Annette Lyon's Blog, page 22
January 10, 2011
Reading: Who Can Find the Time?
When I mentioned in my last post of 2010 how many books I'd read during the year, I didn't expect many people to be impressed. I tend to be a slow reader, and while reading Whitney nominees and finalists has forced me to speed up, I'm still on the slow side.
I enjoy reading slowly. I like to savor the story, words, images, not rush through them. Even so, I somehow manage to read several dozen books a year. I average 50-60 books, although this year I topped 70, a record.
Two claims I hear from people annoy the bajeebers out of me: "I don't have time to write," comes in at #1, but a close #2 would be, "I don't have time to read."
First off, you already find time for what's important to you. If exercise is a priority, you make it happen. If it's photography or quilting or even your favorite TV show, you do it (even if it that means setting the TiVo).
No, you can't do everything in life. We all must make choices, even between good things.
For me, reading is part of the job description of a writer. If I don't read, my writing will grow stale.
But I'm also a busy mom of four very active kids.
Catch-22? Not quite.
Here are a few ways I sneak in reading time that you can use too:1) Read in Snatches.Reading isn't like exercising, where you really need a good 30 minutes to do any good.
If I get to read for several hours, awesome sauce. It's a luxury I seek out and grab when I can, but if I don't have hours and hours (wait for it . . .), I can still read.
As an English major, I often had enormous reading loads. I chipped away at the mountain by reading at times others might not think to, like walking between classes across campus. (If I read 8 pages here, 5 there, 10 there, and 2 here, that's 35 pages further than I was that morning.)
I finished entire books this way.
Today my snatches look different, but they still exist. I always, always have a book with me (often two). I have a car book for when I'm, say, waiting for kids to come out of piano lessons or when I'm the passenger. My purse book comes out in waiting rooms, in lines like at the post office or pharmacy, and so on. A few pages here and there add up to entire books read.
I also read while I eat. That's supposed to be a big no-no, because supposedly you'll eat more. I usually have a set meal with portions before I sit down to read, so I think I'm okay. Or just blame this one on my mom. I have umpteen memories of her eating (cherries from our tree, grapes from the garden, raisins, whatever) while reading.
(Note: I don't eat at the dinner table. That's a no-no. TV is off, toys and books are put aside. It's family time.)
2) Read Everywhere.I also learned this from Mom, who might as well have been born with a book in her hand. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of her stirring sauce on the stove while it thickened, wooden spoon in one hand and a book in the other.
She even put books (and please, no grossing out here) in the bathroom, usually ones that are hard to read in long stretches, like complex non-fiction and histories. She'd read a page here and there, and--tada!--eventually, one more book is read, even if it took awhile.
Our previous treadmill had a book holder on it, and I can't tell you how many books I read while exercising. I got a ton of research done that way. Books don't bounce too much as long as you don't go much faster than 4 mph.
3) Read with the Family.My 70+ books last year included novels I read aloud to the kids and others I read to my husband before bed, something we picked up during Harry Potter and still do some nights. Counting family books, I'm always reading several books at a time.
This last year the kids' schedules got really crazy, so we didn't get through many, but, say, even three books over a year with the kids and that number again many with my husband, is another half dozen books read total for the whole year. That's nothing to sneeze at.
4) Listen to Audio Books.I have an iPod that has music on it . . . but I almost never listen to anything but books (and the occasional Writing Excuses podcast). I listen to it on longer drives (like to and from critique group or book signings), on the treadmill (my current one doesn't have a book holder), and sometimes while doing household chores. I don't get through tons of books this way, largely because I often pick books that are exceedingly long (Hello, Wheel of Time series . . .), and listening to a book always takes longer than actually reading it does.
But listening to books fills up otherwise empty time when I couldn't be reading anyway. Then I can add a few more titles to my yearly list. Audible is a great place to start.
5) Kindle, Baby!My Kindle 3 is awesome. It's lightweight and small enough to fit nicely into my purse. I can carry a ton of books on it, so the second I'm done with one, I can begin another. The new one has a faster and clearer page turn, and the e-ink is better than ever. I think both are the reason I read faster with a Kindle.
Other benefits to the Kindle: No need to prop open a book, so you can read hands-free. So I can even read while blow drying my hair--something totally impossible before unless I set up an elaborate page-holding system, but then I'd have to turn off the drier, free a hand, undo the stuff holding the book down, turn a page, and set it back up. Not with the Kindle. Now I can read pretty much anywhere: while chopping vegetables, emptying the dishwasher, walking down the hall at night to check on the kids. (Easy especially with my hand Kindle cover with a built-in night light.)
6) Track Books Read and To Read.There's something motivating about a check-list. Since my current list is a computer file, it easily serves as both a have read and a to read list. Books I plan to read or am currently reading are all there, but in parentheses. As soon as I've finished a book, it moves to the bottom of the have read section and loses the parentheses.
Just for fun, I also add with the kids or with Rob (that would be the husband). I also make a note if it's a reread. Throughout the year, I keep a running tally, such as "32 books read as of 5/27." Seeing that number go up is a definite motivator.
7) Make It a Party.Several times a year, I throw a "reading party." My kids love them and don't realize they're a sneaky way for Mom to make them do something good for them. I read aloud from our current novel, maybe a bit from a library book or two for the youngest, and then we have silent reading time. Oh, and the treats in the center of the circle don't hurt.
(For a full explanation of our reading parties, see THIS ARTICLE I did.)
We live in a world where it's increasingly important to have good literacy skills. As far as I'm concerned, writers aren't the only ones who should be reading. Everyone should be reading, whether it's novels, non-fiction, or news.
Read and read regularly, even if you aren't reading dozens of books a year. READ SOMETHING.
My grandmother-in-law died at 92. She was sharp as a tack until her last day, and she read almost as long. She stopped reading literally a couple of days before her death, and only because of weakness. I remember her holding a magnifying glass as she read the newspaper or a novel. She read every day, and I'm convinced that her clear mind and memory are a direct result of the fact that she never, ever stopped feeding her brain.
Children who see their parents read are far more likely to be readers, and literacy is a huge indicator as to who will become successful as an adult. Do it for them at the very least.
As far as I'm concerned, not enjoying reading is like not enjoying chocolate: you're really missing out on a great joy of life!
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
I enjoy reading slowly. I like to savor the story, words, images, not rush through them. Even so, I somehow manage to read several dozen books a year. I average 50-60 books, although this year I topped 70, a record.
Two claims I hear from people annoy the bajeebers out of me: "I don't have time to write," comes in at #1, but a close #2 would be, "I don't have time to read."
First off, you already find time for what's important to you. If exercise is a priority, you make it happen. If it's photography or quilting or even your favorite TV show, you do it (even if it that means setting the TiVo).
No, you can't do everything in life. We all must make choices, even between good things.
For me, reading is part of the job description of a writer. If I don't read, my writing will grow stale.
But I'm also a busy mom of four very active kids.
Catch-22? Not quite.
Here are a few ways I sneak in reading time that you can use too:1) Read in Snatches.Reading isn't like exercising, where you really need a good 30 minutes to do any good.
If I get to read for several hours, awesome sauce. It's a luxury I seek out and grab when I can, but if I don't have hours and hours (wait for it . . .), I can still read.
As an English major, I often had enormous reading loads. I chipped away at the mountain by reading at times others might not think to, like walking between classes across campus. (If I read 8 pages here, 5 there, 10 there, and 2 here, that's 35 pages further than I was that morning.)
I finished entire books this way.
Today my snatches look different, but they still exist. I always, always have a book with me (often two). I have a car book for when I'm, say, waiting for kids to come out of piano lessons or when I'm the passenger. My purse book comes out in waiting rooms, in lines like at the post office or pharmacy, and so on. A few pages here and there add up to entire books read.
I also read while I eat. That's supposed to be a big no-no, because supposedly you'll eat more. I usually have a set meal with portions before I sit down to read, so I think I'm okay. Or just blame this one on my mom. I have umpteen memories of her eating (cherries from our tree, grapes from the garden, raisins, whatever) while reading.
(Note: I don't eat at the dinner table. That's a no-no. TV is off, toys and books are put aside. It's family time.)
2) Read Everywhere.I also learned this from Mom, who might as well have been born with a book in her hand. Some of my earliest childhood memories are of her stirring sauce on the stove while it thickened, wooden spoon in one hand and a book in the other.
She even put books (and please, no grossing out here) in the bathroom, usually ones that are hard to read in long stretches, like complex non-fiction and histories. She'd read a page here and there, and--tada!--eventually, one more book is read, even if it took awhile.
Our previous treadmill had a book holder on it, and I can't tell you how many books I read while exercising. I got a ton of research done that way. Books don't bounce too much as long as you don't go much faster than 4 mph.
3) Read with the Family.My 70+ books last year included novels I read aloud to the kids and others I read to my husband before bed, something we picked up during Harry Potter and still do some nights. Counting family books, I'm always reading several books at a time.
This last year the kids' schedules got really crazy, so we didn't get through many, but, say, even three books over a year with the kids and that number again many with my husband, is another half dozen books read total for the whole year. That's nothing to sneeze at.
4) Listen to Audio Books.I have an iPod that has music on it . . . but I almost never listen to anything but books (and the occasional Writing Excuses podcast). I listen to it on longer drives (like to and from critique group or book signings), on the treadmill (my current one doesn't have a book holder), and sometimes while doing household chores. I don't get through tons of books this way, largely because I often pick books that are exceedingly long (Hello, Wheel of Time series . . .), and listening to a book always takes longer than actually reading it does.
But listening to books fills up otherwise empty time when I couldn't be reading anyway. Then I can add a few more titles to my yearly list. Audible is a great place to start.
5) Kindle, Baby!My Kindle 3 is awesome. It's lightweight and small enough to fit nicely into my purse. I can carry a ton of books on it, so the second I'm done with one, I can begin another. The new one has a faster and clearer page turn, and the e-ink is better than ever. I think both are the reason I read faster with a Kindle.
Other benefits to the Kindle: No need to prop open a book, so you can read hands-free. So I can even read while blow drying my hair--something totally impossible before unless I set up an elaborate page-holding system, but then I'd have to turn off the drier, free a hand, undo the stuff holding the book down, turn a page, and set it back up. Not with the Kindle. Now I can read pretty much anywhere: while chopping vegetables, emptying the dishwasher, walking down the hall at night to check on the kids. (Easy especially with my hand Kindle cover with a built-in night light.)
6) Track Books Read and To Read.There's something motivating about a check-list. Since my current list is a computer file, it easily serves as both a have read and a to read list. Books I plan to read or am currently reading are all there, but in parentheses. As soon as I've finished a book, it moves to the bottom of the have read section and loses the parentheses.
Just for fun, I also add with the kids or with Rob (that would be the husband). I also make a note if it's a reread. Throughout the year, I keep a running tally, such as "32 books read as of 5/27." Seeing that number go up is a definite motivator.
7) Make It a Party.Several times a year, I throw a "reading party." My kids love them and don't realize they're a sneaky way for Mom to make them do something good for them. I read aloud from our current novel, maybe a bit from a library book or two for the youngest, and then we have silent reading time. Oh, and the treats in the center of the circle don't hurt.
(For a full explanation of our reading parties, see THIS ARTICLE I did.)
We live in a world where it's increasingly important to have good literacy skills. As far as I'm concerned, writers aren't the only ones who should be reading. Everyone should be reading, whether it's novels, non-fiction, or news.
Read and read regularly, even if you aren't reading dozens of books a year. READ SOMETHING.
My grandmother-in-law died at 92. She was sharp as a tack until her last day, and she read almost as long. She stopped reading literally a couple of days before her death, and only because of weakness. I remember her holding a magnifying glass as she read the newspaper or a novel. She read every day, and I'm convinced that her clear mind and memory are a direct result of the fact that she never, ever stopped feeding her brain.
Children who see their parents read are far more likely to be readers, and literacy is a huge indicator as to who will become successful as an adult. Do it for them at the very least.
As far as I'm concerned, not enjoying reading is like not enjoying chocolate: you're really missing out on a great joy of life!
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
January 9, 2011
Sample Sunday: Lost Without You
From the end of Chapter One of Lost Without You:
Christopher drove home, where his mother would be waiting for him. He knew something wasn't right with him; the feelings surging through his body, the thoughts filling his mind, felt like something trying to take control over his body. He'd felt this way before, but not in years. He was younger then, less mature. This time, he'd handle it on his own.
He pulled into the driveway and killed the car, but didn't go in yet. Mother couldn't see him like this; he had to calm down first or she'd ask whether he'd taken his meds.
Rather, my poison. I'm fine—I don't need any meds.
He hadn't needed them for nearly two years, but he'd taken them faithfully in spite of the side effects until March, nearly two months ago. He blamed his extra twenty pounds and receding hairline on those pills. Not to mention the headaches and nausea. And tossing and turning every night, unable to sleep. Poison—that's what those chemicals were. Brooke deserved a man without love handles or a shiny scalp. So he went off them.
Still gripping the steering wheel, a surge of emotion shot through Christopher again. He looked over at the passenger seat and stroked the spot where Brooke had sat minutes before. He wanted nothing but her. He needed her. What went wrong? Everything was perfect until she pulled that surprise out of nowhere tonight. Back and forth his hand went, stroking the seat. No matter. He'd win her back. The two of them would be together, in this life or the next. No matter what it took.
He tried to even out his breathing so Mother wouldn't ask any questions. Even if she didn't shove the pills down his throat, she might trick him into taking them inside food or—worse—drag him to see Dr. Hamilton again. He couldn't risk that. So he leaned against the headrest and closed his eyes, breathing deeply while running his fingers across Brooke's seat. After a few minutes he adjusted the rear view mirror to peer into his eyes. He blinked, searching his expression for anything Mother could find amiss. With one final breath, he got out, closed the car door, and headed up the porch. He glanced at his watch. Mother would be watching one of those news magazine shows. If he came in with a smile and gave her a kiss on the cheek, she might not ask why he was home early.
Christopher reached for the doorknob then gave one final glance at the passenger seat. Brooke would be his—he'd see to that. As he opened the front door, he couldn't help but smile.
Buy now: $2.99© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
January 5, 2011
WNW: Their As a Singular Pronoun
A reader recently called me out on using their as a singular generic pronoun. (I forget who right now; feel free to claim the comment as your own!)
The issue: What pronoun do you use in a situation where the gender of the person acting either isn't known or isn't relevant? For example:
When an employee arrives . . .
The rest of the sentence is about the employee, who must sign in. What pronoun do you use?
When an employee arrives, ____ must sign in.
At one time, writers simply used he as the generic pronoun:
When an employee arrives, he must sign in.
But eventually came the complaints of sexism. (What if the employee is female?) That's when we started seeing a lot of he or she, just to be sure we covered our bases:
When an employee arrives, he or she must sign in.
That's seriously clunky and awkward, but it's better than the other weird compromise, s/he.
Others have opted to use she instead of he. That's annoying to me as a reader, because a) it's reverse sexism and b) historically he has a far more neutral feel than she, which jumps out like a flashing red light.
(Good writing should move smoothly, without jolts or flashing red lights.)
To keep the gender thing fair, some writers alternate between he and she throughout a piece. Personally, I think that goes beyond annoying and enters the range of shoot me now.
I've seen magazines that alternate on an article level: this article uses he, and the next one uses she. Not a particularly elegant solution, but at least it doesn't have me wanting to hit something.
So the gender-neutral problem persists: English simply doesn't have a singular, gender-neutral pronoun.
Finnish does have a gender-neutral pronoun, and I have to say, it's really convenient when you see a baby but can't figure out the gender. You can totally compliment the kid without offending the parents. Too bad English doesn't have an equivalent of hän.
(Another side note: Finns often use se instead of hän . . . which means it, even when referring to people. Totally works in Finnish. Not so much in English. Can you imagine referring to your friend and saying you're going to lunch with it?)Chicago and a lot of other style guides suggest avoiding the problem altogether. Either 1) reword the sentence so you don't need the pronoun, or 2) change the sentence so you can grammatically use the plural:
When employees arrive, they must sign in.
That works fine at times, but it's still not a solution. Sometimes a piece needs the singular, and making it plural or otherwise doing acrobatics to avoid their as singular sounds odd.
This is precisely why their is becoming increasingly accepted as the singular pronoun, at least in conversation and informal writing. I'm in the camp that accepts this usage already (obviously), although some people still foam at the mouth when they see their used this way. (Just as I foam at the mouth at infer used for imply and other losing usage battles.)
That said, if I'm writing for a professional journal or something similar, I avoid using their as a singular. You write to fit the register you want the piece to fit in. If something isn't accepted in that arena, don't use it, and no, their is not accepted as Standard English.
Yet.
I believe it's just a matter of time before their is considered correct and perfectly fine to use this way. People already do, often, sometimes by accident and other times absolutely on purpose (raising my hand here).
The new rule actually reaching style guides? That may take some time, but it'll happen.
Grammar Girl agrees with me and adds that "it takes a bold, confident, and possibly reckless person to use they with a singular antecedent today."
What can I say? I live on the edge.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
The issue: What pronoun do you use in a situation where the gender of the person acting either isn't known or isn't relevant? For example:
When an employee arrives . . .
The rest of the sentence is about the employee, who must sign in. What pronoun do you use?
When an employee arrives, ____ must sign in.
At one time, writers simply used he as the generic pronoun:
When an employee arrives, he must sign in.
But eventually came the complaints of sexism. (What if the employee is female?) That's when we started seeing a lot of he or she, just to be sure we covered our bases:
When an employee arrives, he or she must sign in.
That's seriously clunky and awkward, but it's better than the other weird compromise, s/he.
Others have opted to use she instead of he. That's annoying to me as a reader, because a) it's reverse sexism and b) historically he has a far more neutral feel than she, which jumps out like a flashing red light.
(Good writing should move smoothly, without jolts or flashing red lights.)
To keep the gender thing fair, some writers alternate between he and she throughout a piece. Personally, I think that goes beyond annoying and enters the range of shoot me now.
I've seen magazines that alternate on an article level: this article uses he, and the next one uses she. Not a particularly elegant solution, but at least it doesn't have me wanting to hit something.
So the gender-neutral problem persists: English simply doesn't have a singular, gender-neutral pronoun.
Finnish does have a gender-neutral pronoun, and I have to say, it's really convenient when you see a baby but can't figure out the gender. You can totally compliment the kid without offending the parents. Too bad English doesn't have an equivalent of hän.
(Another side note: Finns often use se instead of hän . . . which means it, even when referring to people. Totally works in Finnish. Not so much in English. Can you imagine referring to your friend and saying you're going to lunch with it?)Chicago and a lot of other style guides suggest avoiding the problem altogether. Either 1) reword the sentence so you don't need the pronoun, or 2) change the sentence so you can grammatically use the plural:
When employees arrive, they must sign in.
That works fine at times, but it's still not a solution. Sometimes a piece needs the singular, and making it plural or otherwise doing acrobatics to avoid their as singular sounds odd.
This is precisely why their is becoming increasingly accepted as the singular pronoun, at least in conversation and informal writing. I'm in the camp that accepts this usage already (obviously), although some people still foam at the mouth when they see their used this way. (Just as I foam at the mouth at infer used for imply and other losing usage battles.)
That said, if I'm writing for a professional journal or something similar, I avoid using their as a singular. You write to fit the register you want the piece to fit in. If something isn't accepted in that arena, don't use it, and no, their is not accepted as Standard English.
Yet.
I believe it's just a matter of time before their is considered correct and perfectly fine to use this way. People already do, often, sometimes by accident and other times absolutely on purpose (raising my hand here).
The new rule actually reaching style guides? That may take some time, but it'll happen.
Grammar Girl agrees with me and adds that "it takes a bold, confident, and possibly reckless person to use they with a singular antecedent today."
What can I say? I live on the edge.
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
WNW: Very Unique?
I hate that phrase. Gets my eye all a-twitchin'.
The reason is that unique means the only one or without its like or equal.
Therefore, unique is not something that can be compared by degrees, unlike like how warm, old, or bright something is. Those words can have very added to them and make sense. Something can be more (or less) warm, old, or bright.
Then you have words like unique that are absolute modifiers. That means the word, by definition, is not something that varies by degrees. It either is or it isn't.
It's absolute. (Hence: absolute modifier.)
So you can't be slightly dead. You're either dead or you're alive. (We aren't going into the technicalities of medicine and life support and all that . . . you know what I mean. And of course there's Miracle Max, but that's a different story.)
You could argue whether some words are absolute modifiers, like Jerry and George do in an episode of Seinfeld with dry. Jerry insists you can't over-dry something, just like you can't over-die. So he says something is either wet or it's dry. (But, you could argue, there's the in-between stage. Where does damp fit in?)
Here's a list of some other absolute modifiers (words you do NOT add very or other comparing words to): absoluteoverwhelmedstraightoppositerighteternalfatalfinalidenticalinfinite/finitemortal/immortalperfectirrevocableoriginal
Add "very" to any of those, and you'll see that they don't make sense.
You cannot have a "very fatal" collision. (If you mean several people died, that's something else.)
A final exam must be the last one. (You can't have one exam that's more final than another. The first one wouldn't be final.)
While trying a case in court, a lawyer wouldn't say that the defendant's DNA was very identical to the one at the crime scene.
Those absolute modifiers are a bit more obvious than unique or original. You're less likely to accidentally use one of those.
Now that you know the concept, apply it where it's most easily forgotten: something either is or is not unique.
Don't add very.© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
The reason is that unique means the only one or without its like or equal.
Therefore, unique is not something that can be compared by degrees, unlike like how warm, old, or bright something is. Those words can have very added to them and make sense. Something can be more (or less) warm, old, or bright.
Then you have words like unique that are absolute modifiers. That means the word, by definition, is not something that varies by degrees. It either is or it isn't.
It's absolute. (Hence: absolute modifier.)
So you can't be slightly dead. You're either dead or you're alive. (We aren't going into the technicalities of medicine and life support and all that . . . you know what I mean. And of course there's Miracle Max, but that's a different story.)
You could argue whether some words are absolute modifiers, like Jerry and George do in an episode of Seinfeld with dry. Jerry insists you can't over-dry something, just like you can't over-die. So he says something is either wet or it's dry. (But, you could argue, there's the in-between stage. Where does damp fit in?)
Here's a list of some other absolute modifiers (words you do NOT add very or other comparing words to): absoluteoverwhelmedstraightoppositerighteternalfatalfinalidenticalinfinite/finitemortal/immortalperfectirrevocableoriginal
Add "very" to any of those, and you'll see that they don't make sense.
You cannot have a "very fatal" collision. (If you mean several people died, that's something else.)
A final exam must be the last one. (You can't have one exam that's more final than another. The first one wouldn't be final.)
While trying a case in court, a lawyer wouldn't say that the defendant's DNA was very identical to the one at the crime scene.
Those absolute modifiers are a bit more obvious than unique or original. You're less likely to accidentally use one of those.
Now that you know the concept, apply it where it's most easily forgotten: something either is or is not unique.
Don't add very.© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
January 2, 2011
Sample Sunday: There, Their, They're
Sample Sunday is for authors to share a bit of their Kindle-published titles. I'll post a sample of Lost Without You sometime soon, but today I thought I'd put up a piece from my grammar book, There, Their, They're: A No-Tears Guide to Grammar from the Word Nerd, which is now on Kindle for all of 99 cents.
Below is the section that discusses splitting infinitives: what does it mean to split an infinitive, and is it wrong to do so?
(Check out the #SampleSunday hash tag on Twitter to read other samples from Kindle authors.)
Splitting Infinitives
At some point in history, grammarians and teachers decided that Latin, a dead language, should be our guide. Why it made any sense to use another language to prescribe English grammar, I'll never know, but Latin is the basis for the argument that we shouldn't split infinitives (and a bunch of other silly grammar "rules").
Here's the crux of the old argument: In most languages, the infinitive or base form of a verb is a single word.
Since I know Finnish best, I'll use it as our example.
Finnish: olla
English: to be
You can't take the Finnish olla and split it up. It's one word. The same holds true for the French être and the Spanish ser. The infinitive is one word. Of course you can't split it up and have it make any sense.
But English has two words for the infinitive: to be. So, heck, let's throw something between them: to happily be
That's what is called a split infinitive. Frankly, unless you're writing a paper for cranky Mrs. Robinson from eighth grade who insists on her students abiding by antiquated rules, split infinitives to your heart's content. Although you shouldn't overuse any construction, splitting an infinitive isn't wrong.
Consider how utterly flat the classic tagline from Star Trek would be if it held to this "rule":
To go boldly where no man has gone before.
Sorry, Mrs. Robinson. That lacks punch. It's lame. We really need to split that infinitive:
To boldly go where no man has gone before.
Whether you like Vulcans or avoid them like a bad rash, you have to agree that the original tagline is the superior one.
From Chapter 2: Grammar Grapples, There, Their, They're: A No-Tears Guide to Grammar from the Word Nerd
© 2011 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
December 29, 2010
Best of 2010: Books
A list of 10 (okay, 12) great reads from 2010:
The first four were Whitney winners in April:Counting the Cost, by Liz AdairThe Last Waltz, by G. G. VandagriffThe Chosen One, by Carol Lynch WilliamsIn the Company of Angels, by David Farland
I love the language and stories and so much more about these books. (I loved lots of other Whitney books, but I read most of them in '09, so I'm not counting them here.)
Favorite Romances of the year: Courting Miss Lancaster, Sarah M. EdenCross My Heart, by Julie Wright
I'm betting these will both be Whitney finalists (both of these writers have been finalists before). They're so good that I'd be surprised if one of these two books doesn't take the award for Best Romance.
Side note: Sarah's next book, Kiss of a Stranger, just hit stores!
Favorite National titles:The Hunger Games and series, by Suzanne CollinsLoved all three books. Lots to discuss and think about. Disturbing, but in a good way.
The Help, by Kathryn StockettWow. Had to stay up late, tears streaking down my cheeks, to finish this one.
The Guernsey Literary & Potato Peel Pie Society, by Mary Ann Shaffer & Annie BarrowsFinally got around to reading this recommendation from Melanie at Write Stuff (She was the first of many to tell me I'd love it. I did.)
Non-FictionMother Had a Secret, by Tiffany FletcherA touching memoir on a fascinating topic: a daughter's journey dealing with her mother's multiple personality disorder.
For the KidsThe Fourth Nephite, by Jeffrey S. SavageHands down, my kids' favorite bedtime book for the year. Even my youngest, who has a hard time listening to chapter books, was all over it.
The "I'm More Culturally Literate" Title of the YearA book I should have read a long time ago: Dune, by Frank Herbert
Interesting, but not something I have to ever reread. I have to remind myself what a ground-breaking book it was when it first came out some 40-ish years ago.
One Fun TidbitIn 2010, I officially read more books than in any year since I've been tracking my reading (1997). Titles so far in 2010: 72. And I might finish a couple more by the end of the year if I hurry.
I'm guessing that the Whitneys played a big part in my reading volume, plus reading some books on the Kindle (I read faster on the Kindle, and now I have my own so I don't have to steal my husband's, woot!). Then I added a couple of books by listening to them on my iPod in the car and on the treadmill.
Next year, I hope for a slightly higher number, even if by one, just to say I broke my record again.
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
The first four were Whitney winners in April:Counting the Cost, by Liz AdairThe Last Waltz, by G. G. VandagriffThe Chosen One, by Carol Lynch WilliamsIn the Company of Angels, by David Farland
I love the language and stories and so much more about these books. (I loved lots of other Whitney books, but I read most of them in '09, so I'm not counting them here.)
Favorite Romances of the year: Courting Miss Lancaster, Sarah M. EdenCross My Heart, by Julie Wright
I'm betting these will both be Whitney finalists (both of these writers have been finalists before). They're so good that I'd be surprised if one of these two books doesn't take the award for Best Romance.
Side note: Sarah's next book, Kiss of a Stranger, just hit stores!
Favorite National titles:The Hunger Games and series, by Suzanne CollinsLoved all three books. Lots to discuss and think about. Disturbing, but in a good way.
The Help, by Kathryn StockettWow. Had to stay up late, tears streaking down my cheeks, to finish this one.
The Guernsey Literary & Potato Peel Pie Society, by Mary Ann Shaffer & Annie BarrowsFinally got around to reading this recommendation from Melanie at Write Stuff (She was the first of many to tell me I'd love it. I did.)
Non-FictionMother Had a Secret, by Tiffany FletcherA touching memoir on a fascinating topic: a daughter's journey dealing with her mother's multiple personality disorder.
For the KidsThe Fourth Nephite, by Jeffrey S. SavageHands down, my kids' favorite bedtime book for the year. Even my youngest, who has a hard time listening to chapter books, was all over it.
The "I'm More Culturally Literate" Title of the YearA book I should have read a long time ago: Dune, by Frank Herbert
Interesting, but not something I have to ever reread. I have to remind myself what a ground-breaking book it was when it first came out some 40-ish years ago.
One Fun TidbitIn 2010, I officially read more books than in any year since I've been tracking my reading (1997). Titles so far in 2010: 72. And I might finish a couple more by the end of the year if I hurry.
I'm guessing that the Whitneys played a big part in my reading volume, plus reading some books on the Kindle (I read faster on the Kindle, and now I have my own so I don't have to steal my husband's, woot!). Then I added a couple of books by listening to them on my iPod in the car and on the treadmill.
Next year, I hope for a slightly higher number, even if by one, just to say I broke my record again.
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
December 22, 2010
Christmas and Our Troops
This is the first Christmas after the release of Band of Sisters, and the one where, in my story world, the soldiers would be home and celebrating their first Christmas with their families. Even though they exist only in my head, I find myself thinking about Brenda, Jessie, Nora, Kim, and Marianne and how they're doing right now.
So for my last post before Christmas, here's a little something to remember our troops by.
(I'm looking forward to buying more Flat Daddies for families in 2011. Donate with the button in the sidebar.)© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
So for my last post before Christmas, here's a little something to remember our troops by.
(I'm looking forward to buying more Flat Daddies for families in 2011. Donate with the button in the sidebar.)© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
December 20, 2010
Reflections on Costco
Over the last couple of months, I've had a lot of book signings and other promotion.
Most of these signings have been at Costco, which is new for me. I've never before had a book at Costco. Some things I've learned:
Many staffers at Costco are the bomb. (South Ogden, Murray, and West Valley City especially rock. Love those guys.)
One Costco, however, has a total loser working the wireless phone booth. (Although he was delightful entertainment to listen to.) Based on a conversation with a coworker (fifteen feet from me, but apparently clueless that I could hear every word), he'll easily get married to a hot chick as soon as he gets a better job and makes more money. So he totally won't be single like, at 35. The hot chick doesn't need to know how to cook more than chicken nuggets.
Some people enjoy striking up the most bizarre conversations. One guy decided to tell me how much caffeine is in chocolate (way more than coffee, according to him, which not even almost true). Then he launched into a speech about how the "hot drinks" section of the Word of Wisdom was cautioning early Saints to not drink soup too hot, because a lot of people were doing that and burning their throats. (Call me crazy, but I'd like to think Joseph Smith and company were a bit smarter than that.)
Finally, he insisted that the only reason tea was added to the Word of Wisdom (except wait; wasn't it soup?) was a tit for tat. If the women hated tobacco so much, then THEY had to give up something too. And of course, ALL the women came from Liverpool (wait; including Emma, born in the STATES?), where they drink, yep, tea. That conversation left my brain going, "Wha-hahaaa?"
Some people forget a writer at a table is a real person with feelings. One woman leaned in, pointed at the book, looked my body up and down (yes, I could lose a few pounds) and tapped the cover, saying, "Don't you know that's fattening?!"
According to totally non-scientific reactions, the book might sell more if it were diabetic/gluten-free/dairy-free/fill in the blank. Since it's not, it's my obligation to write a version like that.
Utah is far more diverse than I ever knew. I expected to see a good Latino population, and I did (but in greater numbers than I expected). But I had no idea the Wasatch Front also had so many people of Asian, African-American, and Polynesian descent. It was downright fascinating. Maybe we aren't so pale and pasty after all!
I can now go into almost any Costco and walk straight to where they hide the table/chair/cloth and (sometimes) easel for book signings.
Most Costcos are set up almost identically. Except in Sandy. That one will totally screw you up if you're used to the regular layout. I got lost there. Twice. In one day.
A shocking number of women wear 4-inch heels to shop AT COSTCO. That's like walking a 5K with knives shoved in your heels. Worse, many of these women, balancing precariously on spikes, are very pregnant. Absolute masochists, I tell you.
One sweet male worker at a Costco I visited several times reminded me of Dori on Finding Nemo. Every time he passed by (several times during each of 3 signings at that store) he cracked the same joke as if it were the very first time he'd ever seen me or the book.
When the former president (George W. Bush) is coming to sign at the same store in a couple of days, a news station will show up, move you over to the clothing section, and interview the manager. It's hard to be offended by getting upstaged by the former president.
In spite of the giant poster with the book cover, cute layouts of the book, and the words "Author Here Today!" people will still assume you're a store employee.
Nothing seemed to be a sure-fire way to sell books. Sitting at the chair and talking to customers sometimes worked, but other times the table seemed like a barrier. Standing and approaching customers sometimes worked, but other times scared people away. I tried all kinds of things, and in the end just talked to as many people as I could, handed out a gazillion recipe cards, and hoped for the best.
(See THIS POST for a few things I just might have experienced over the last two months or so.)
An astonishing number of people previously bought lots of cookbooks but have collections that reached critical mass in 2010; they simply cannot buy one more. (Or they're totally lying to let me down easy.)
If a woman has nothing but bulk spinach in her cart and is so thin I could tap her with a finger and knock her over (and/or is wearing workout clothing, and/or I can see her ribs), chances are, she won't be interested in my cookbook.
A surprising number of elderly people no longer cook. A surprising number also live in assisted living centers. Yet they shop at bulk warehouse stores. A true mystery.
It's awesome seeing people from my past, even when neither of us remembers the other's name and the conversation starts out with stares and pointing and, "Hey, didn't you go to my high school?"
It's the AWESOMEST ever to see people who came specifically to see me and buy a book. Had lots of that and appreciated it every. Single. Time.
Thank you to every single person who came to support me (and those you came more than once). You rock!
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
Most of these signings have been at Costco, which is new for me. I've never before had a book at Costco. Some things I've learned:
Many staffers at Costco are the bomb. (South Ogden, Murray, and West Valley City especially rock. Love those guys.)
One Costco, however, has a total loser working the wireless phone booth. (Although he was delightful entertainment to listen to.) Based on a conversation with a coworker (fifteen feet from me, but apparently clueless that I could hear every word), he'll easily get married to a hot chick as soon as he gets a better job and makes more money. So he totally won't be single like, at 35. The hot chick doesn't need to know how to cook more than chicken nuggets.
Some people enjoy striking up the most bizarre conversations. One guy decided to tell me how much caffeine is in chocolate (way more than coffee, according to him, which not even almost true). Then he launched into a speech about how the "hot drinks" section of the Word of Wisdom was cautioning early Saints to not drink soup too hot, because a lot of people were doing that and burning their throats. (Call me crazy, but I'd like to think Joseph Smith and company were a bit smarter than that.)
Finally, he insisted that the only reason tea was added to the Word of Wisdom (except wait; wasn't it soup?) was a tit for tat. If the women hated tobacco so much, then THEY had to give up something too. And of course, ALL the women came from Liverpool (wait; including Emma, born in the STATES?), where they drink, yep, tea. That conversation left my brain going, "Wha-hahaaa?"
Some people forget a writer at a table is a real person with feelings. One woman leaned in, pointed at the book, looked my body up and down (yes, I could lose a few pounds) and tapped the cover, saying, "Don't you know that's fattening?!"
According to totally non-scientific reactions, the book might sell more if it were diabetic/gluten-free/dairy-free/fill in the blank. Since it's not, it's my obligation to write a version like that.
Utah is far more diverse than I ever knew. I expected to see a good Latino population, and I did (but in greater numbers than I expected). But I had no idea the Wasatch Front also had so many people of Asian, African-American, and Polynesian descent. It was downright fascinating. Maybe we aren't so pale and pasty after all!
I can now go into almost any Costco and walk straight to where they hide the table/chair/cloth and (sometimes) easel for book signings.
Most Costcos are set up almost identically. Except in Sandy. That one will totally screw you up if you're used to the regular layout. I got lost there. Twice. In one day.
A shocking number of women wear 4-inch heels to shop AT COSTCO. That's like walking a 5K with knives shoved in your heels. Worse, many of these women, balancing precariously on spikes, are very pregnant. Absolute masochists, I tell you.
One sweet male worker at a Costco I visited several times reminded me of Dori on Finding Nemo. Every time he passed by (several times during each of 3 signings at that store) he cracked the same joke as if it were the very first time he'd ever seen me or the book.
When the former president (George W. Bush) is coming to sign at the same store in a couple of days, a news station will show up, move you over to the clothing section, and interview the manager. It's hard to be offended by getting upstaged by the former president.
In spite of the giant poster with the book cover, cute layouts of the book, and the words "Author Here Today!" people will still assume you're a store employee.
Nothing seemed to be a sure-fire way to sell books. Sitting at the chair and talking to customers sometimes worked, but other times the table seemed like a barrier. Standing and approaching customers sometimes worked, but other times scared people away. I tried all kinds of things, and in the end just talked to as many people as I could, handed out a gazillion recipe cards, and hoped for the best.
(See THIS POST for a few things I just might have experienced over the last two months or so.)
An astonishing number of people previously bought lots of cookbooks but have collections that reached critical mass in 2010; they simply cannot buy one more. (Or they're totally lying to let me down easy.)
If a woman has nothing but bulk spinach in her cart and is so thin I could tap her with a finger and knock her over (and/or is wearing workout clothing, and/or I can see her ribs), chances are, she won't be interested in my cookbook.
A surprising number of elderly people no longer cook. A surprising number also live in assisted living centers. Yet they shop at bulk warehouse stores. A true mystery.
It's awesome seeing people from my past, even when neither of us remembers the other's name and the conversation starts out with stares and pointing and, "Hey, didn't you go to my high school?"
It's the AWESOMEST ever to see people who came specifically to see me and buy a book. Had lots of that and appreciated it every. Single. Time.
Thank you to every single person who came to support me (and those you came more than once). You rock!
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
December 17, 2010
Mixed Bag
Today I woke up to the tragic news about the devastating fire that destroyed the Provo Tabernacle.
If you know Provo at all, you know what a huge loss this is. For me personally, it's part of my childhood and teen years as well that went up in flames. We had stake conference there. I graduated from seminary there. Friends performed in concerts. Others competed in piano competitions.
So many memories.
And that's not even considering the historical loss. I hope they rebuild (if they don't, the center of Provo will have a massive hole in it, emotionally and visually), but even if they do, the original pioneer woodwork, the old organ, all of that . . . gone.
On a slightly happier note, sweet friend Sherry Ann Miller posted a review of Chocolate Never Faileth on her blog, Miller's Musings. She came up with holiday gift ideas for my recipes, things that never occurred to me.
Deirdra Coppel interviewed me on her blog the other day, A Story Book World. (I must say, she asked some fun questions.)
Also: Book signing todayFashion Place Seagull11:00 - 12:30
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
If you know Provo at all, you know what a huge loss this is. For me personally, it's part of my childhood and teen years as well that went up in flames. We had stake conference there. I graduated from seminary there. Friends performed in concerts. Others competed in piano competitions.
So many memories.
And that's not even considering the historical loss. I hope they rebuild (if they don't, the center of Provo will have a massive hole in it, emotionally and visually), but even if they do, the original pioneer woodwork, the old organ, all of that . . . gone.
On a slightly happier note, sweet friend Sherry Ann Miller posted a review of Chocolate Never Faileth on her blog, Miller's Musings. She came up with holiday gift ideas for my recipes, things that never occurred to me.
Deirdra Coppel interviewed me on her blog the other day, A Story Book World. (I must say, she asked some fun questions.)
Also: Book signing todayFashion Place Seagull11:00 - 12:30
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
December 15, 2010
WNW: More on Passive Voice: Hi, Ambiguity!
A couple of weeks ago we discussed what passive voice is plus when it's actually okay to use it, even though writers are told over and over again to avoid it.
That post got some comments (hey, that phrase was passive :-D) about whether some sentence structures were passive, and I promised to clarify.
The example cited was:
She was excited.
IS that passive? It does have the key word was in there.
The answer: No, that sentence is most definitely NOT passive.
Except. English has some great ambiguity built into the underlying context. So all by itself and out of context, no, that sentence is not a passive construction. But it could be. (We'll get to that in a second.)
A similar example, showing why it's NOT passive:
Sarah was sad.
That sentence can't be passive; nothing (or no one) is being acted upon. We're just describing a state of being for the subject (Sarah), not what's happening to her.
You could make that kind of construction passive:
She was excited by putting up the Christmas tree.
Check it out: now it's passive. She's not just in a state of excitement; she's being acted upon (putting up the tree), which makes her excited.
Here comes the funky ambiguous part:This kind of sentence construction (he/she/it was ____) is ambiguous in English because the sentence could imply that something is being acted upon.
Basically, in some contexts, you could figure out what's making the person excited (versus the fact that she just IS excited).
If you have an entire conversation (or, in writing, a paragraph or whatever) where we know why she's excited, what's causing the excitement, then it's passive. In Sarah's case, we know her excitement is because of the Christmas tree.
So "She was excited," while not grammatically/structurally passive, becomes contextually passive.
Upshot there:
She was excited could be passive . . . or not. Technically it isn't from a grammar standpoint, but the final meaning depends on what the speaker intends.
Again, based purely on the structure, and if we're just explaining her emotional state, then no, it's not passive. Not even close.
Another ambiguous example:
The turkey was cooked.
We could simply be stating a fact about the turkey: We have poultry that is not longer raw.
Say a story explained how they knew when it was time to eat Thanksgiving dinner:
The turkey was cooked.
That's not passive. It describes the state turkey. (It's toasty hot, juicy, falling off the bone, and ready to eat. Yum. Pass the cranberry sauce.)
To make it passive, we need the person who did the cooking to be implied:
The turkey was cooked. [And we, the reader/listener, know Paula did the cooking. The turkey was cooked by Paula = passive.]
(Is this making any sense?)
Here's my linguist dad's key way of explaining passive voice:
Passive voice is when the grammatical subject is ALSO the logical object.
© 2010 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
