mile away from the courthouse. Honestly, even at that hour of the day, it's going to be about a mile away. This is at least free and has a shuttle bus (...a school bus).

Anyway, once I arrived, I went to the "Jury's Lounge." They handed out a pamphlet entitled "Jury Duty" and appropriately subtitled: "Why me?" I could not make that up.

Then comes the waiting. The sitting around looking at the hundred plus other strangers who are bored out of their minds because they thought something would be happening. Then something did happen: we were shuffled upstairs to the courtroom (exciting!), where the judge administered the oath (honoring!) and we...sat down to watch a video reiterating the points in the pamphlet.

And then we went back downstairs.

And waited some more.

The only time we were allowed to leave was at around ten thirty for a smoke/refreshment break and a visit downstairs to the coffee shop. We had to keep the jury badges displayed and we weren't allowed to go anywhere except the street, the coffee house and the lounge. The jury commissioner actually comes on the PA system and announces "I'm allowing you to leave..." I know. It seems like heavy handed government control. But really, it's because the jury is supposed to be completely unbiased. Even talking to a lawyer or a court reporter might influence someone. So we're basically stuck in a room with nothing to do.

At eleven thirty (both days), the commissioner came in to announce that all the cases had been resolved except one civil matter which was only going before a judge. They emphasize that our participation is still important ("just knowing that the jury is ready to be selected makes people settle") but it was still three hours of sitting around doing nothing for two days. Except being threatening to lawyers, apparently.

If you ever get jury duty (or whatever they may do in your country), take my advice: bring a book.

Was, Was Not

I’m currently going through my novel for unnecessary words, particularly that fiend was. It appears in my novel close to 1400 times out of 74,000 words. Not a big deal but still the biggest offender.

There are other words I use too much: could/would/should, have, got, began and started to name a few. I know I can’t get rid of all of them or else I’ll kill my voice and make the novel read like I’m avoiding these words. Because they are necessary sometimes. For example: “her embrace was close to suffocating.” I could just shorten it (Note to self: add just to the list) to “her embrace suffocated him) but there’s no character in that.

It’s good to pare down, contract, get rid of repeat offenders. But don’t go too far or you’ll wind up watering down your voice to the point where it isn’t interesting. Judgment is required. One of the reasons first novels are often so bad is because people have not developed that good-or-bad sense yet. I honestly believe I have improved with each one, but of course, improving doesn't necessarily equal satisfactory...

Yes, I know. It's fairly brief today. Succinctness is a rare and valuable trait, one I often strive for and fail to achieve. 

It's Kind of a Funny Thing

First of all, thanks to PK Hrezo for giving me an award. The best gift is knowing a good person thinks well of you. : )

And who will I pass on this honor to? More wonderful people, of course:
Gavriella Zahtz
Shannon Mayer
Karen Jones Gowen
Alexia Adams
Jennifer Daiker

All great friends.

Anyway, today I'm going to write about humor. I am an admitted smartass, although I find it easier to curb that instinct online, where I have to first type it out and then hit tweet/post before making a witty retort. Which, I have to admit, isn't always witty.

But I'm talking too much about myself. What I'm interested in is humor at a subjective level. Why do some people find something funny and other people don't, or even find it offensive? If you go to another country, you might turn on the television and stare at their most humorous program, confused as to why this is funny. My brother lives in Japan and he hardly ever watches their programing. He says it's okay, but prefers to use his laptop to download American programs.

There are some cultural differences in humor. I remember a year ago, Reader's Digest did their humor issue and talked about the funniest joke in each country. Some of them couldn't be more different.

And there also might be a biological component as well. Ever wonder why poop jokes are popular despite the grossness? Because humans may be wired to find bodily functions and other things that make us uncomfortable funny.

Even with these generalities, going from one person to the other will find people with different ideas of humor. So another part of your sense of humor comes from experience (think of a show you've watched where they had a joke you found grossly insensitive; but did other people laugh?).

Humor...it's hard to achieve. You can do everything right, but someone just won't be amused.

The Perfect Word

I'm busy! I'll still post, loyal readers, but I'm not sure I'll have enough time for more word nerdery until the weekend. Sigh...

Because words are fun. I've said that and I'm sure I'll say it again. A word can have a million different meanings, all of them not related to each other. It's been said that there are no synonyms, only the perfect word, and that is true. Often times while writing, I'll get stuck because I can't think of the right word, the word that means what I want it to and connotes the feeling I want. There's a big difference between "He looked at her" and "He stared at her." The first is open, general. "He" is simply watching whatever "she" is doing." The second is more direct. He isn't just casually observing. He is watching her. Without knowing the location or the situation, we can see that she is, for some reason, of particular interest to him.

If I get stuck, I think of the most general word for what I want to happen, then go to the thesaurus. I usually need to look up definitions, too, until I find the one that clicks in my brain.

But there are times when I can't find the word because it doesn't exist. Making up words is okay--sparingly, of course. You don't want a new language in your novel. In my book, I only have one: sludged. As you can see, it is simply a verbizing (check my last post for more on that particular madeup word) of sludge, which means "a deposit of ooze" or "sediment." It isn't an entirely new word or even completely unheard of (desludging is a word), but it isn't an everyday English word. However, I felt ooze and seep weren't strong enough for the scene. I needed sludged. Maybe someone will tell me it needs to be gone and maybe I'll listen, but for now, it's my perfect word.

Also: Right and right->

More for the list.