Barbara Magalnick

Grammar is important, and it has not been taught in most American schools for many years for a very simple reasons: most teachers do not know enough grammar to be able to teach it. All prospective English teachers should have at least some linguistics as part of their curriculum; in fact, all English majors should, for without a strong background in the language it is difficult to really understand great literature. On the bright side, grammar is now being taken more seriously in the publishing world, and the evidence for this can be found in the proliferation of certificate programs in editing. Grammar is always a major component of these programs, and rightly so.

I keep hearing people say that "sticklers" spoil language; you have to "loosen" up. To them I would say that we have only language with which to communicate, and if we don't do our best to say what we mean and mean what we say, we are lost. Sloppy speech, whether written or spoken, starts a chain of miscommunication. Remember, at our best, nothing is totally communicated from one person to another. Never. Considering this, how can we do less than our best if we are ever to honestly say anything to each other?

In response to the comments of others, I would like to add that although fiction doesn't always follow the rules of standard English usage, it is important that the writer of fiction understand the rules before deviating from them. Picasso learned to draw before he went abstract; he didn't make all those funny little marks because he couldn't draw, but precisely because he could! That is what gives control.

The truth is that you have to learn the rules before you can break them.

An editor recently complained about a company he was thinking of working for with the following comments.

"Well, if you go to their sample of Level 1 proofreading, you will see that the sample of proofing did not do a very good job:"

[He should be careful about saying that the "sample” did not do…]

"This sentence, for example, was untouched: The CEO and/or President role is unlike any other role in a company.

"At the very least, shouldn't "President" be "President's" with an apostrophe "s?"

[Actually, what would be correct is: The CEO’s and/or President’s role is unlike any other in the company. Both need the possessive.(Actually, I think I might leave out the “and” and stay with the “or”)]

"I would question the legitimacy of the organization from it's own lack of proofreading in a sample that is meant to show proofreading..."

[it’s own lack of proofreading…! Yikes! it's!]

This fellow’s complaint about the proofreading sample has merit in that the sample is incorrect, but his “correction” not only did not fix the problem, but evinced his own poor grasp on grammar. And then to compound that, his comment, most glaringly with that awful “it’s” being used as a possessive, reflects rather poorly on his candidacy as an editor/proofreader!

Why would I bother to post the above, which I hope is not read by the person who made the comment? My motive is to point out that even working editors often do not have sufficient background in English grammar to adequately do their work. Having a degree in English does not mean that someone has learned the mechanics of the language. Grammar deals with the structure of the language and as such is never dealt with in literature classes or, alas, even in most writing classes, although it should be. This will not change until English majors, and particularly anyone considering becoming an English teacher, must take at least ne, better two, linguistics classes in order to teach. Such courses would be invaluable for journalists, writers, and editors as well.

If you want students to learn, you first have to teach the teachers. “

It's becoming too depressing to hear about the increasing number of people out there in cyberspace ready to offer phony freelance work. At this point I have received so many e-mails regarding scams I think I see a pattern. There appear to be two types, and some people who are scammed are well aware of it while others actually may not be.

The first, and more obvious, one is an offer of work, an inquiry in very poor English. Often, too much money is offered, particularly in light of no vetting. You can almost do no wrong, as they keep assuring you, "I want you.” It would be more accurate to say, "I want your money" because that's what they're after, and those of you who have been approached may know by now that the game is to declare they are sending you a very large check, and you need to send part of it to someone else, since it is more than the "agreed upon" fee for the gig. Some people believe the check they've been sent is good because it looks very good. In fact, it would take weeks to bounce because it has a legitimate bank routing number as well as a real account number. Not theirs. People get taken as soon as they send out that requested check---the good one!

The more subtle scam is to seek writers or editors (as many as possible), informing them all they must first write a two-page article or edit a chapter. The point is that the work is divvied up among the many people who have responded or who are contacted. If you agree to do the "sample, that is the work. I know of several people who actually kept contacting the person about the "real" work that was supposed to be coming. But they already did it! Just this morning someone contacted me out of the blue to write an article. I was asked to select from a list, given guidelines, etc., and they told me that regular work would then flow in. I was feeling kind of annoyed, so I responded that I was a professional writer and as such always worked for a fee.

The point is that in today's world most of us are "out there." We have social media pages, Web sites, blogs, and certainly sample work that can be shown. There is no reason for an experienced writer or editor to do a "test" or a "sample." Even in legitimate companies I believe only someone who doesn't know how to hire would dream of asking for such a thing. I have to say that in thirty years of doing this, I have never been asked to do freebies for any project. Long ago, sometimes we were told the work was conditional. But all the writers (or editors) were paid for all work done, even when it was unacceptable. When I was a project editor in several places, that was always the way it was. If the work of one of the writers or editors was unsatisfactory, that writer or editor was still paid but never used again. We always felt it was unfair to not pay them for their time, no matter what we thought of their work.

Lately, I've been hearing a great many gripes about errors in published books, and it is a valid complaint. But then a subsequent discussion about it in a LinkedIn disussion group set me thinking, and I decided to voice some of my musings.

A living language is a changing language. As such, if “wrong” usage becomes widespread, it eventually is no longer considered “wrong.” Living languages see changes in spelling, grammar, and usage. For example, the lead / led confusion may seem straightforward to those who adhere to current rules of verb conjugation, and yet I can see the confusion, as many think of read / read, and recall how in school irregular verbs were grouped together. It is easy for someone to imagine that read and lead were in the same group of irregular verbs. If the trend continues, they may eventually be. But for now, they are not.

I read the book aloud to the child.
Yesterday I read the book to him for half an hour!

We lead many groups on hikes. Last year we led at least fifty!

As for they’re and their, there is no excuse for confusion among the educated, and yet I’ve gotten e-mails from editors confusing the two! It seems that some people do not understand the use of the apostrophe, and that they’re means they are. Same with it’s and its, not seeming to understand that it’s is a contraction of it is, while the possessive of it is its, without the apostrophe.

They’re minding their own business.
Their minds are made up; they’re taking their trip in August.

It’s a well-known fact that a dog may chase its own tail.
It’s been snowing so heavily that the group lost its way.

I don’t blame text messaging for these problems as they predate TMs. The truth is that very few people really learn grammar and fewer bother to teach it. How can they if they’ve not learned it themselves? When I told my graduate school advisor that I wanted to take linguistics, he told me not to bother. I was shocked at his attitude (at an Ivy school, no less), and decided to ignore him. I wound up taking a number of linguistics courses. I am grateful for my decision. It was crucial in my career both as an English teacher and an editor/writer. I couldn’t understand how someone could study “English” and not learn the language itself.

With the rise of the Internet, neologisms today are multiplying as never before due to the rapid explosion of social media and the need to communicate in different ways, and particularly with an emphasis on brevity. After all, what are you thinking in 140 characters or less is an inducement to many to create new words altogether, if not abbreviations. Grasping the fluid spelling variations has been a challenge to those who attempt to keep up with this communication phenomenon. But it does not excuse blatant assaults on accepted grammar and usage.

English is a dynamic modern language, really a bastard language, but nonetheless one that reflects our times. It will continue to change with our society, and we should embrace the changes, keep an open mind, and not be too unyielding about trying to hold back the surge.

Unless other preferences are indicated, my editorial references are: Chicago Manual of Style, 15th ed. and Merriam Webster’s Collegiate, 11th ed. All manuscripts should be in a 12-point font, double spaced with all margins at least one inch. The manuscript should be electronically transmitted. If a manuscript is submitted with chapters in separate files, the final edited manuscript will be one file with consecutive page numbering. Front and back matter may be included, or in separate file, as preferred. Scholarly works are the exception, as separate files for each chapter, title page, front matter, back matter, bibliography, etc. are mandatory in some cases. Nonetheless, even in scholarly works, page numbers for the entire work run consecutively although citations and illustrations renumber with each chapter.

If a book has been signed for publication, and I’m dealing with an in-house editor, it is up to that editor as to the level of author contact. However, since it is becoming increasingly more common to have manuscripts edited before being submitted, the issue of an in-house editor as liaison has become more common for proofreading. When an agent is hiring the editor, the specific roles are stipulated in each case by the agent.

The editing process begins with an initial reading of the entire manuscript. The preliminary reading is necessary to note organization and content as well as elements that may require special attention such as footnotes, bibliography, images. Global problems may be noted at this time (for example, spelling inconsistencies). The second reading is the major editing read, and this is the slowest read in which anything (and everything) is looked up, confirmed, changed or queried. The final reading is to resolve any unanswered queries and to catch any discrepancies that may have been missed on the first pass. Ideally, this is done reading straight through. Inconsistencies are more clearly discerned if there is no interruption in the reading. The Style Sheet created during the first read is most useful at this time.

While working on the manuscript on the first editing pass, a Style Sheet is created, to note consistency on usage, punctuation, spelling, etc., as for example, whether to use the final series comma, capitalize certain words, hyphenate others, and so on. The Style Sheet, in the case of a novel or nonfiction story, is used to keep track of characters and events. In a work of nonfiction, it may also keep track of figures, tables, charts, illustrations as well as citations. Sometimes a time chart is kept, or even a map, depending on the material.

During the editing process, I may insert Comments. The Comments tool is on the drop down menu under Insert, and are usually transmitted with the manuscript. In order to view Comments, you can put the manuscript into Print Preview and go from comment to comment and accept each change or not. The process can be done manually by putting the cursor on each comment, and right click the mouse for a drop down menu and click on Edit to read and then Delete. But please do not answer with another comment! It will only have to be deleted later. Some clients prefer to have all Comments written right in the text, highlighted in yellow. That also works.

At the beginning of the editing process, the author will be sent a few pages for examination in order to ascertain that author and editor are “on the same page.” The Track Changes element in Word may be used for these few pages. Some clients want all the editing to be done in Track Changes. I can do that although I find it distracting to use Track Changes for an entire manuscript. However, the same result can be achieved by doing a “Compare Documents,” available in the Tools menu, between the original and final edited version. On the other hand, if you read through the edited version and you “don’t miss anything,” it is probably all right. If a question arises, you can always check the redlined version at that point or go back to the original to note whether it is as remembered, and whether there was a good reason to make any change. And I am always available for questions.

Publishers usually want a completed, edited manuscript sent on a CD. I can send the client the edited manuscript on CD, as well as electronically, or some authors prefer to do it themselves after a final reading.

The author is responsible for the content and its accuracy, originality of ideas and use of language as well as fair use of published material or trademarks. For nonfiction works, the publisher must determine the integrity of a manuscript. As an editor, any available backup is often helpful in working with the text. (more…)

Children are sent to school for an education, not to be kept from becoming educated because of the prejudices of parents. If a parent objects to a book, they have the right to say they don't want their own child to read it, but they should not have the power the keep that book from other people's children! When I was teaching, I cannot recall one single instance of anyone wanting a book taken from a reading list, etc. where the reason made any sense except that we had an ignorant parent with preconceived notions.

For instance, I recall a parent objecting quite vociferously to Bernard Malamud's "The Fixer," insisting that she didn't want her daughter reading about "drug dealers." When she finally caught a breath, I asked her the big question: had she ever read the book? Of course not, she screamed, she would never read such a book! I calmly told her that the book actually took place in a Russian prison and had nothing to do with drugs. She just stared at me (how difficult it is to find you are screaming with no sense of reality). I've never yet met anyone who objected to a book and in fact had read the book.

And, by the way, what if the book had been about drug dealers? The real issue is not the subject matter so much as whether it was a good enough book. Does it have literary merit or is it a piece of junk?

Looking at banned books from the historical perspective, to be banned puts a book in excellent company for the most part: Huckleberry Finn, Lady Chatterley, Of Mice and Men, Catcher in the Rye and Jude the Obscure are just a few of the novels regularly banned throughout the years from libraries and school lists.

My suggestion is that anyone who wants to ban a book should be instructed that they must first read the book and then present a written report on it, pointing out why no one else should have free access to reading that book. Would certainly cut down on book banning.

It is clear that writers sometimes have bad experiences with editors and others good experiences. I have had both. First, let me make it clear that I am both a published writer and a professional editor—a trained professional editor, not someone who decided she could edit because she was a writer or had been an English teacher. But although I am now freelance—and a great many of the best editors today are freelance—I also worked at major publishing houses, starting as an editorial assistant. I also studied linguistics. But for the most part publishing houses in recent years, in their restructuring and acquisition phases, streamlined editorial departments to a bare minimum, if even that.

Thus, most freelance work is better than what you may find working in-house today since publishers think bottom line these days, being managed by marketing and not editorial. That usually means that they hire young inexperienced people and unfortunately often do not bother to train them. As one young thing said to me one day while I was working on-site, “Oh, I am so excited to do this, it’s my first real editing, and I am so nervous because grammar is my weak area.” And she became an editor? I was dumbfounded, and still wonder about that.

But for many, there is also the confusion of what an editor does. Many people are not aware that some editors do only copyediting while others are primarily involved in line editing or developmental editing. The first thing a writer has to know is what his or needs are in terms of the manuscript, or at least seek advice. Many seasoned writers turn in manuscripts that only need copyediting, and don’t need developmental work. But that may also be because it has become customary these days to have a manuscript edited before submission, and I wonder if that began as a result of the dearth of real editors in-house these days. Most first-time authors absolutely need to work with a developmental editor.

That thought reminds me of another misconception. I still recall one writer handing in a manuscript, assuring the editor that the “book needed no editing because he had already edited it.” A writer cannot “edit” his own book, he can only revise it. We all need editing. Maybe some more than others, but generally we become so lost in the thought that we often forget the mechanics, and words we expect to be on the page appear before us whether they’re there or not. We become mired in using the same words repeatedly in the effort to get the ideas out, and that fresh, professional eye catches what we missed. It is true that a bad editor can make a mess of good writing but, on the other hand, a good editor can add that final polish that gives the work that professional quality. The critical goal of the editor is to make the writer look good.

In today’s market many agents and publishers insist that an author have the manuscript edited before submission. They may even indicate that developmental editing is called for. Publishing has changed greatly from the days of Bennett Cerf, who kept a well-staffed company and proved you could make money publishing literature.

As you sit on the freeway wondering why you’re not moving with 250 horses under your hood, you might reflect on the fact that in the short span of the past hundred years or so, man has produced more wonders than the sum of all that came before. Since so many of our miraculous inventions depend upon energy in order to operate, we have paid a price for this world, particularly as far as our use of nonrenewable energy.

Of our traditional energy sources, coal, which is the most expensive, produces toxic radioactive waste. And to be honest, clean coal just doesn't exist; and is not likely to. The supply of fossil fuel, another restricted form of energy, has been dwindling while the number of people consuming it has been increasing. Our traditional power plants cause global climate change, acid rain, smog, toxic mercury emissions, consumption of water resources and pollution of water. Further, having to depend on outside sources for much of our energy is not economically sound.

Nonetheless, we have been loathe to change. It has been easier to expiate our guilt by the mere act of admitting the need for change. The truth is that we have lacked the leadership and the policies to change our ways. In the meantime, we have been most unkind to ourselves and to our environment. But witnessing the consequences of such environmental pollution as polar ice meltdown and sea level elevation, it is clear we must act.

Decision makers have long overlooked renewable energy and even misled us into believing there are insufficient resources in clean energy. For example, Detroit has told us for years that there were no viable options to their gas guzzlers. We now know better, and production of hybrid automobiles as well as other alternatives is becoming a reality. Unfortunately, America did not lead in this area.

Americans helped create our increasingly complex world, contributing many of the amazing inventions of the twentieth century such as the airplane, the microchip and nuclear energy, among many others. It would be fitting that we deal with the threat to our planet and its consequences for future generations. We must harness our mental prowess and exercise our expertise for another goal: energy independence through the development of clean energy. It is sometimes referred to as green energy, reflecting the expectation its use will result in saving the environment.

Clean energy is electricity generated mostly from renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and sometimes low-emission energy sources such as land-fill gas, fuel cells, micro-turbines, and combined cycle co-generation. In contrast to traditional energy sources, these drastically reduce environmental impact. In addition to preventing climate change, reduced acid rain, and less waste, clean energy could embrace possible long-term price stability as well as enhanced electrical capacity and reliability.

There is no doubt that we need to develop clean power, which would also result in job and economic growth. Improvements in these areas over the past few years have made for better technology and lower prices. Clean energy has the power to revive struggling communities, and provide the economic and climate recovery Americans are seeking. Clean energy strategies, in combination with green business development, community-based agriculture, ecotourism, recycling-based manufacturing, and eco-industrial parks, hold the key to job growth, reviving income for households and government.

It is past time for America to go green and achieve energy independence.

On November 16, 2008, just one month short of his 98th birthday, Dolf Ringel passed away in Springfield, New Jersey. His granddaughter, Kim, said he had seemed in good health until the end. I had been thinking of phoning him, as I do every once in a while, but somehow the time got away from me. And now I wish I could speak with him just one more time. It was always a pleasure to talk to him. He had a keen intelligence and a very observant eye. But most of all, he was always optimistic. The only thing that got him down was that his wife To was very ill. She still is. He had no siblings left, although two of the three made it to their nineties. He had already lost his only child, Judy, and his one grandson. But his granddaughter Kim and her husband and two children brought him great joy. In addition, he is survived by virtually a multitude of nieces, nephews, grandnieces and nephews and two generations more than that! What a wonderful full life he had. Yes, a long, eventful life that was marked by his kindness, intelligence, generosity and spirit. He will be missed. Very much.