Dear Editor,

Bartholomew said:

When do you stop reading a submission? What makes you put it down faster than anything else?

If a premise and story really glow, how many errors will you suffer yourself before moving on? Does a manuscript have to sparkle with grammatical perfection for your ilk to consider it?

Writers spend months, sometimes years writing their stories, and often times they clock more hours editing them. How long, comparatively, does an editor spend on the same M.s.?

Thanks!

Bart

Click to expand...

If premise and story really glow, I'll tolerate a bunch of errors. But premise and story almost never glow when the grammar is poor. Poor grammar nearly always means poor writing, and poor writing nearly always means poor story.
Grammar is the tool a writer uses to produce a glowing story. A writer who cannot use this tool pretty darned well cannot write a story that gows. If you can, I've never seen it done.

You can't separate a writer's knowledge of grammar from the quality of the story he writes. A writer with really poor gramar is almost always a poor writer. Writing is about how grammar is used. A premise is one thing, but a glowing story almost always comes from a writer who is pretty darned knowledgeable about grammar. Premise, in fact, is meaningless, unless the story, characters, and writing match its promise.

It's tough to put an exact number on how many errors I'll tolerate, but it takes very few unintentional errors to make me stop reading, particular early in the novel. And, yes, I can tell whether an error is intentional or unintentional.

The grammar does not have to be perfect, but unintentional errors need to be few and far between.

Let me put it another way. If you can't get through the first four or five pages without an error in grammar, what kind of a nightmare will I have editing the next four to five hundred pages?

No one is perfect. We all make errors in grammar now and then, so an error every now and then won't matter. But grammar is something anyone who wishes to be a writer should know. You don't have to be perfect, but you should have the basics down well enough to avoid silly errors early on.

And we all have our pet peeves. "Alot" is not a word, so do not use it as a word. Use "that" when you should use "that," and use "who" when you should use "who." It's the dog that bit me. It's the man who bit me. Animals and things are not "who," and people are not "that."

It is never the man that shot me, it's the man who shot me. This one really irritates me.

And for heaven's sake, do not confuse "they're," "their," and "there." Or "two," "too," and "to." These tell me you didn't care enough to learn even basic grammar.

A biggie is to make sure your sentences mean what they should mean, and not what you think they mean. The old Groucho Marx line "This morning I shot an elephant wearing my pajamas" is a good example.

It's astounding how many manuscripts come in with elephants wearing pajamas, even on page one.

I also have to wonder why someone is willing to spend a year, or two years, or five years writing a novel, but is unwilling to spend two or three months learning grammar and punctuation?

Dedication is a fine thing, but the best artist in the world makes sure he has all the right tools before going to work, and grammar is the number one tool of the writer. How good would a carpenter be if he didn't take the time to learn how to use a hammer and a saw before he built a house?

Grammar is the writer's hammer, and punctuation is the writer's saw. Learn how to use them properly before you start building a house.

This said, choppy writing, boring writing, meaningless writing, flowery writing, bad dialogue, lousy description, etc., are more often the offenders. Writing can have perfect grammar and punctuation, and still be incredibly bad. The writing itself is often so poor an editor has no time to notice the grammar and punctuation.

Now, Ten to twenty percent of all manuscripts I read get rejected before I finish reading page one. Another twenty to thirty percent get rejected before I finish reading page five.

No more than fifteen to twenty percent will be read more than halfway through, and no more than five or six percent, tops, will be read beginning to end. Most of these will also be rejected.

Every editor is different, but not as much so as you might think. The moment you realize you do not want to buy a particular novel, you stop reading. Time is precious, and it's a waste of time to keep reading after you know a novel is going to be rejected.

There are very rare exceptions. Sometimes a novel will read very well, and you finish it because it's good, even though you know it's not right for your line, or for the current market. But this is very rare. This is also where you write a sparkling rejection letter.

And sometimes you read a novel all the way through that you don't much like because it comes from a writer or an agent you respect highly.

How much time a writer puts in on a manuscript is meaningless. If the first page, or the first five pages, are bad, there's no reason to go on. As an editor, you read until the writer gives you a reason to stop reading. This can happen on page one, page five, page 200, etc. If you want an editor to keep reading, do not give him a reason to stop.

But it is not hopeless. Writers get it right every day. Tell an actual story, fill it with characters who are anywhere close to round, don't screw up the basic grammar, make sure your sentences say what you want them to say, and you're way ahead of at least half those trying to be writers.

James--

Basically, you’re right, of course. One can’t write effectively without a firm grasp of grammar. But there are times when proper grammar conflicts with the tone of narrative, especially in dialogue or first person narrative. Characters need to speak naturally. You don’t want your victim pointing an accusing finger and hysterically shrieking, “It was he!”

I assume you’d see that as an intentional, not unintentional mistake. Some mistakes are subtle, though. I often find myself having facing a choice between grammatical correctness and what I think reads best. Usually I end up simply rewriting the offending sentence, thus avoiding the whole problem. But sometimes there is no good answer, and I just have to hope the editor either understands or misses it. I’d hate to have an editor dismiss my work on the basis of grammatical inconsistences.

As far as pet peeves go, remember that not everyone shares yours. Things that drive you crazy may elicit no more than a casual shrug from others. The mistake of a relative vs. a personal pronoun, for example. Personally, I feel that, “Hey, you’re the one that brought it up,” reads better than, “You’re the one who brought it up.” (Not sure of my punctuation here; we all have our limits.) The first example is closer to the way people actully speak. Of course, I’d be afraid to write that first sentence, being aware of the hovering blue pencil in the distance.

Thanks for all your posts. Always informative, always interesting.

Bartholomew said:

When do you stop reading a submission? What makes you put it down faster than anything else?

If a premise and story really glow, how many errors will you suffer yourself before moving on? Does a manuscript have to sparkle with grammatical perfection for your ilk to consider it?

Writers spend months, sometimes years writing their stories, and often times they clock more hours editing them. How long, comparatively, does an editor spend on the same M.s.?

Click to expand...

Are you talking a synopsis or the actual manuscript? Since I consider the synopsis as being the face of the manuscript, I'll go on the notion that you're talking about the synopsis.

This is the point where art meets business. Editors understand that authors have taken a long time to write their stories. However time spent writing isn't a consideration when reviewing someone's work because that aspect is a given.

Personally, I get extremely irritated at poor grammar and spelling. These writer's tools are every bit as important as the story. It's the writer's job to communicate effectively. To me, poor spelling or grammar isn't effective communication, but rather a sign that this isn't a serious writer. Does that mean I'll quit reading? Maybe.

Rather than tell you what will make me put down a submission or synosis (because the reasons are varied), I'll tell you what keeps the pages in my hands.

The types of synopses/manuscripts that are likely to catch my eye are those who have a great first line. Just like the first page of a book, the idea is to capture the reader at the very beginning and hold them hostage until the last page, or last sentence. Synopses/manuscripts must be logical, informative, entertaining and grammatically correct. A synopsis should be every bit as descriptive as the manuscript. After all, we know nothing of your story. Editors read hundreds of submissions every month and our eyes glaze over at the dry and mundane.

As I said before, improper sentence structure, spelling and punctuation tell me that the author doesn’t care enough to present me with their best, not to mention how dreadful it is to read. If they don’t care, why should I? Hello, trash can.

Synopses should be concise - tell me the high points without getting bogged down in detail. Unless it’s an integral part of the story, I don’t care if Aunt Bertha wore pink curlers in her hair while shopping at Bloomingdale’s. Conversely, the synopses can’t be too short on detail either. If Tom delivered a quart of sour milk to his cousin in Indianapolis and picked up his mail two hours later in Chicago, I’m going to blink a few times wondering what I missed. A has to equal B. If I have to ask too many questions about a point, the only thing I’m going to eye is the Delete button.

I love an author who follows our submissions guidelines. Sounds elementary, but people would be surprised at the vast amount of writers who, for whatever reason, decide that they know better than I and insist upon presenting me with too much or too little. They’re free to try to rewrite the rules and they do so in my trash can on a daily basis.

rugcat said:

James--

Basically, you’re right, of course. One can’t write effectively without a firm grasp of grammar. But there are times when proper grammar conflicts with the tone of narrative, especially in dialogue or first person narrative. Characters need to speak naturally. You don’t want your victim pointing an accusing finger and hysterically shrieking, “It was he!”

Click to expand...

Rugrat, when using dialog, anything goes as long as it's in keeping with the character. If the character is Yale educated, it's doubtful that he'd utter, "Him and me dressed up like cowgirls and sang 'I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener.'" However, a kid living in the backwoods of Arkansas with no education and a weird sense of humor may, indee, speak this way.

I had 200 errors in a 417-page manuscript tagged by my agent. He told me that he normally does not tolerate such a profuse amount. However, my story shined, up and above the rest, so he took me on and we straightened the mess out.

I was. An. Exception. I can't think of this happening again. I went over that damn book six or seven times. But it was still too hot for me to do so. I should have taken a few weeks away from it, giving it a proper chance to cool, and retread my eyes. I was too emotionally into it to see it objectively.

Tri

grammar

rugcat said:

James--

Basically, you’re right, of course. One can’t write effectively without a firm grasp of grammar. But there are times when proper grammar conflicts with the tone of narrative, especially in dialogue or first person narrative. Characters need to speak naturally. You don’t want your victim pointing an accusing finger and hysterically shrieking, “It was he!”

I assume you’d see that as an intentional, not unintentional mistake. Some mistakes are subtle, though. I often find myself having facing a choice between grammatical correctness and what I think reads best. Usually I end up simply rewriting the offending sentence, thus avoiding the whole problem. But sometimes there is no good answer, and I just have to hope the editor either understands or misses it. I’d hate to have an editor dismiss my work on the basis of grammatical inconsistences.

As far as pet peeves go, remember that not everyone shares yours. Things that drive you crazy may elicit no more than a casual shrug from others. The mistake of a relative vs. a personal pronoun, for example. Personally, I feel that, “Hey, you’re the one that brought it up,” reads better than, “You’re the one who brought it up.” (Not sure of my punctuation here; we all have our limits.) The first example is closer to the way people actully speak. Of course, I’d be afraid to write that first sentence, being aware of the hovering blue pencil in the distance.

Thanks for all your posts. Always informative, always interesting.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell by reading posts, I think you're "write" on track. No, you do not want a character who shouts "It was he," unless you're trying to show the character is an oddball who would use such a phrase in real life.

Now, about grammar. With the exception of first person POV, a writer should not treat the grammar in narrative the same way he treats grammar in dialogue. Third person narrative usually needs proper grammar, but dialogue, and first person POV, always need appropriate grammar. Appropriate grammar means you should make roughly the same errors in first person narrative and any dialogue that the character would make in speaking to you, should you meet him on the street. But even here, even in first person POV and dialogue, you have to make the errors consciously. You have to know you're making them, and you have to make them for a specific reason.

"Roughly" is the key word. Even when intentionally using poor grammar in first person narrative and dialogue, the sentences still have to say what you want them to say, the sentences still need good flow and rhythm, the sentences still need good syntax, and the sentences still need to further the storyline.

It's tough to do this well unless you know grammar, and are making these "mistakes" in grammar through knowledge.

As for pet peeves, we sdon't all share the same ones, but any editor will throw a fit if you make such basic errors as confusing "they're," "there," and "their." There is no excuse for this.

But grammar shouldn't scare you. Writing should scare you. The reason editors tend to nitpick about grammar is because when a writer doesn't know grammar, well, the truly important areas of writing always suffer.

What really concerns editors is story first, with character a strong second, or character first, with story a strong second, depending on the type of fiction, and the particular editor. Story and character mean more than what the story is about, and more than what kind of person a character might be. Story means telling the story in a way that makes it seem real, and developing characters in a way that makes them step off the page.

If you want encouragement where grammar is concerned, maybe this will do it. I want the basic grammar to be correct. I do not want to see "They was twelve men there." I do not want to see "There hands were covered with blood." I do not want to see "Alot of people like Pepsi."

This is basic grammar, and every last person who wants to be a writer needs to get it right. If they don't, I'll stop reading on page one. And you'd be amazed how many do not get even this much right. Editors whione so much about grammar because most new writers don't even know the most basic grammar.

But for the most part, don't sweat such things as split infinitives, dangling participles, or ending sentences with prepositions. Trust your ear where these are concerned, and do not change a good sentence because it violates one of these rules. If it needs changing, well, I'll change it, if you do your part where it counts.

Where it counts is basic grammar, along with the things that really kill most writers.

1. Sentence structure. Line editing, which can mean different things, but which to me means the need to edit and rewrite line by line, is something I don't have time for, and that usually doesn't help much, anyway. So getting basic sentence structure right is your job, though I'll certainly work on a goodly number of sentences.

2. Pace and flow. This means more than one thing, as well. Where the writing itself is concerned, it means you have to avoid choppy writing by varying sentence length, you have to make good, smooth transitions from one paragraph to another, from one subject/scene to another, and you need to avoid wordiness. When story is concerned, it means you have to stay on track, keep the tension building, while knowing when to release it momentarily, and you have to let everything happen in it's own time.

3. You simply have to write well. Not great, but well. Nice turns of phrase, colorful description, smooth, easy reading, all without drifting into purple prose.

4. Character. Readers remember good characters long after all else is forgotten. I do not have to like the characters. Any of them. I do have to believe them. I have to be convinced these are real people. I do have to care what happens to at least one of them. I don't know how to explain what you have to do to make this happen, except to say that while I'm reading the story I want to become the POV character. If I do, then I'm certainly going to care what happens to him greatly. Why? Because what happens to him, happens to me.

Do not give me a POV character who is smarter, stronger, faster, braver, handsomer, etc., than everyone else. This is wish fulfillment. Yuck. If you want to make it real, switch things up on your protagonist. Make him face his weaknesses, not his strengths. If he's a chess master, and a Harvard professor, then make him face a physical danger. If he's an athlete, then make him face an antagonist who keeps throwing mental challenges in his way. It is no challenge for a mechanic to fix a car. It is a challenge for a mechanic to understand why a muder happened for political reasons.

5. Story. Many new writers don't even know what a story is. Or if they do know, if they understand the basic premise of story, the one they tell is no more than wish fulfillment. The writer becomes the super hero of a fantasy. This is always, without exception, bad. Just give me a story that's real, even if it's about unicorns, and a story that matters to the characters. "Suspension of disbelief" really means that while I'm reading the story, while I'm inside the novel and the POV character, I must forget I'm reading fiction. From page one to page last, I must believe the story is nonfiction, no matter how wild a ride it is, and no matter where it's set.

Anyway, these things are more than tough enough without getting all befuddled by the finer points of grammar. Learn and use basic grammar, don't stick commas in like candles in a birthday cake, and the more complicated grammar will usually take care of itself. Or an editor will handle much of it for you.

Just write well, tell a good story, build good characters, make editors believe the story you're telling, and almost any editor will work himself sick helping you polish everything to perfection.

I bow to superior wisdom and experience.

Much as I might like to, I'm unable to take issue with anything in your latest post. In fact, your points on pace, character, story, etc. should be printed up and taped on the wall over the computer for any aspiring writer.

Keep up the good work.

priceless1 said:

The types of synopses/manuscripts that are likely to catch my eye are those who have a great first line.

Click to expand...

I believe this. I’ve gone through a dozen opening lines for my last novel, and still I don’t get the feeling I get when I open One Hundred Years of Solitude: “Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, General Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice.”