Writing for different purposes

Being a good writer in a particular genre, on a particular medium, does not necessarily mean that we’re able to transpose that same writing ability and apply it to different media.

To put it in no-nonsense terms… different media require different styles of writing!

While writing an academic/research paper more often than not requires rather long prose (to accommodate all that research and explanations!), writing on digital media platforms require snappy sentences to catch the reader’s attention.

It’s pretty much the epitome of hook, line and sinker.

Digital media aims to get the reader’s attention as quickly, and as best, as possible. And then digital media steps up to reel in the reader with quality content. And the rest, as they’ll know it, is history.

It’s like, one minute you’re just browsing on Twitter, but you stumble upon Ryan Reynold’s hilariously NSFW, snappy tweets, and you’re now suddenly addicted and you wish he’d tweet every other minute.

Personally, I think these 3 quick tips help writers navigate the temperamental waters of digital media:

  1. KISSKeep It Short and Sweet!
  2. Look for the humour in things — Don’t take yourself too seriously!
  3. Watch out for errors — Do a fact/grammar/spelling check before you publish!

Till the next post!

What do writers need from editors?

Screen Shot 2016-10-15 at 2.23.26 PM.png
Neil Gaiman’s tweet on 30 December 2015—perfectly encapsulating all the horrors I’ve experienced in my professional career. *cue hysterical crying*

So I recently had a conversation with another writer friend of mine, and we went into a rant-like discussion about what writers really need from editors. Because trust me, though the two have to work very closely with each other, there’s a lot—a lot—of tension, especially when it comes to creative differences.

So I’ve come up with a short list that editors can keep in mind when working with writers:

1. Do not be their overly demanding boss.

Okay, so I think this is fairly self-explanatory.

Don’t order them about, no matter how tempting it is to put on your stern voice and start issuing tasks or arbitrarily demanding certain changes.

Everyone has their own style and preference, and own perspective on things. It’s great to share your own thoughts and feedback, but it’s not okay to override the writer’s style.

Instead, be their creative collaborator. Establish a common understanding (goal: to produce an awesome piece of work!) in order to have a fruitful creative discussion—what are the objectives of the product, who are the target audience, what are the limitations?

Work with them.

2. Do not think you know better than they do.

If in doubt, always query!

The problem that writers (and other editors alike—you have no idea how many times, as both an editor and a writer, I’ve had editors make changes to the manuscript just because, without any real cause besides stylistic differences, resulting in substantial rewriting that changed the entire tone of the manuscript) often face is of editors changing their work without clarifying, or checking with the writer about what the writer really means.

Just because we’ve had a mental block and can’t see something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there in plain sight.

Moral of the story: don’t arbitrarily (this is my new favourite word in this post) change anything and everything. Check with the writer!

3. Do not be their ghostwriter.

Now, I’m speaking from my experiences as both an editor and a writer. What a writer needs is someone to bounce ideas off of, someone to help make their work do what it wants to do, someone to be a creative collaborator.

What a competent writer does not need is for someone to do the writing for them!

The writing should be done by the writer, and the editing, the editor.

The editor should in no situation take upon themselves the responsibility of writing. While some may argue that substantive/developmental editing would include lots of rewriting, my humble professional opinion is that this is Mistreatment of the Editor and Infantilisation of the Writer. Developing the content of the work should include a collaborative process, reviewing the manuscript and working with the writer to fix problem areas.

Rewriting the work should be left to the writer. The writer has been hired for this exact purpose—to write! Extensive rewriting takes the editor away from what their main task is—editing.

While substantial editing is unavoidable in some cases (in an ideal world, substantial editing would be dead!), rewriting a piece of work should always be a no-no.

Of course we need editors!

So in response to my previous blog post wondering whether we need editors in this technology-infused world…

YES, WE DO. (As you can also tell from the title of this blog post…)

But why do we need editors when Word has spell-check and most modern phones have auto-correct?

The answer is: this and this.

As we have all experienced, spell check doesn’t catch every mistake either, as multiple news agencies pressed for time have proved:

“Prince Harry, ruler of the most majestic of mammals, whales!” WBAL-TV. Image shared from http://www.goodcontentcompany.com.
“Pretty sure Armstrong has a shady rug use past… All those holes!” CBC News. Image shared from bigjoeonthego.com.
“Didn’t know Obama and Osama were one and the same?!” Fox40 News. Image shared from http://www.2dayfm.com.au

So while modern-day technology with the red and green squiggly lines certainly help catch some glaring errors, they don’t pick up on nearly enough. And that’s why we have editors.

Technology is advanced. Technology certainly does make our lives easier. But technology doesn’t understand the nuances and idiosyncrasies of human language.

Instead, it takes the very human eye, and of course, the human brain too, to pick up on things that a machine can’t—things like sarcasm, slang, and sometimes even just downright straightforward grammar!

And if you need more reasons why, here’s a great list-icle from Lifehack about the weird errors found in documents relying only on spell check!

So the next time someone tells you editors are just… useless grammar nazis… (that took a lot out of me, just to type that urgh!) send them here!

Till the next post! 😉 And remember folks, the human eye is better!