AaronTurpen.com

I’ve taken on three jobs lately that have involved editing work written by someone else who’s an expert in the subject.  It’s been enlightening because these three pieces involved two different people writing on a single subject.  My task was to take these pieces, edit them for grammar and clarity, then combine them into one large electronic book for distribution.  The subject was medical and one of the writers is a medical doctor (MD) while the other is a nurse practitioner.

Despite both of these people being well educated and having higher learning under their belt, they both made the same basic mistakes on a regular basis.  Mistakes that, if not corrected, will surely torpedo any credibility they might have.  Here’s an example:

“The conventional treatment method would be too conduct digital surveys of the patient’s affected region and compare it’s current state to the norm.”

Now, reading this, it conveys the meaning and has no errors that are likely to trigger the common person’s radar.  The two small and very common errors in this sentence, however, will compound with similar errors throughout to sink the credibility ship for these medical experts.

These mistakes are common and I see them regularly in my travels online, especially when reading amateur websites (meaning sites not associated with a business, like a personal blog or a Facebook profile).  I see them often in semi-professional communications as well (meaning those “professional” communiques that have little credibility to begin with).

Words like “to,” “too,” and sometimes “two” are phonetically the same, but are very different words in use.  Another word from our example above was “it’s,” which can be “its” as well.  With the apostrophe, the word is short for “it is” and without, it’s a possessive.  That’s a common mistake, since most people associate the ” ‘s” in a word as being possessive, but this is one of those fun exceptions in the English language.

In fact, there are a lot of phonetically similar words with different meanings and usage that often get interposed simply because the spell checker in your word processor won’t see the difference.  Words like “rain” and “peer” can become “reign” and “pier” without triggering the red underline of bad spelling.

But they’ll be noted by some in the reading audience.  Sprinkle half a dozen such mistakes in a 500-word piece and most of the people reading will notice at least one.  Personally, I’m willing to write off one or two as typos in a piece like that, but if I see several, I may discount the author altogether.

So whether you’re self-editing or editing someone else’s work, be aware of these common juxtapositions and remedy them.

I’ve done three issues of the Health Freedom Network Newsletter so far and, while this isn’t my first stint as an editor, it has been eye opening.  I’ve always prided myself on delivering top quality material that requires little or no editing.  I’ve talked about that more than once in this blog.  Most professional writers are the same – it’s what makes them professional.

After only three months of involvement in this newsletter, what I’ve learned is that a popular publication that receives a lot of submissions (and in this case, letters to the editor), gets a lot of material that is, well, sub-par I guess is the nicest way to put it.  Some is to be expected: LTEs are not exactly coming from writing pros, so the occasional use of a street term or text message garble is to be expected.  After all, teachers in high school and college are complaining bitterly about the “txt spch” their students often write in.

I’ve also learned that some experts who do a lot of writing you might read in various publications are actually horrible writers whose prowess with words is almost entirely thanks to editors.  I should have known this, of course, because I happen to ghost write for a couple of experts who are not particularly good writers themselves – which makes me wonder why these others aren’t being advised to do the same; hire a ghost to do the writing.

This post wasn’t meant as a complaint rant, though reading through it I can see that this might be the impression you’re getting.  The whole point is to show you that editors appreciate professional writing.  That means well-written, error-free writing that is to specification.

Here’s two examples, again from the Health Freedom Network Newsletter.

Our first example is an expert in her field.  She has been published numerous times around the Web, has a blog and website that features her writing on a regular basis, and has appeared in print in a handful of publications nationally.  Yet, this sentence was included in her submission to me (and ultimately re-written by myself, as she could not send me a revision before print):

In this field we seen a lot of controversy over the mis-use of the way that advertising and marketing or labeling is done to harm the over all industry by giving false proclaimations and fraudulent claims.

Not only does the sentence have misspelled words and typos, but it’s a long run-on as well.  This was a regular feature of her submission.

On the same token, another expert submitted work that the only beef I had with was that it was 40 words over the 500 word limit for 1 page.  He gladly did some cutting to make it fit and, amazingly enough, cut most of that out of his own byline rather than the article itself.  This shows he was more interested in getting the information out there than he was in self-promotion, a sure sign of integrity.  In return, I restored his byline to its original length and shrunk the font and his photo by 1.5 points so that it would still fit without crowding.

These two examples are typical, I think, of the kind of thing editors likely deal with almost daily.  It should make writers appreciate not only what editor’s do, but also what they like to see and will reward.

Good writing is always rewarded, even if the rejection for the publication is just written personally or with a nicer tone.  Quite often, I’ve received submissions that weren’t a fit topically for the newsletter and have referred the writer, since the information was very well presented, to other publications as suggested venues for it.

Recently, someone asked me what makes a good writer (besides the ability to articulate in print).  I thought about that.  Although several things went through my mind as to what it could be that really makes for a great writer, one thing stuck out.  It’s something that an author told me when I asked the same basic question, years ago.

I was in a shopping mall in Orem, Utah and saw one of the bookstores there was having a book signing.  One of my favorite authors at the time, Orson Scott Card, was autographing his latest novel.  I quickly got in line.  I didn’t have any money and couldn’t buy a book, so I dug through my coat to find anything I could have him autograph.  The paperback in my pocket was one of the trilogy from Douglas Adams’ Hitchiker’s Guide series, if I recall.

Card was nice about it and obviously understood that I didn’t have the cash to buy his latest hardcover.  I fumbled through the cliche “I’m a huge fan” garbage and felt compelled to ask “what makes a great sci-fi writer?”  He looked at me for a brief moment, probably used to that general question, and said “Life experience.”

I’ve thought about that ever since.  Another of my favorite authors, Isaac Asimov, said much the same thing, though he used the context of academic experience (self-learning) as his answer.  Several others have agreed.  As a non-fiction writer, I would agree.  Life experience, to include self-education (on top of formal education, if you wish) is the real key to good writing.

That has made me reflect on my own life and experiences.  I’ve had many academic loves in my life, from astronomy to horticulture to mysticism and more.  As a neighbor once said of me, introducing me to another neighbor at a BBQ, I’ve “never met anything with words I wouldn’t read.”

Beyond that, though, I reflect on the other aspects of my life.  Like most people, I’ve loved and lost, had high points and low valleys, and been places and seen things.  Everyone’s journey through life is a little different.  I’ve had many jobs, but writing is the only consistent career I’ve ever enjoyed.

My jobs have been as varied as my academic interests.  I’ve worked as a grocery store clerk, as a telemarketer, a data entry person, a “mechanic” at a junk yard, as kitchen help in a large cafeteria, a carpenter, a salesman, a warehouse worker, forklift operator, an acetylene generator operator, a truck driver, and others.  I’ve been active and inactive in politics – I’ve even run for office – and I’ve done freelance Web development, been an entrepreneur, done seminar tours, and have become a friend, husband, and father.

I’ve spent time with people from many backgrounds, many places, and with many philosophies.  I’ve traveled the country, coast to coast, and been in places high and low.  I’ve talked to people, closely, from every conceivable ethnicity and from most of the world’s cultures.

In short, in less than 40 years of life, I’ve had many, many experiences with a wide variety of results.  No doubt you have too.

My suggestion to any writer, whether established or new, is to sit back and reflect and think about all of the things you’ve experienced in life – whether you’ve lived 20 years or 100.  No matter who you are, how old you are, or where you come from: you have unique and life-building experience.

Realizing that and utilizing it in your work is what makes a great writer, I think.