Annette Lyon's Blog, page 9
December 10, 2013
This Is Your Writing Brain on ADD
My older sister and I are similar in a lot of ways. We're both writers. We're both readers. We both majored in English. We both adore good chocolate. And on and on.
We're dissimilar in a lot of ways, but it turns out that one thing I thought was a difference actually isn't.
As an adult, Mel was diagnosed with ADD. The diagnosis made so much sense for her, at least with my limited understanding of the condition. She can jump topics in a conversation like hummingbird flitting from flower to flower, only faster. I can keep up, but I assumed that it was because I grew up around her.
The thing is that Mel's ADD has a bit of the hyperactive ADHD in it, although I wouldn't classify her as hyperactive in the typical sense. She's high energy, for sure. When I've mentioned to close friends that ADD runs in the family, they always follow that up with, "Mel, right?"
And then I have to say that well, yes. She's the one who is buzzing around all the time, always doing and thinking. But there's also the son of a different sibling with significant ADHD, and I suspect the parent of that same nephew has it too, which is why a desk job is out of the question. Plus at least two of my kids have it.
And so do I.
For a very long time, I had no inkling that I had the condition, and I haven't been officially diagnosed, but I recognize it all too well . . . now.
The thing is, back in the day, I did well in school. I was never a behavioral problem. Yet now that I know the signs, many of which I just thought were normal things, and that everyone was like that, I can point to parts of my personality that are actually signs of ADD and realize with startling clarity that yes, that's me. I see the signs in my childhood, with a big memory that screams "ADD" from 2nd grade. I'm betting my parents could point to some of the same things much earlier.
I've learned, thanks to early posts on The Weed, that technically the condition I have is ADHD-I. The I means I have the inattentive sub-type of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Essentially, I lack the hyperactive component, but it's considered to be under the same umbrella. And because I don't fly around like a hummingbird, I had no clue that I also had the condition.
It took me researching ADD for the sake of one of my kids to realize that holy cow, this is me. My son is quite open about his ADD, so I feel all right mentioning him here. Like I did, he did well through grade school. Sure, he was disorganized, forgot notes, and his backpack was a disaster. He has horrible handwriting (as do I). But it turns out that he's very smart, and grade school frankly isn't that hard. The first time his grades plummeted, getting him glasses was enough.
Enter junior high and puberty, however, and we had a perfect storm for his ADD to cry uncle. His grades tanked, he grew frustrated and depressed, and nothing I did helped. He misplaced simple things like flashcards and other small but important items, which yes, he'd done in grade school, but now the stakes were much higher.
I learned that he'd drift off during conversations, but you wouldn't always know it, because he'd still be looking right at you, seemingly fully attentive, but his brain was off on some other planet, designing a video game.
He had no control over such drifting. The effort he put into homework, only to have nothing to show for it an hour later, was heartbreaking.
At one point I thought he had to have hearing loss, because I could be six inches from him, but he wouldn't hear me. I even had his hearing tested, but it came back normal. I dug around further.
That's when I started researching ADD, and I learned about hyper-focusing, which is exactly what he did. I tested him once when he was making a batch of cookies. While they baked, he sat at the computer, maybe ten feet from the oven, reading an article or playing a game or something. When the timer went off, I waited to see what would happen. Nothing.
I didn't turn it off. I waited. It beeped for a solid minute. Nothing. Finally I called his name. Again. And a third time. I raised my voice with his name, and he jumped. "What?!" he demanded.
I stood there staring at him expectantly, waiting for him to hear to obnoxious beep and get his cookies out of the oven. Instead, he just looked at me and again said, "What?"
"Do you hear something?" I asked.
Only then did he tune his attention elsewhere, notice the timer, and get up to take the cookies out of the oven. Classic hyper-focusing. He was so focused on the computer that nothing else existed. The house could have been burning down, and he wouldn't have noticed until the monitor was obscured by smoke.
Hyper-focusing suddenly sounded awfully familiar. I remembered reading a book in eighth grade and having no earthly idea how much time had passed or that a classmate was asking me an important question (likely several times) before I was pulled from the story and back to earth.
As an adult, I could focus so intently on my writing that reality faded, and my fictional world came to the fore. There were times I drove my husband crazy because my focus was so totally on one thing, and I was entirely oblivious to something else that really did need my attention.
When we told my son's teachers that he had ADD, no one believed us. He was well behaved, they said. He paid attention in class. (Sure, they thought he was paying attention. He looked like it. He wasn't climbing the walls with hyperactive behavior. He was even sitting still and looking right at the teacher.)
As a teenager, I did well in school by focusing on nothing but AP US History or whatever else was on my plate. Yet I probably had no idea what was going on outside my bedroom door. Very much like my son. I was one of the lucky ones; I was able to use a symptom to my advantage. Hyper-focusing became my superpower. It's how I got stuff done. (Other stuff fell by the wayside, of course. I was supposed to clean out the kitty litter? A week ago? Wait. What kitty litter?)
My son's case was far more severe, and I knew we needed to do something. I'd previously been anti-medication, but that was back in the days when I smugly thought that ADHD was usually just bad parenting. My son was suffering, and he needed help. I'd learned enough from other sources (a neighbor with severely ADHD kids, my nephew, Mel) to finally admit that medication can help because this disorder has a biological basis.
So I buried my pride and went to our family doctor. He listened to my son's symptoms (which consisted of a lot more than what I've discussed here) and agreed that my son was a likely candidate. I also learned something that was huge and worth mentioning here:
ADHD medication doesn't act like an upper on someone who has an ADHD brain.
Rather, we'd know within a couple of days if the medication was helping the symptoms, and if it wasn't, then, in his words, "The proof's in the pudding." If meds didn't alleviate his symptoms, my son, quite simply, didn't have ADD.
Some people think that medication is about zoning kids out, as if it's Valium or something. That's not what the medication does. In a sense, people with the condition have part of their brains that can't stay "awake." Medication turns that part of the brain back on, so everything else can focus. For hyperactive kids, they act out and move around constantly in an effort to wake up their brains. When it's woken up, they can sit still and focus.
For someone without true ADHD or ADHD-I, however, the medication does act as an upper, which is why the medication can be abused in the wrong hands. Someone with ADHD doesn't get addicted to the medication; it simply helps them think clearly.
No, that's too simplistic. Meds do far more than that. In the cases of my two children who have both been diagnosed, medication has been a huge boon in helping their self-confidence, easing depression, and calming anxiety, because they can try to do something and actually accomplish it. For a growing teen, those things are huge. Simply put, medication helps them be their best selves.
After a week or so on medication, my son couldn't tell a difference, but his dad and I absolutely could. He was more himself. It was like I had my carefree, happy son back. The daily hair-pulling frustrations fell away, leaving his awesomeness to shine. We could have long conversations, which he was fully present for.
When he forgot to take his medicine one day, he came home from school with his eyes opened. "I had no idea what it was doing, but now I do. Today, school was so hard." He took his medication faithfully after that, although he'd often spend weekends and school breaks off it. A couple of years later, he said it wasn't working as well as it used to. I thought that maybe he was building a tolerance to it, or maybe he was imagining something.
But when we saw the doctor next, he nodded and said, "He's grown three inches really fast. Of course he needs a higher dose. He's a bigger kid now."
We've done more than give him medication to manage his condition, of course. We've studied a lot and implemented coping skills and techniques, and he's done much of that on his own as well, wanting to understand himself and how to best succeed. For example, in his high-school psychology class, he researched ADD and wrote a paper about his theories on how it works and why certain behaviors he'd figured out on his own helped him cope.
The same goes for my next child with ADD. She knows that she'll forget important papers or items at home if she's rushing out the door in the morning, so she's made a habit of packing her backpack the night before to be sure she doesn't forget stuff. She makes detailed lists to keep herself on track. She color codes her to-do list. And, like her brother, she uses timers as well as other tools.
As for me, I've come to see how ADD has affected my writing in both positive and negative ways. There was a time when being able to hyper-focus helped me crank out words fast. But as I age, I find that sustaining that hyper-focus is getting harder and harder. I've almost lost my one ADD strength altogether; I can't really hyper-focus anymore.
Some of my coping mechanisms are things my son figured out that work for him, which he then shared with me, and I do all the time. But things have gotten worse in the last few years. I simply cannot accomplish what I used to.
My youngest child has been in school for several years now. Some time ago, I dreamed that when this day came, I'd be able to write for five hours straight. In theory, I can write 2,000 words in about 45 minutes. (A benefit of having been a secretary in college: I type fast.) For argument's sake, if 2,000 words took me longer, say a full hour, and if I could focus for five hours, I could whip out 10,000 words a day, meaning the equivalent of a NaNoWriMo book every work week.
Instead, I'm lucky if I can focus long enough to get in 1500 words a day. On some days, I can't do that much, but not for lack of trying. I recently had the chance to go on a trip with my husband as he traveled for work. He attended a convention during the day, and I stayed in the hotel room and wrote.
My past records for writing all day long without interruptions were well into the five figures. The few times I'd holed up somewhere for a Saturday and cranked out words were years ago, but my one-day record for writing was over 14,000 words.
On our trip in November, the best I managed to write in the hotel room was 5,000 words in one day. And getting those words in was hard. My brain was beyond fried at the end of each day. While I made good progress on that manuscript, I came home with nowhere near what I'd hoped to accomplish. After all, I used to be able to do more, when I could hyper-focus. Now I'm just plain old ADHD-I, without the hyper-focusing superpower.
Managing my ADD is getting harder with age, no question. The condition is unquestionably getting worse. I don't know if that's typical, but I do know that I'm in the position of constantly trying new coping techniques, taking new nutritional supplements, relying on my accountability partner, and so on. Even so, I'm quite sure that I'll soon be the third family member on medication.
I'm eager to give it a try. My tired ADD brain has so much it wants to do, but the broken part of my brain keeps those things from happening, interfering with the smallest everyday activities. ADD not only rears its head when it comes to my writing; it also interferes with my family life, with being a wife and a mother. It causes problems with housekeeping, grocery shopping, errands, and with so many other very basic things that people with normal brains take for granted.
At times, I have to remind myself that I'm not crazy; I'm just ADD.
Somehow, I'll get things done, even if it's a lot slower than for other people and in a less direct way. And, unfortunately, a lot slower than I used to be able to do the same thing back when I could hyper-focus.
I'll report back if and when I get on medication. If I do as well as Mel has (she's finishing up her MFA in creative writing!), I'll be able to reach my goals . . . finally. I hope.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
We're dissimilar in a lot of ways, but it turns out that one thing I thought was a difference actually isn't.
As an adult, Mel was diagnosed with ADD. The diagnosis made so much sense for her, at least with my limited understanding of the condition. She can jump topics in a conversation like hummingbird flitting from flower to flower, only faster. I can keep up, but I assumed that it was because I grew up around her.
The thing is that Mel's ADD has a bit of the hyperactive ADHD in it, although I wouldn't classify her as hyperactive in the typical sense. She's high energy, for sure. When I've mentioned to close friends that ADD runs in the family, they always follow that up with, "Mel, right?"
And then I have to say that well, yes. She's the one who is buzzing around all the time, always doing and thinking. But there's also the son of a different sibling with significant ADHD, and I suspect the parent of that same nephew has it too, which is why a desk job is out of the question. Plus at least two of my kids have it.
And so do I.
For a very long time, I had no inkling that I had the condition, and I haven't been officially diagnosed, but I recognize it all too well . . . now.
The thing is, back in the day, I did well in school. I was never a behavioral problem. Yet now that I know the signs, many of which I just thought were normal things, and that everyone was like that, I can point to parts of my personality that are actually signs of ADD and realize with startling clarity that yes, that's me. I see the signs in my childhood, with a big memory that screams "ADD" from 2nd grade. I'm betting my parents could point to some of the same things much earlier.
I've learned, thanks to early posts on The Weed, that technically the condition I have is ADHD-I. The I means I have the inattentive sub-type of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Essentially, I lack the hyperactive component, but it's considered to be under the same umbrella. And because I don't fly around like a hummingbird, I had no clue that I also had the condition.
It took me researching ADD for the sake of one of my kids to realize that holy cow, this is me. My son is quite open about his ADD, so I feel all right mentioning him here. Like I did, he did well through grade school. Sure, he was disorganized, forgot notes, and his backpack was a disaster. He has horrible handwriting (as do I). But it turns out that he's very smart, and grade school frankly isn't that hard. The first time his grades plummeted, getting him glasses was enough.
Enter junior high and puberty, however, and we had a perfect storm for his ADD to cry uncle. His grades tanked, he grew frustrated and depressed, and nothing I did helped. He misplaced simple things like flashcards and other small but important items, which yes, he'd done in grade school, but now the stakes were much higher.
I learned that he'd drift off during conversations, but you wouldn't always know it, because he'd still be looking right at you, seemingly fully attentive, but his brain was off on some other planet, designing a video game.
He had no control over such drifting. The effort he put into homework, only to have nothing to show for it an hour later, was heartbreaking.
At one point I thought he had to have hearing loss, because I could be six inches from him, but he wouldn't hear me. I even had his hearing tested, but it came back normal. I dug around further.
That's when I started researching ADD, and I learned about hyper-focusing, which is exactly what he did. I tested him once when he was making a batch of cookies. While they baked, he sat at the computer, maybe ten feet from the oven, reading an article or playing a game or something. When the timer went off, I waited to see what would happen. Nothing.
I didn't turn it off. I waited. It beeped for a solid minute. Nothing. Finally I called his name. Again. And a third time. I raised my voice with his name, and he jumped. "What?!" he demanded.
I stood there staring at him expectantly, waiting for him to hear to obnoxious beep and get his cookies out of the oven. Instead, he just looked at me and again said, "What?"
"Do you hear something?" I asked.
Only then did he tune his attention elsewhere, notice the timer, and get up to take the cookies out of the oven. Classic hyper-focusing. He was so focused on the computer that nothing else existed. The house could have been burning down, and he wouldn't have noticed until the monitor was obscured by smoke.
Hyper-focusing suddenly sounded awfully familiar. I remembered reading a book in eighth grade and having no earthly idea how much time had passed or that a classmate was asking me an important question (likely several times) before I was pulled from the story and back to earth.
As an adult, I could focus so intently on my writing that reality faded, and my fictional world came to the fore. There were times I drove my husband crazy because my focus was so totally on one thing, and I was entirely oblivious to something else that really did need my attention.
When we told my son's teachers that he had ADD, no one believed us. He was well behaved, they said. He paid attention in class. (Sure, they thought he was paying attention. He looked like it. He wasn't climbing the walls with hyperactive behavior. He was even sitting still and looking right at the teacher.)
As a teenager, I did well in school by focusing on nothing but AP US History or whatever else was on my plate. Yet I probably had no idea what was going on outside my bedroom door. Very much like my son. I was one of the lucky ones; I was able to use a symptom to my advantage. Hyper-focusing became my superpower. It's how I got stuff done. (Other stuff fell by the wayside, of course. I was supposed to clean out the kitty litter? A week ago? Wait. What kitty litter?)
My son's case was far more severe, and I knew we needed to do something. I'd previously been anti-medication, but that was back in the days when I smugly thought that ADHD was usually just bad parenting. My son was suffering, and he needed help. I'd learned enough from other sources (a neighbor with severely ADHD kids, my nephew, Mel) to finally admit that medication can help because this disorder has a biological basis.
So I buried my pride and went to our family doctor. He listened to my son's symptoms (which consisted of a lot more than what I've discussed here) and agreed that my son was a likely candidate. I also learned something that was huge and worth mentioning here:
ADHD medication doesn't act like an upper on someone who has an ADHD brain.
Rather, we'd know within a couple of days if the medication was helping the symptoms, and if it wasn't, then, in his words, "The proof's in the pudding." If meds didn't alleviate his symptoms, my son, quite simply, didn't have ADD.
Some people think that medication is about zoning kids out, as if it's Valium or something. That's not what the medication does. In a sense, people with the condition have part of their brains that can't stay "awake." Medication turns that part of the brain back on, so everything else can focus. For hyperactive kids, they act out and move around constantly in an effort to wake up their brains. When it's woken up, they can sit still and focus.
For someone without true ADHD or ADHD-I, however, the medication does act as an upper, which is why the medication can be abused in the wrong hands. Someone with ADHD doesn't get addicted to the medication; it simply helps them think clearly.
No, that's too simplistic. Meds do far more than that. In the cases of my two children who have both been diagnosed, medication has been a huge boon in helping their self-confidence, easing depression, and calming anxiety, because they can try to do something and actually accomplish it. For a growing teen, those things are huge. Simply put, medication helps them be their best selves.
After a week or so on medication, my son couldn't tell a difference, but his dad and I absolutely could. He was more himself. It was like I had my carefree, happy son back. The daily hair-pulling frustrations fell away, leaving his awesomeness to shine. We could have long conversations, which he was fully present for.
When he forgot to take his medicine one day, he came home from school with his eyes opened. "I had no idea what it was doing, but now I do. Today, school was so hard." He took his medication faithfully after that, although he'd often spend weekends and school breaks off it. A couple of years later, he said it wasn't working as well as it used to. I thought that maybe he was building a tolerance to it, or maybe he was imagining something.
But when we saw the doctor next, he nodded and said, "He's grown three inches really fast. Of course he needs a higher dose. He's a bigger kid now."
We've done more than give him medication to manage his condition, of course. We've studied a lot and implemented coping skills and techniques, and he's done much of that on his own as well, wanting to understand himself and how to best succeed. For example, in his high-school psychology class, he researched ADD and wrote a paper about his theories on how it works and why certain behaviors he'd figured out on his own helped him cope.
The same goes for my next child with ADD. She knows that she'll forget important papers or items at home if she's rushing out the door in the morning, so she's made a habit of packing her backpack the night before to be sure she doesn't forget stuff. She makes detailed lists to keep herself on track. She color codes her to-do list. And, like her brother, she uses timers as well as other tools.
As for me, I've come to see how ADD has affected my writing in both positive and negative ways. There was a time when being able to hyper-focus helped me crank out words fast. But as I age, I find that sustaining that hyper-focus is getting harder and harder. I've almost lost my one ADD strength altogether; I can't really hyper-focus anymore.
Some of my coping mechanisms are things my son figured out that work for him, which he then shared with me, and I do all the time. But things have gotten worse in the last few years. I simply cannot accomplish what I used to.
My youngest child has been in school for several years now. Some time ago, I dreamed that when this day came, I'd be able to write for five hours straight. In theory, I can write 2,000 words in about 45 minutes. (A benefit of having been a secretary in college: I type fast.) For argument's sake, if 2,000 words took me longer, say a full hour, and if I could focus for five hours, I could whip out 10,000 words a day, meaning the equivalent of a NaNoWriMo book every work week.
Instead, I'm lucky if I can focus long enough to get in 1500 words a day. On some days, I can't do that much, but not for lack of trying. I recently had the chance to go on a trip with my husband as he traveled for work. He attended a convention during the day, and I stayed in the hotel room and wrote.
My past records for writing all day long without interruptions were well into the five figures. The few times I'd holed up somewhere for a Saturday and cranked out words were years ago, but my one-day record for writing was over 14,000 words.
On our trip in November, the best I managed to write in the hotel room was 5,000 words in one day. And getting those words in was hard. My brain was beyond fried at the end of each day. While I made good progress on that manuscript, I came home with nowhere near what I'd hoped to accomplish. After all, I used to be able to do more, when I could hyper-focus. Now I'm just plain old ADHD-I, without the hyper-focusing superpower.
Managing my ADD is getting harder with age, no question. The condition is unquestionably getting worse. I don't know if that's typical, but I do know that I'm in the position of constantly trying new coping techniques, taking new nutritional supplements, relying on my accountability partner, and so on. Even so, I'm quite sure that I'll soon be the third family member on medication.
I'm eager to give it a try. My tired ADD brain has so much it wants to do, but the broken part of my brain keeps those things from happening, interfering with the smallest everyday activities. ADD not only rears its head when it comes to my writing; it also interferes with my family life, with being a wife and a mother. It causes problems with housekeeping, grocery shopping, errands, and with so many other very basic things that people with normal brains take for granted.
At times, I have to remind myself that I'm not crazy; I'm just ADD.
Somehow, I'll get things done, even if it's a lot slower than for other people and in a less direct way. And, unfortunately, a lot slower than I used to be able to do the same thing back when I could hyper-focus.
I'll report back if and when I get on medication. If I do as well as Mel has (she's finishing up her MFA in creative writing!), I'll be able to reach my goals . . . finally. I hope.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
November 27, 2013
WNW—Sandy Hook and the "They" Conspiracy
Today's Word Nerd Wednesday has a more somber topic than I usually take here, but I think it's a relevant one in light of how news is covered in the US and how we interpret evidence presented to us by various sources.
This post has been on my mind for almost a year, when I first heard conspiracy theories after the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012. With the report of the shooting released this week, concluding that Adam Lanza acted alone, and with almost a full year passing since the tragic events of that day, I'm taking a stab at the issue the conspiracy theorists brought up in hope of shedding some light on the situation and, I hope, on not jumping to conclusions in relation to the language used in news reports and other situations.
Shortly after the shooting, I listened to several tapes online where people discussed how, in their strong opinions, there had to have been multiple gunmen in Sandy Hook, and that the federal government was hiding that fact.
One video went so far as to insist that President Obama himself had ordered the shootings so he could have a leg up in passing new gun control laws. My jaw dropped at that accusation. Obama isn't perfect, and he's made mistakes as President, but would he seriously order the murder of children for a crap-shoot chance for passing a new law? Is he really evil, a mass murderer? Not a chance.
Over and over, I came across one piece of so-called "evidence" that these theorists used to "prove" that there was more than one gunman. I won't link to the videos; I don't want to give those people extra attention. The point of this post is to show how relying on language used by victims in the heat of a crisis cannot be psycho-analyzed as a reliable way to justify a personal agenda.
The "Evidence"
In more than one spot on a tape (I believe it was a 9-1-1 call), the person on the phone, an eye witness in the school, used phrases such as these (not quotes, but they give the general idea):
Let's back up the trolley a bit.
Almost three years ago, I blogged about how their is gradually becoming a singular pronoun. In English, we simply don't have a gender-neutral third-person, singular pronoun. We have he and we have she, and I suppose we also have it, but we don't use it when referring to people.
Often, when we don't know the gender of the person, or when the gender is irrelevant, we have to get creative, and that often means falling to the easiest way to explain with the fewest words.
In publications, we often see constructions such as he or she, or sentences rewritten so they have a plural verb and can justify the plural pronoun their. That happens mostly in scholarly publications in academia, student's college papers, and, probably, in any resume you submit.
In everyday, casual speech, we often use their as a single pronoun.
Why? For several reasons. For one, using he or she gets cumbersome and often sounds hoity-toity. In addition, we tend to go the simplest route when speaking; why use three words when one will do? The English-language culture has shifted. Today, their is largely accepted in conversation as just fine when it's acting as a single pronoun; you won't generally find it in most published works, although that's changing in fiction, especially in dialog, which tends to mirror actual conversation.
The reality is, when someone is under duress, and isn't an English professor who is so used to using he or she that the phrase rolls off the tongue without a thought, even in a moment of crisis, a witness will almost certainly use they when referring to an unknown perpetrator.
Heightened emotion does that to people: while under stress; we slip into the registers of speaking we're most comfortable in. We're far less likely to adhere to grammatical standards, especially ones we aren't 100% familiar with. Even if you know the difference between the verbs to lay and to lie and which forms to use when, but you have to think about which form to use even for a split second, chances are, if your life is on the line, you won't give the verb that split second of thought, and a word will pop out, which may well be technically incorrect.
In other words, even if witnesses could tell that the shooter was male, we can predict, even without hearing any 9-1-1 tape, that witnesses would describe the shooter's action in terms of they, and not as he.
Granted, I doubt the new report will sway die-hard conspiracy theorists, even though they are just as likely to unconsciously throw in they when speaking, even when technically he or she would be correct.
I hope that the report of a lone gunman helps give a little bit of closure to the families affected by the horrific events of that day.
For the rest of us, I hope that by talking about these things, we gain some clarity. Like how people use casual and "incorrect" words in conversation and especially in life-or-death situations. Like how they're liable to use incorrect grammar or slip into more colloquial usage in tense moments. How we cannot use such speech as a basis for making broad accusations or assumptions, especially when such theories cannot hold water in light of how the language is used in the real world.
As much as I hope we never have another shooting or other similar tragedy in this country, I'm not naive enough to think we've seen the end. But I do hope that whenever we hear a tragic news story and people coming up with theories about them, we can take a step back and look at the fact objectively, not over-analyzing a single word and assuming what the person speaking meant by it. Especially, as in this case, when that single word was interpreted so wildly off base.
I'm all for unraveling stories to reveal the truth, and language does have the power to do amazing things along those lines. This isn't one of those times. Saying that the use of their automatically means there had have been multiple people committing this crime only causes grief, quite literally, to so many people involved, including the law-enforcement officers who, I believe, really did do their best to find out what happened.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
This post has been on my mind for almost a year, when I first heard conspiracy theories after the Sandy Hook shooting in December 2012. With the report of the shooting released this week, concluding that Adam Lanza acted alone, and with almost a full year passing since the tragic events of that day, I'm taking a stab at the issue the conspiracy theorists brought up in hope of shedding some light on the situation and, I hope, on not jumping to conclusions in relation to the language used in news reports and other situations.
Shortly after the shooting, I listened to several tapes online where people discussed how, in their strong opinions, there had to have been multiple gunmen in Sandy Hook, and that the federal government was hiding that fact.
One video went so far as to insist that President Obama himself had ordered the shootings so he could have a leg up in passing new gun control laws. My jaw dropped at that accusation. Obama isn't perfect, and he's made mistakes as President, but would he seriously order the murder of children for a crap-shoot chance for passing a new law? Is he really evil, a mass murderer? Not a chance.
Over and over, I came across one piece of so-called "evidence" that these theorists used to "prove" that there was more than one gunman. I won't link to the videos; I don't want to give those people extra attention. The point of this post is to show how relying on language used by victims in the heat of a crisis cannot be psycho-analyzed as a reliable way to justify a personal agenda.
The "Evidence"
In more than one spot on a tape (I believe it was a 9-1-1 call), the person on the phone, an eye witness in the school, used phrases such as these (not quotes, but they give the general idea):
They're coming down the hall!Conspiracy theorists based their conclusions, in large part, on the fact that the witness had used the word they while relating ongoing events during the shooting, that a single pronoun somehow proved that more than one person was carrying out the attack.
They're shooting!
They've got more than one gun!
Let's back up the trolley a bit.
Almost three years ago, I blogged about how their is gradually becoming a singular pronoun. In English, we simply don't have a gender-neutral third-person, singular pronoun. We have he and we have she, and I suppose we also have it, but we don't use it when referring to people.
Often, when we don't know the gender of the person, or when the gender is irrelevant, we have to get creative, and that often means falling to the easiest way to explain with the fewest words.
In publications, we often see constructions such as he or she, or sentences rewritten so they have a plural verb and can justify the plural pronoun their. That happens mostly in scholarly publications in academia, student's college papers, and, probably, in any resume you submit.
In everyday, casual speech, we often use their as a single pronoun.
Why? For several reasons. For one, using he or she gets cumbersome and often sounds hoity-toity. In addition, we tend to go the simplest route when speaking; why use three words when one will do? The English-language culture has shifted. Today, their is largely accepted in conversation as just fine when it's acting as a single pronoun; you won't generally find it in most published works, although that's changing in fiction, especially in dialog, which tends to mirror actual conversation.
The reality is, when someone is under duress, and isn't an English professor who is so used to using he or she that the phrase rolls off the tongue without a thought, even in a moment of crisis, a witness will almost certainly use they when referring to an unknown perpetrator.
Heightened emotion does that to people: while under stress; we slip into the registers of speaking we're most comfortable in. We're far less likely to adhere to grammatical standards, especially ones we aren't 100% familiar with. Even if you know the difference between the verbs to lay and to lie and which forms to use when, but you have to think about which form to use even for a split second, chances are, if your life is on the line, you won't give the verb that split second of thought, and a word will pop out, which may well be technically incorrect.
In other words, even if witnesses could tell that the shooter was male, we can predict, even without hearing any 9-1-1 tape, that witnesses would describe the shooter's action in terms of they, and not as he.
Granted, I doubt the new report will sway die-hard conspiracy theorists, even though they are just as likely to unconsciously throw in they when speaking, even when technically he or she would be correct.
I hope that the report of a lone gunman helps give a little bit of closure to the families affected by the horrific events of that day.
For the rest of us, I hope that by talking about these things, we gain some clarity. Like how people use casual and "incorrect" words in conversation and especially in life-or-death situations. Like how they're liable to use incorrect grammar or slip into more colloquial usage in tense moments. How we cannot use such speech as a basis for making broad accusations or assumptions, especially when such theories cannot hold water in light of how the language is used in the real world.
As much as I hope we never have another shooting or other similar tragedy in this country, I'm not naive enough to think we've seen the end. But I do hope that whenever we hear a tragic news story and people coming up with theories about them, we can take a step back and look at the fact objectively, not over-analyzing a single word and assuming what the person speaking meant by it. Especially, as in this case, when that single word was interpreted so wildly off base.
I'm all for unraveling stories to reveal the truth, and language does have the power to do amazing things along those lines. This isn't one of those times. Saying that the use of their automatically means there had have been multiple people committing this crime only causes grief, quite literally, to so many people involved, including the law-enforcement officers who, I believe, really did do their best to find out what happened.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
November 20, 2013
Barbara Park & a Little Girl's Wish
Last week I heard the news that Barbara Park, author of dozens of kids' books and best known for the Junie B. Jones series, had died from ovarian cancer. She was only 66, younger than both of my parents. She lost her battle with the same killer that took my maternal grandmother.
Whether you like Junie B. Jones or couldn't stand her improper grammar, the character became a cultural phenom and influenced millions of children, including my own. We have a shelf full of Barbara Park's books, and they are all well read. Even though my kids have outgrown Junie, I have no intention of getting rid of the books. They are a reminder of great times spent with my kids, laughing at Junie B.'s antics, and teaching my kids to read.
Recently, my youngest and one of her friends decided to make a Junie B. movie, and they began adapting the book into a screenplay first. I think Barbara Park would be pleased.
Park was more than an influential writer, something I bet that most writers would like to be remembered for when they pass. I'll always remember her for something else, as well, something she didn't announce publicly, something you cannot find a news clip about (at least, I couldn't, and I knew exactly what I was looking for).
The most public hint you'll get is in the dedication of one of her books. But I'll get to that in a minute.
A cousin-in-law's daughter, Makenzie, became very ill back in 2006 with a low-grade brain stem tumor, which threatened to take away her eyesight as well as her life. The extended relatives on that side of the family held group fasts and prayers for this young girl, who loved to read, and, yes, who loved Junie B.
Makenzie's dream was to grow up to become a real-life published novelist someday. We all hoped she'd grow up, but that wasn't a guarantee. In the meantime, enter Make-A-Wish for the next best thing. They arranged for her meet and spend the day with Barbara Park, her idol. I don't know what all went on that day except that it was a very special time between a special lady and a special little girl. That was November of 2006.
Barbara Park didn't broadcast the fact that she'd done this wonderful thing. The only clue anyone had was in the front of her next book, which was released the following February. She dedicated that book to Makenzie in the voice of Junie B.
Open Junie B., First Grader: Dumb Bunny, which has Junie B. in a pink Easter bunny costume (see the cover at the top of this post), and you'll find it:
Fortunately, seven years after their meeting, Makenzie is still with us, and, last I heard, she is doing well as a teenager, with doctors still monitoring her tumor.
With Park's death, I thought right time had come to let a few other people know about a small thing she did that, to me, shows the kindness she had in her heart and the love she had for children, which is so evident in her books.
I find it strangely sad that she died of cancer after a different kind of cancer hit the young girl Park helped to cheer up one day. I hope she has her own angels now, making her wishes come true.
RIP, Barbara Park.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
Whether you like Junie B. Jones or couldn't stand her improper grammar, the character became a cultural phenom and influenced millions of children, including my own. We have a shelf full of Barbara Park's books, and they are all well read. Even though my kids have outgrown Junie, I have no intention of getting rid of the books. They are a reminder of great times spent with my kids, laughing at Junie B.'s antics, and teaching my kids to read.
Recently, my youngest and one of her friends decided to make a Junie B. movie, and they began adapting the book into a screenplay first. I think Barbara Park would be pleased.
Park was more than an influential writer, something I bet that most writers would like to be remembered for when they pass. I'll always remember her for something else, as well, something she didn't announce publicly, something you cannot find a news clip about (at least, I couldn't, and I knew exactly what I was looking for).
The most public hint you'll get is in the dedication of one of her books. But I'll get to that in a minute.
A cousin-in-law's daughter, Makenzie, became very ill back in 2006 with a low-grade brain stem tumor, which threatened to take away her eyesight as well as her life. The extended relatives on that side of the family held group fasts and prayers for this young girl, who loved to read, and, yes, who loved Junie B.
Makenzie's dream was to grow up to become a real-life published novelist someday. We all hoped she'd grow up, but that wasn't a guarantee. In the meantime, enter Make-A-Wish for the next best thing. They arranged for her meet and spend the day with Barbara Park, her idol. I don't know what all went on that day except that it was a very special time between a special lady and a special little girl. That was November of 2006.
Barbara Park didn't broadcast the fact that she'd done this wonderful thing. The only clue anyone had was in the front of her next book, which was released the following February. She dedicated that book to Makenzie in the voice of Junie B.
Open Junie B., First Grader: Dumb Bunny, which has Junie B. in a pink Easter bunny costume (see the cover at the top of this post), and you'll find it:
Dear my brand-newest friend Makenzie Moore,
This book is dedicated especially to you from me!
I hope it makes you laugh and laugh!
Love and hugs,
Junie B., First Grade r
P.S. Plus also, thank you to Make-A-Wish for introducing us!(You can also read the dedication on Amazon using the Look Inside feature.)
Fortunately, seven years after their meeting, Makenzie is still with us, and, last I heard, she is doing well as a teenager, with doctors still monitoring her tumor.
With Park's death, I thought right time had come to let a few other people know about a small thing she did that, to me, shows the kindness she had in her heart and the love she had for children, which is so evident in her books.
I find it strangely sad that she died of cancer after a different kind of cancer hit the young girl Park helped to cheer up one day. I hope she has her own angels now, making her wishes come true.
RIP, Barbara Park.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
October 16, 2013
WNW: Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms, & Monograms
Weeks (months?) ago, I pasted a note from Twitter to remind myself to do this post. I'm pretty sure the suggestion came from TJ Bronley, and here I am, finally getting around to answering his request.
For this week's Word Nerd Wednesday: What is the difference between acronyms, monograms, and abbreviations?
(I'm adding initialisms to the list; you'll see why.)
First off, let's look at what an abbreviation is.
An abbreviation is simply a shortening of a word or phrase using components of that word or phrase. Some abbreviations use a period at the end, but not all require one.
Examples of abbreviations:
Quart = qt
Minute = min
Doctor = Dr.
Mister = Mr.
Et cetera = etc.
International Police = Interpol*
AM, PM
BC, AD
The last two on that list are so common that we've almost forgotten what they stand for (ante meridiem/post meridiem, meaning before and after noon, and Before Christ/Anno Domini, meaning in the year of our Lord).
Here are some modern abbreviations that developed from e-mail and texting. (This list could go on forever, but I'll keep it short.)
FWIW (For what it's worth)
IMO (In my opinion)
LOL (Laughing out loud)
We use abbreviations for all kinds of things, including the United States (the US) and the group of countries that comprise the United Kingdom (the UK).
Acronyms are a type of abbreviation. They typically use the initial letters of a phrase or name and (here's the important part) acronyms can be pronounced as a word. Some acronyms are spelled out as all caps. Others use periods between the letters, and some are entirely lowercase. Check your style guide to know how to write one out. Examples of acronyms:
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation)
AIDS (autoimmune-deficiency syndrome)
scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus)
CD-ROM (compact disc read-only memory)
That last one mixes things up a bit, as only the second part (ROM) is pronounced as a word. We still say the letters separately on CD, of course.
Initialisms are similar to acronyms. They're also a type of abbreviation. Like acronyms, they use the first letters, but the big difference is that initialisms aren't pronounced as words .
Many initialisms are abbreviations for organizations, such as television stations, government entities, or universities. Examples of initialisms:
FBI
CIA
NBC
FCC
BYU
Tip: If you don't say it like a word, it's just a regular abbreviation or an initialism, not an acronym.
RAS Syndrome
This is a silly name for something that crops up a lot because of how often we use abbreviations. RAS is an abbreviation of Redundant Acronym Syndrome. Say the full name (with syndrome at the end), and we've got a repetitive phrase with RAS Syndrome in action: Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome.
Silly, yes, but this kind of thing really does show up all the time. I bet you've heard people talk about a PIN Number, when the N in PIN already means number, so they're saying, Personal Identification Number Number.
Or what about a screen's LCD display? We don't need that last word, because then we're saying liquid crystal display display.
Monograms are another animal altogether. Unlike the other terms we've talked about, they aren't a type of abbreviation. Instead, monograms are symbols or logos with one or more letters made into a single image. Monograms were often used as symbols of a monarch. Today we see them a lot in corporate and school logos. They aren't words at all, just images that tell the viewer instantly who or what it stands for.
An example: For many years during her talk-show period, Oprah used a big O with a specific font to symbolize her name and brand. We still see it prominently on her magazine today.
There you have it! If you have suggestions for future Word Nerd Wednesdays, drop me a line on Twitter. You can find me here: @AnnetteLyon.
*I believe InterPol technically has a longer name, but I'm not doing the research on that one today. © 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
For this week's Word Nerd Wednesday: What is the difference between acronyms, monograms, and abbreviations?
(I'm adding initialisms to the list; you'll see why.)
First off, let's look at what an abbreviation is.
An abbreviation is simply a shortening of a word or phrase using components of that word or phrase. Some abbreviations use a period at the end, but not all require one.
Examples of abbreviations:
Quart = qt
Minute = min
Doctor = Dr.
Mister = Mr.
Et cetera = etc.
International Police = Interpol*
AM, PM
BC, AD
The last two on that list are so common that we've almost forgotten what they stand for (ante meridiem/post meridiem, meaning before and after noon, and Before Christ/Anno Domini, meaning in the year of our Lord).
Here are some modern abbreviations that developed from e-mail and texting. (This list could go on forever, but I'll keep it short.)
FWIW (For what it's worth)
IMO (In my opinion)
LOL (Laughing out loud)
We use abbreviations for all kinds of things, including the United States (the US) and the group of countries that comprise the United Kingdom (the UK).
Acronyms are a type of abbreviation. They typically use the initial letters of a phrase or name and (here's the important part) acronyms can be pronounced as a word. Some acronyms are spelled out as all caps. Others use periods between the letters, and some are entirely lowercase. Check your style guide to know how to write one out. Examples of acronyms:
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation)
AIDS (autoimmune-deficiency syndrome)
scuba (self-contained underwater breathing apparatus)
CD-ROM (compact disc read-only memory)
That last one mixes things up a bit, as only the second part (ROM) is pronounced as a word. We still say the letters separately on CD, of course.
Initialisms are similar to acronyms. They're also a type of abbreviation. Like acronyms, they use the first letters, but the big difference is that initialisms aren't pronounced as words .
Many initialisms are abbreviations for organizations, such as television stations, government entities, or universities. Examples of initialisms:
FBI
CIA
NBC
FCC
BYU
Tip: If you don't say it like a word, it's just a regular abbreviation or an initialism, not an acronym.
RAS Syndrome
This is a silly name for something that crops up a lot because of how often we use abbreviations. RAS is an abbreviation of Redundant Acronym Syndrome. Say the full name (with syndrome at the end), and we've got a repetitive phrase with RAS Syndrome in action: Redundant Acronym Syndrome Syndrome.
Silly, yes, but this kind of thing really does show up all the time. I bet you've heard people talk about a PIN Number, when the N in PIN already means number, so they're saying, Personal Identification Number Number.
Or what about a screen's LCD display? We don't need that last word, because then we're saying liquid crystal display display.
Monograms are another animal altogether. Unlike the other terms we've talked about, they aren't a type of abbreviation. Instead, monograms are symbols or logos with one or more letters made into a single image. Monograms were often used as symbols of a monarch. Today we see them a lot in corporate and school logos. They aren't words at all, just images that tell the viewer instantly who or what it stands for.
An example: For many years during her talk-show period, Oprah used a big O with a specific font to symbolize her name and brand. We still see it prominently on her magazine today.
There you have it! If you have suggestions for future Word Nerd Wednesdays, drop me a line on Twitter. You can find me here: @AnnetteLyon.
*I believe InterPol technically has a longer name, but I'm not doing the research on that one today. © 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
September 30, 2013
Author Interview: Christy Dorrity
Today I welcome Christy Dorrity to the blog and interview her about her new release, Awakening. I haven't read her book yet, but I'm intrigued; I love mythology, and her cover is awesome!
I love what she had to say about crappy first drafts (TRUTH, people!), and that she enjoys my good friend Robison Wells' work. Enjoy!
About the Book
. . . because some Celtic stories won’t be contained in myth.
A little magic has always run in sixteen-year-old McKayla McCleery's family—at least that’s what she’s been told. McKayla’s eccentric Aunt Avril travels the world as a psychic for the FBI, and her mother can make amazing delicacies out of the most basic of ingredients. But McKayla doesn't think for a second that the magic is real—it’s just good storytelling. Besides, McKayla doesn’t need magic. She recently moved to beautiful Star Valley, Wyoming, and already she has a best friend, a solo in her upcoming ballet recital—and the gorgeous guy in her physics class keeps looking her way.
When an unexpected fascination with Irish dance leads McKayla to seek instruction from the mute, crippled janitor at her high school, she learns that her family is not the only one with unexplained abilities.
After Aunt Avril comes to Star Valley in pursuit of a supernatural killer, people begin disappearing, and the lives of those McKayla holds most dear are threatened. When the janitor reveals that an ancient curse, known as a geis, has awakened deadly powers that defy explanation, McKayla is forced to come to terms with what is real and what is fantasy.
A thrilling debut novel based in Celtic mythology, Awakening is a gripping young adult fantasy rife with magic, romance, and mystery.
Our Interview
AL: How long have you been writing and how did you get started? (When did the bug bite you?)
CD: Funny, it really was like I got the bug. I was pregnant with my fifth child, five years ago, and all of a sudden, I had this itch inside of me that I couldn't get rid of. I started writing and now, if I go a day without working on writing, I feel unproductive.
AL: Where did the idea for Awakening come from?
CD: My husband bought us tickets to go see Riverdance, an Irish dance show, and I was fascinated by the music and the rhythms. I began taking lessons and soon became enthralled with the Irish culture and mythology as well. When I began seriously writing, it was natural for me to write about something I felt so much passion for.
AL: What research did you have to do for the book? What was the most interesting thing you learned?
CD: Much of the research that I did for Awakening had to do with learning about Celtic mythology. I suppose you could count my Irish dance training as research, and that's the best kind of research, in my opinion. I would have to say that the most interesting thing I learned about is the geis—a complicated curse that I drew on for inspiration in this first novel in the series.
AL: What is your writing style? Are you an outliner or a by-the-seat-of-your-pantser? Somewhere in between?
CD: With Awakening, I wrote by the seat of my pants, and when it came time to edit, my manuscript was a disaster! I have since learned how to structure a story, and I am fully outlining the second book in the series. I'll have to see how it works out.
AL: What is your typical writing schedule like?
CD: I write in the afternoons when my big kids are at school and my preschooler is napping. It is probably my least productive time of day, but it is the only time I have right now.
AL: What is one big thing you've learned through the process of publishing your first novel?
CD: It doesn't matter how crappy my first draft looks—I can go back and fix it.
AL: Why did you choose to self-publish? What was that process like?
CD: I love the flexibility that comes with self-publishing. I can set my own deadlines, and have creative control over my content. The success of my books lie with me, and no one else.
AL: What's been the biggest surprise about the publishing process?
CD: I thought that I would feel somehow different when I released my first novel. That I would feel like I had arrived. But, instead, I'm thinking of the next book and forging ahead. We all know that it's about the journey, and not the destination.
AL: Which authors are your biggest literary influences in the national market?
CD: I love big, sweeping series, such as Twilight and Hunger Games. But I also love small, character-driven stories about every-day people. Tyger Tyger by Kersten Hamilton, and Descendant by Nichole Giles are a few of the books that I've loved recently that have a similar vein as my novel. Other books I've been loving lately are Open Minds by Susan Kay Quinn, Variant by Robison Wells, and The False Prince by Jennifer Nielsen.
AL: In the LDS market?
CD: I have to say that I was very much influenced by Jack Weyland's books as a young adult. His books were real to me and helped me learn in a way that wasn't preachy or forced.
AL: Any advice for aspiring authors?
CD: Believe in your book. Write it, put it out there for everyone to see, and be proud of it. If you don't, who will?
About the Author
Christy Dorrity lives in the mountains with her husband, five children, and a cocker spaniel. She grew up on a trout ranch in Star Valley, Wyoming,
and is the author of The Geis series for young adults, and The Book
Blogger’s Cookbooks. Christy is a champion Irish dancer, and when she’s
not reading or writing, she’s probably trying out a new recipe in the
kitchen.
Find her on Facebook and Twitter. Get Awakening at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
I love what she had to say about crappy first drafts (TRUTH, people!), and that she enjoys my good friend Robison Wells' work. Enjoy!
About the Book
. . . because some Celtic stories won’t be contained in myth.
A little magic has always run in sixteen-year-old McKayla McCleery's family—at least that’s what she’s been told. McKayla’s eccentric Aunt Avril travels the world as a psychic for the FBI, and her mother can make amazing delicacies out of the most basic of ingredients. But McKayla doesn't think for a second that the magic is real—it’s just good storytelling. Besides, McKayla doesn’t need magic. She recently moved to beautiful Star Valley, Wyoming, and already she has a best friend, a solo in her upcoming ballet recital—and the gorgeous guy in her physics class keeps looking her way.
When an unexpected fascination with Irish dance leads McKayla to seek instruction from the mute, crippled janitor at her high school, she learns that her family is not the only one with unexplained abilities.
After Aunt Avril comes to Star Valley in pursuit of a supernatural killer, people begin disappearing, and the lives of those McKayla holds most dear are threatened. When the janitor reveals that an ancient curse, known as a geis, has awakened deadly powers that defy explanation, McKayla is forced to come to terms with what is real and what is fantasy.
A thrilling debut novel based in Celtic mythology, Awakening is a gripping young adult fantasy rife with magic, romance, and mystery.
Our Interview
AL: How long have you been writing and how did you get started? (When did the bug bite you?)
CD: Funny, it really was like I got the bug. I was pregnant with my fifth child, five years ago, and all of a sudden, I had this itch inside of me that I couldn't get rid of. I started writing and now, if I go a day without working on writing, I feel unproductive.
AL: Where did the idea for Awakening come from?
CD: My husband bought us tickets to go see Riverdance, an Irish dance show, and I was fascinated by the music and the rhythms. I began taking lessons and soon became enthralled with the Irish culture and mythology as well. When I began seriously writing, it was natural for me to write about something I felt so much passion for.
AL: What research did you have to do for the book? What was the most interesting thing you learned?
CD: Much of the research that I did for Awakening had to do with learning about Celtic mythology. I suppose you could count my Irish dance training as research, and that's the best kind of research, in my opinion. I would have to say that the most interesting thing I learned about is the geis—a complicated curse that I drew on for inspiration in this first novel in the series.
AL: What is your writing style? Are you an outliner or a by-the-seat-of-your-pantser? Somewhere in between?
CD: With Awakening, I wrote by the seat of my pants, and when it came time to edit, my manuscript was a disaster! I have since learned how to structure a story, and I am fully outlining the second book in the series. I'll have to see how it works out.
AL: What is your typical writing schedule like?
CD: I write in the afternoons when my big kids are at school and my preschooler is napping. It is probably my least productive time of day, but it is the only time I have right now.
AL: What is one big thing you've learned through the process of publishing your first novel?
CD: It doesn't matter how crappy my first draft looks—I can go back and fix it.
AL: Why did you choose to self-publish? What was that process like?
CD: I love the flexibility that comes with self-publishing. I can set my own deadlines, and have creative control over my content. The success of my books lie with me, and no one else.
AL: What's been the biggest surprise about the publishing process?
CD: I thought that I would feel somehow different when I released my first novel. That I would feel like I had arrived. But, instead, I'm thinking of the next book and forging ahead. We all know that it's about the journey, and not the destination.
AL: Which authors are your biggest literary influences in the national market?
CD: I love big, sweeping series, such as Twilight and Hunger Games. But I also love small, character-driven stories about every-day people. Tyger Tyger by Kersten Hamilton, and Descendant by Nichole Giles are a few of the books that I've loved recently that have a similar vein as my novel. Other books I've been loving lately are Open Minds by Susan Kay Quinn, Variant by Robison Wells, and The False Prince by Jennifer Nielsen.
AL: In the LDS market?
CD: I have to say that I was very much influenced by Jack Weyland's books as a young adult. His books were real to me and helped me learn in a way that wasn't preachy or forced.
AL: Any advice for aspiring authors?
CD: Believe in your book. Write it, put it out there for everyone to see, and be proud of it. If you don't, who will?
About the Author
Christy Dorrity lives in the mountains with her husband, five children, and a cocker spaniel. She grew up on a trout ranch in Star Valley, Wyoming,
and is the author of The Geis series for young adults, and The Book
Blogger’s Cookbooks. Christy is a champion Irish dancer, and when she’s
not reading or writing, she’s probably trying out a new recipe in the
kitchen.
Find her on Facebook and Twitter. Get Awakening at Amazon or Barnes & Noble.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
September 27, 2013
What Stan Lee Taught Me About Writing
I suppose that "What Stan Lee Reminded Me About Writing" would be more accurate . . .
The first weekend of September this year marked a monumental event: the first-ever Comic Con in Salt Lake City. They sold completely out of tickets. The place was so incredibly packed that I understand the fire marshal showed up at one point.
I got to attend on the busiest day, Saturday. Walking the floor as part of a moving river of human beings was stifling at best. (Good thing my claustrophobia didn't kick in; it totally could have.)
I got a front-row seat!
When I freed myself from seeing cool things like the Hulk made out of balloons, a life-size Tardis, Sasquatch, and the most amazing costumes on attendees, I found myself on a relatively free end of the hall. I'll call this celebrity alley.
Along this area, various celebrities, largely famous for roles in science fiction or fantasy television shows and movies, had areas roped off. At the far end of each area were tables and chairs and a giant poster featuring the celebrity's name and several photographs from their most famous roles.
The photos were particularly helpful. I didn't always know the celebrities' names, but you can be sure I know who Q is. Times were listed during which fans could line up to meet them and get photos and/or autographs (each of which cost a pretty penny) (I didn't get one).
Among those I walked past: The aforementioned Q (John de Lancie), Henry Winkler (cool to see the Fonz, although I'm not entirely sure what he was doing at a SF/F con), and Kevin Sorbo (known as TV's Hercules). I'm kicking myself for not writing down all the names, because there were many more. Cool stuff.
(Note: Q is getting old. I suppose time didn't stop for him in 1994, which means it didn't for me, either. Ahem.)
The highlights for me, though, were getting up-close seats to hear from William Shatner and then Stan Lee. Shatner was fun to listen to, but it was Stan Lee I'll always remember.
He came onto the stage looking small and old, which I suppose he is. He had the signature glasses he always wears. I don't think he stopped smiling or laughing the entire time. He cracked a lot of down-to-earth, funny jokes, some at his own expense, and I immediately liked him. He didn't have the air of a celebrity gracing his fans with his presence.
Fans stood in two lines, one flanking each side of the stage, to ask him questions. A lot of them were things you'd expect: Who is your favorite Marvel superhero? Who is your favorite Marvel female character? If you were to actually admit to liking DC Comics, which of their superheroes is your favorite? Which was your favorite cameo in a Marvel movie?
Because I'm a writer, two of the questions jumped out at me.
The first was asked a few times in various ways, and it always got the same answer: If superheroes X and Y fought, who would win?
Stan's response each time: "Depends on who's writing it."
His answer brought me back to a League of Utah Writers conference I attended probably 15ish years ago, where Orson Scott Card was the keynote and taught a couple of classes. In one of his workshops, he led the attendees through an exercise during which we created an entire world and plot within 50 minutes. (I still remember his keynote address, and part of the magic system from the workshop.) (He's coming to the Storymakers conference in April 2014. Yesssss!)
He noted that in the past, he'd make sure that everyone agreed in advance not to use the story generated by the workshop, but he didn't do that anymore, because he'd realized that every person in the room could go home and write about what we'd just invented, and there was a good chance that each story would stand totally on its own as original.
That's because, contrary to what some people think about the mystic act of writing, writers get to pull the strings and make things happen. We decide on the character motivations, stakes, personalities, complications, and everything else. Sure, sometimes we discover stuff that changes our original plan, but in a sense, we're still the creators of our fictional universe. Because every writer is different, each writer's work will be different too. It's a beautiful thing, this power we hold.
(But with great power comes great responsibility; right, Stan?)
The other question, or, rather, Stan's answer to it, stuck me even harder, and I think I'll remember it forever. A fan asked, "What inspired you to create all of these great characters?"
Stan had a couple of responses. The first was sort of tongue in cheek, just one word: "Greed." Then he chuckled, his shoulders shaking. "Just kidding," he said. "Sort of."
He went on to explain how writing was his career. That if he hoped to feed his family and keep a roof over their heads, he had to keep writing and producing. It was his job. That meant coming up with new stories and new superheroes to populate the stories with. He couldn't decide one day that he just wasn't feeling it, or he'd have lost his job altogether. And he wasn't rich and famous then. He hadn't built the Stan Lee empire of Marvel Comics. Not yet. He was just doing what he did well to keep dinner on the table.
In other words, Stan Lee didn't wait for the muse to strike before he sat down to write. He was and is a professional, and that means BIC-HOK: Butt in Chair, Hands on Keyboard (or, in his day, probably Hands on Typewriter). While he didn't say so, I'd wager that the more often he sat down and did the work, the more often the muse showed up right on schedule. It's like a muscle; train it, and it'll work when you need it to.
He did the work because it needed to be done, and because that's what professionals do. All writers can take a lesson from that.
The recipe sounds deceptively simple, but trust me—writing to deadlines and being as incredibly creative and prolific as Stan Lee became isn't easy. I can guarantee there were many days he didn't want to write another story about the Hulk, or he didn't want to rack his brain for an original superpower to give to a new superhero. There were probably days he didn't even like his characters.
I'm sure Stan Lee fought every creative battle out there. And he won, creating the Marvel empire that has influenced millions and even affected our culture.
Recently I heard an up-and-coming writer ask how to "get" herself edit her current WIP when she really wanted to draft a new one. The fact that she was even asking the question makes me think that maybe she's not quite ready for the answer.
Here's how: You just do it, because that's what professionals do.
Easy? Heck, no. But the writing life never was.
Awesome? Yes.
Easy? Not even close.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
The first weekend of September this year marked a monumental event: the first-ever Comic Con in Salt Lake City. They sold completely out of tickets. The place was so incredibly packed that I understand the fire marshal showed up at one point.
I got to attend on the busiest day, Saturday. Walking the floor as part of a moving river of human beings was stifling at best. (Good thing my claustrophobia didn't kick in; it totally could have.)
I got a front-row seat!
When I freed myself from seeing cool things like the Hulk made out of balloons, a life-size Tardis, Sasquatch, and the most amazing costumes on attendees, I found myself on a relatively free end of the hall. I'll call this celebrity alley.
Along this area, various celebrities, largely famous for roles in science fiction or fantasy television shows and movies, had areas roped off. At the far end of each area were tables and chairs and a giant poster featuring the celebrity's name and several photographs from their most famous roles.
The photos were particularly helpful. I didn't always know the celebrities' names, but you can be sure I know who Q is. Times were listed during which fans could line up to meet them and get photos and/or autographs (each of which cost a pretty penny) (I didn't get one).
Among those I walked past: The aforementioned Q (John de Lancie), Henry Winkler (cool to see the Fonz, although I'm not entirely sure what he was doing at a SF/F con), and Kevin Sorbo (known as TV's Hercules). I'm kicking myself for not writing down all the names, because there were many more. Cool stuff.
(Note: Q is getting old. I suppose time didn't stop for him in 1994, which means it didn't for me, either. Ahem.)
The highlights for me, though, were getting up-close seats to hear from William Shatner and then Stan Lee. Shatner was fun to listen to, but it was Stan Lee I'll always remember.
He came onto the stage looking small and old, which I suppose he is. He had the signature glasses he always wears. I don't think he stopped smiling or laughing the entire time. He cracked a lot of down-to-earth, funny jokes, some at his own expense, and I immediately liked him. He didn't have the air of a celebrity gracing his fans with his presence.
Fans stood in two lines, one flanking each side of the stage, to ask him questions. A lot of them were things you'd expect: Who is your favorite Marvel superhero? Who is your favorite Marvel female character? If you were to actually admit to liking DC Comics, which of their superheroes is your favorite? Which was your favorite cameo in a Marvel movie?
Because I'm a writer, two of the questions jumped out at me.
The first was asked a few times in various ways, and it always got the same answer: If superheroes X and Y fought, who would win?
Stan's response each time: "Depends on who's writing it."
His answer brought me back to a League of Utah Writers conference I attended probably 15ish years ago, where Orson Scott Card was the keynote and taught a couple of classes. In one of his workshops, he led the attendees through an exercise during which we created an entire world and plot within 50 minutes. (I still remember his keynote address, and part of the magic system from the workshop.) (He's coming to the Storymakers conference in April 2014. Yesssss!)
He noted that in the past, he'd make sure that everyone agreed in advance not to use the story generated by the workshop, but he didn't do that anymore, because he'd realized that every person in the room could go home and write about what we'd just invented, and there was a good chance that each story would stand totally on its own as original.
That's because, contrary to what some people think about the mystic act of writing, writers get to pull the strings and make things happen. We decide on the character motivations, stakes, personalities, complications, and everything else. Sure, sometimes we discover stuff that changes our original plan, but in a sense, we're still the creators of our fictional universe. Because every writer is different, each writer's work will be different too. It's a beautiful thing, this power we hold.
(But with great power comes great responsibility; right, Stan?)
The other question, or, rather, Stan's answer to it, stuck me even harder, and I think I'll remember it forever. A fan asked, "What inspired you to create all of these great characters?"
Stan had a couple of responses. The first was sort of tongue in cheek, just one word: "Greed." Then he chuckled, his shoulders shaking. "Just kidding," he said. "Sort of."
He went on to explain how writing was his career. That if he hoped to feed his family and keep a roof over their heads, he had to keep writing and producing. It was his job. That meant coming up with new stories and new superheroes to populate the stories with. He couldn't decide one day that he just wasn't feeling it, or he'd have lost his job altogether. And he wasn't rich and famous then. He hadn't built the Stan Lee empire of Marvel Comics. Not yet. He was just doing what he did well to keep dinner on the table.
In other words, Stan Lee didn't wait for the muse to strike before he sat down to write. He was and is a professional, and that means BIC-HOK: Butt in Chair, Hands on Keyboard (or, in his day, probably Hands on Typewriter). While he didn't say so, I'd wager that the more often he sat down and did the work, the more often the muse showed up right on schedule. It's like a muscle; train it, and it'll work when you need it to.
He did the work because it needed to be done, and because that's what professionals do. All writers can take a lesson from that.
The recipe sounds deceptively simple, but trust me—writing to deadlines and being as incredibly creative and prolific as Stan Lee became isn't easy. I can guarantee there were many days he didn't want to write another story about the Hulk, or he didn't want to rack his brain for an original superpower to give to a new superhero. There were probably days he didn't even like his characters.
I'm sure Stan Lee fought every creative battle out there. And he won, creating the Marvel empire that has influenced millions and even affected our culture.
Recently I heard an up-and-coming writer ask how to "get" herself edit her current WIP when she really wanted to draft a new one. The fact that she was even asking the question makes me think that maybe she's not quite ready for the answer.
Here's how: You just do it, because that's what professionals do.
Easy? Heck, no. But the writing life never was.
Awesome? Yes.
Easy? Not even close.
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
September 18, 2013
It's Like SYTYCD
Every three months for a little over a year now, I have a new kind of writing challenge. And by that I don't mean the same challenge every time, but something new, a challenge like I've never had before.
You know how, after a big exercise day, you'll wake up the next morning sore in places you didn't know you had muscles?
It's sort of like that, but in a totally awesome, cool way. Only I'm exercising writing muscles I didn't know I had. In some cases, it's felt like I didn't even have the muscle at all, and I'm developing it as I go.
It began, if memory serves, back in the spring of 2013, when Heather came up with the brilliant idea (she comes up with great ideas quite often) and invited me and Sarah to join her.
The idea: Write and publish clean romance novellas in anthologies. For each anthology, invite three other proven romance writers we know and respect. Everyone involved helps promote the anthologies, which then, in theory helps fans of any given writer involved to get new readers.
Plus, how fun is that?!
So far we've published four collections under the Timeless Romance Anthologies brand, each with a theme going along with the seasons: Winter Historical, Spring Vacation, Summer Wedding, and Autumn Suspense. One thing that continues to impress me is how differently each writer involved interprets the theme. Every novella is so different from the others, and that's part of what makes the collections so fresh and fun.
One big thing we've heard from readers is how glad they are that the novellas are clean. That means there's no content in them beyond a PG rating. More specifically, as for the steamy factor, you'll find nothing steamier than kissing.
Heather and I attended the first Romance Novel Convention this summer and came across a writer who thanked us for writing clean romance. She herself wrote erotica, yet she didn't want her teenage daughter reading the kinds of books she wrote. Not yet, at least, not until her daughter hit adulthood and could make an informed choice.
I don't think any of the writers who've been involved with the anthologies would ever suggest that they're only for young readers—not by a long shot. But it's nice to hear that kind of feedback and know that there's a need for what we write even beyond our intended audience of grown women. (For the record, I've used my sixteen-year-old daughter as a beta reader, and she's read some of the collections. They're that clean.)
Yet embarking on this journey felt intimidating, to put it mildly. Years ago, I read every short story by L. M. Montgomery (of Anne of Green Gables fame), which were being republished in collections (grouped by the editors into themes—a fun coincidence). I remember thinking that I'd never, ever be able to write something so short, that my story ideas needed a novel-sized chunk to tell.
Keep in mind that LMM's "short" stories aren't that short; they're really more like the length of novellas we're using for our anthologies, which run 13,000-15,000 words, roughly 45-50 pages double-spaced in Word.
Something like twenty-five years after reading those stories, I'm faced with the prospect of writing not one, but many stories in the space of about 13,000 words, after a decade of writing novels at least 90,000 words long. My longest novel, At the Journey's End ran close to 115,000 words. So, yeah. I needed a big paradigm shift to make this work.
The first thing I had to do is boil down how exactly I'd write a novella. Fortunately, I've been writing long enough that I know roughly how long my typical scenes end up being: in the neighborhood of 1500-2,000 words. I figured that gave me roughly six scenes to work with to introduce the characters, setting, and conflict, build to a climax, and resolve the plot, especially with the romantic thread. I also knew that I didn't have room for much of a subplot (something that became an additional challenge with the Suspense collection, which required a subplot to work).
I created a very basic outline—a skeleton, really—of the plot for the Winter collection. I remember writing much of that story, which is set in a very snowy, very cold canyon, while on a family trip after spending a day in Island Park, Idaho, in the middle of a very hot summer.
We're currently in the middle of production for our fifth anthology, which will feature historical stories set in Europe, and we have our brand-new cover to reveal.
Here it is:
Two thoughts:
(1) Isn't it gorgeous?
(2) Did you notice whose name is written first? (AAAACK!)
I'm trying to stave off a panic attack at the thought of my story leading the collection. That's what readers sampling the anthology will read when they decide whether to buy it. (Eeep!) Part of my nerves may be because this novella has been my hardest one to write so far (which is saying something), although I'm not sure why. I do have a theory, though.
Remember the whole exercise/muscle analogy? I don't think it's too far off. Memory fails me when I try to recall who first came up with this next oh-so-fitting analogy: for the three of us involved in every single one of the Timeless Romance Anthology collections, the exercise is not unlike So You Think You Can Dance , where dancers are thrown different styles and genres each week and are expected to excel in them.
The ballroom dancer has to suddenly do disco. The ballet dancer is assigned hip hop. The tapper must perform contemporary.
Do it, and do it well, or be voted off.
In our case, of course, the stakes aren't as high as winning a cash prize and the title on a reality show. But I still consider each challenge something special, and I strive to do my best with every novella.
We have a devoted fan base, which grows with each new collection. I want to give every reader a smile and maybe a happy sigh at the end of each story. I give each one everything I've got.
That's not to say my knees won't be knocking as this next collection goes live on November 4; they totally will be.
I'm just glad we don't call our collections So You Think You Can Write...
(Find the Kindle versions here! Or get them on the Nook or the first two collections in other formats from Smashwords.)
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
You know how, after a big exercise day, you'll wake up the next morning sore in places you didn't know you had muscles?
It's sort of like that, but in a totally awesome, cool way. Only I'm exercising writing muscles I didn't know I had. In some cases, it's felt like I didn't even have the muscle at all, and I'm developing it as I go.
It began, if memory serves, back in the spring of 2013, when Heather came up with the brilliant idea (she comes up with great ideas quite often) and invited me and Sarah to join her.
The idea: Write and publish clean romance novellas in anthologies. For each anthology, invite three other proven romance writers we know and respect. Everyone involved helps promote the anthologies, which then, in theory helps fans of any given writer involved to get new readers.
Plus, how fun is that?!
So far we've published four collections under the Timeless Romance Anthologies brand, each with a theme going along with the seasons: Winter Historical, Spring Vacation, Summer Wedding, and Autumn Suspense. One thing that continues to impress me is how differently each writer involved interprets the theme. Every novella is so different from the others, and that's part of what makes the collections so fresh and fun.
One big thing we've heard from readers is how glad they are that the novellas are clean. That means there's no content in them beyond a PG rating. More specifically, as for the steamy factor, you'll find nothing steamier than kissing.
Heather and I attended the first Romance Novel Convention this summer and came across a writer who thanked us for writing clean romance. She herself wrote erotica, yet she didn't want her teenage daughter reading the kinds of books she wrote. Not yet, at least, not until her daughter hit adulthood and could make an informed choice.
I don't think any of the writers who've been involved with the anthologies would ever suggest that they're only for young readers—not by a long shot. But it's nice to hear that kind of feedback and know that there's a need for what we write even beyond our intended audience of grown women. (For the record, I've used my sixteen-year-old daughter as a beta reader, and she's read some of the collections. They're that clean.)
Yet embarking on this journey felt intimidating, to put it mildly. Years ago, I read every short story by L. M. Montgomery (of Anne of Green Gables fame), which were being republished in collections (grouped by the editors into themes—a fun coincidence). I remember thinking that I'd never, ever be able to write something so short, that my story ideas needed a novel-sized chunk to tell.
Keep in mind that LMM's "short" stories aren't that short; they're really more like the length of novellas we're using for our anthologies, which run 13,000-15,000 words, roughly 45-50 pages double-spaced in Word.
Something like twenty-five years after reading those stories, I'm faced with the prospect of writing not one, but many stories in the space of about 13,000 words, after a decade of writing novels at least 90,000 words long. My longest novel, At the Journey's End ran close to 115,000 words. So, yeah. I needed a big paradigm shift to make this work.
The first thing I had to do is boil down how exactly I'd write a novella. Fortunately, I've been writing long enough that I know roughly how long my typical scenes end up being: in the neighborhood of 1500-2,000 words. I figured that gave me roughly six scenes to work with to introduce the characters, setting, and conflict, build to a climax, and resolve the plot, especially with the romantic thread. I also knew that I didn't have room for much of a subplot (something that became an additional challenge with the Suspense collection, which required a subplot to work).
I created a very basic outline—a skeleton, really—of the plot for the Winter collection. I remember writing much of that story, which is set in a very snowy, very cold canyon, while on a family trip after spending a day in Island Park, Idaho, in the middle of a very hot summer.
We're currently in the middle of production for our fifth anthology, which will feature historical stories set in Europe, and we have our brand-new cover to reveal.
Here it is:
Two thoughts:
(1) Isn't it gorgeous?
(2) Did you notice whose name is written first? (AAAACK!)
I'm trying to stave off a panic attack at the thought of my story leading the collection. That's what readers sampling the anthology will read when they decide whether to buy it. (Eeep!) Part of my nerves may be because this novella has been my hardest one to write so far (which is saying something), although I'm not sure why. I do have a theory, though.
Remember the whole exercise/muscle analogy? I don't think it's too far off. Memory fails me when I try to recall who first came up with this next oh-so-fitting analogy: for the three of us involved in every single one of the Timeless Romance Anthology collections, the exercise is not unlike So You Think You Can Dance , where dancers are thrown different styles and genres each week and are expected to excel in them.
The ballroom dancer has to suddenly do disco. The ballet dancer is assigned hip hop. The tapper must perform contemporary.
Do it, and do it well, or be voted off.
In our case, of course, the stakes aren't as high as winning a cash prize and the title on a reality show. But I still consider each challenge something special, and I strive to do my best with every novella.
We have a devoted fan base, which grows with each new collection. I want to give every reader a smile and maybe a happy sigh at the end of each story. I give each one everything I've got.
That's not to say my knees won't be knocking as this next collection goes live on November 4; they totally will be.
I'm just glad we don't call our collections So You Think You Can Write...
(Find the Kindle versions here! Or get them on the Nook or the first two collections in other formats from Smashwords.)
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
August 21, 2013
WNW: The Outrage over "Literally"
Today's Word Nerd Wednesday tackles a topic that has lit up the Internet in the last week or so: the so-called "news" that the word literally has a new definition, meaning figuratively, which is technically the opposite of what the term means.
Note that I put "news" in scare quotes. That's because it's not really news. Dictionaries have been adding that second definition for years. Literally. (Hah!) People noticed this time, because it was a new change to Google's dictionary.
I got my copy of the OED about ten years ago, and the alternate definition of literally is there. Granted, that definition is the last of five, meaning that it's the least common and least accepted one. Plus, it has a note that it's "improper" to use literally in a figurative sense.
HOWEVER . . . (You knew that was coming, right?) as with every word in the OED, this definition includes quotations from the earliest usages of literally with each definition. And guess what: the quotations for using literally meaning figuratively go way back to Dryden (hardly a hack) in 1687. You'll find quotations from the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s, as well.
In other words, people have been using literally as figuratively for a very long time.
So now what? Should we all adopt that definition because it's in just about every dictionary? Not so fast.
First let's talk about what dictionaries actually do. Dictionaries don't record what is correct. Dictionaries report what is said and written. They're the non-judgmental messenger.
In other words, a word or a definition showing up in a dictionary doesn't give that word/definition any kind of stamp of approval. It may still be considered incorrect according to Standard English.
Plenty of words and definitions that aren't Standard English (or at least, not yet) appear in dictionaries, including ain't, which isn't in the ballpark of Standard English.
The bottom line is that language changes over time; that's a simple fact. Try reading Beowulf or The Canterbury Tales in their original text, and you'll see just how much English has changed over the centuries. (Hint: the text doesn't even look like English.)
For that matter, if we're stuck on what a word "really" means, let's look at the OED's first two definitions of literally: 1) By the letters 2) In literature.
So if we're going by the definition from the late 1500s, my English degree made me literally smart, where literally refers to literature. No one's crying foul that the meaning of the word has drastically changed since then. And that's fine.
For that matter, in the OED's entry for literally, today's most common definition ("in a literal sense") isn't listed until number four.
If this sort of thing interests you, here are two other posts that relate, where I've ranted about how English evolves and also how we need to know Standard English to be taken seriously in most educated situations.
I used Grammarly to grammar check this post, so I can spend the time I saved eating brownies, because seriously, they won't eat themselves. © 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
Note that I put "news" in scare quotes. That's because it's not really news. Dictionaries have been adding that second definition for years. Literally. (Hah!) People noticed this time, because it was a new change to Google's dictionary.
I got my copy of the OED about ten years ago, and the alternate definition of literally is there. Granted, that definition is the last of five, meaning that it's the least common and least accepted one. Plus, it has a note that it's "improper" to use literally in a figurative sense.
HOWEVER . . . (You knew that was coming, right?) as with every word in the OED, this definition includes quotations from the earliest usages of literally with each definition. And guess what: the quotations for using literally meaning figuratively go way back to Dryden (hardly a hack) in 1687. You'll find quotations from the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s, as well.
In other words, people have been using literally as figuratively for a very long time.
So now what? Should we all adopt that definition because it's in just about every dictionary? Not so fast.
First let's talk about what dictionaries actually do. Dictionaries don't record what is correct. Dictionaries report what is said and written. They're the non-judgmental messenger.
In other words, a word or a definition showing up in a dictionary doesn't give that word/definition any kind of stamp of approval. It may still be considered incorrect according to Standard English.
Plenty of words and definitions that aren't Standard English (or at least, not yet) appear in dictionaries, including ain't, which isn't in the ballpark of Standard English.
The bottom line is that language changes over time; that's a simple fact. Try reading Beowulf or The Canterbury Tales in their original text, and you'll see just how much English has changed over the centuries. (Hint: the text doesn't even look like English.)
For that matter, if we're stuck on what a word "really" means, let's look at the OED's first two definitions of literally: 1) By the letters 2) In literature.
So if we're going by the definition from the late 1500s, my English degree made me literally smart, where literally refers to literature. No one's crying foul that the meaning of the word has drastically changed since then. And that's fine.
For that matter, in the OED's entry for literally, today's most common definition ("in a literal sense") isn't listed until number four.
If this sort of thing interests you, here are two other posts that relate, where I've ranted about how English evolves and also how we need to know Standard English to be taken seriously in most educated situations.
I used Grammarly to grammar check this post, so I can spend the time I saved eating brownies, because seriously, they won't eat themselves. © 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
August 19, 2013
Fans of Sarah M. Eden, Take Note!
Big, fun, fabulous news for Sarah M. Eden fans!
For the first time, Sarah is having an awesome launch party at The King's English Bookshop in Salt Lake City for her brand-new release, the second book in Shadow Mountain's Proper Romance line: Longing for Home.
This isn't a glorified book signing. Oh, no. It's a full-on party.
Attendees get a chance to hear Sarah talk to her fans (or possibly do a reading from the book!).
Plus they'll be treated to awesome Irish-themed refreshments (fitting because the main character is from Ireland): FIVE flavors of scones (not Utah scones; authentic ones), plus clotted cream and strawberry jam, THREE flavors of tarts, shortbread, mini quiches, and sausage rolls.
And of course, you can get your book signed.
I mean seriously, people! It's going to be epic!
The launch party is TOMORROW, Tuesday, August 20, at 7:00 PM.
See full details on the Facebook page. You can pre-order a copy of the book at the bookstore link above, or you can buy one there.
It'll be awesome and fun, and I can't wait to see Sarah there to celebrate this big step in her writing career.
If you haven't met her, trust me: she's one of the funniest, loveliest, smartest people around, and that's in addition to being incredibly inspirational as she fights for her health in ways I can't imagine and is in chronic, mind-numbing pain. Yet she smiles and laughs and creates beautiful books.
And she's a great friend, too. I'm blessed to be able to count myself in that number.
So COME! And be on time so you can hear her speak. See you there!
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
August 12, 2013
Blog Hop Winners!
The grand-prize winners for the overall hop have already been notified. I've sent two readers e-copies of my grammar book.
Now to announce the winners of A Portrait for Toni. We have 2 randomly selected winners.
The first is from those who e-mailed me the correct answer to the trivia question (After he read my grammar book, how many points did my son's ACT English score go up the next time he took the text? Answer: a whopping SIX points!)
The second is from those who left comments about grammar/punctuation peeves or trip-ups. Great comments on a variety of grammar and mechanics issues!
Toni is still a couple of weeks away from release. These two lucky blog hoppers are the winners of a free e-copy as soon as it's out:
Trivia Question: Holly L
Comment: Jayme S
Congratulations!
I've had a whirlwind of a summer. As vacation time wraps up and school starts for the kids again, I'll be back to blogging more regularly. I have some fun things coming up that I can't wait to tell you all about. Stay tuned!
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
Now to announce the winners of A Portrait for Toni. We have 2 randomly selected winners.
The first is from those who e-mailed me the correct answer to the trivia question (After he read my grammar book, how many points did my son's ACT English score go up the next time he took the text? Answer: a whopping SIX points!)
The second is from those who left comments about grammar/punctuation peeves or trip-ups. Great comments on a variety of grammar and mechanics issues!
Toni is still a couple of weeks away from release. These two lucky blog hoppers are the winners of a free e-copy as soon as it's out:
Trivia Question: Holly L
Comment: Jayme S
Congratulations!
I've had a whirlwind of a summer. As vacation time wraps up and school starts for the kids again, I'll be back to blogging more regularly. I have some fun things coming up that I can't wait to tell you all about. Stay tuned!
© 2012 Annette Lyon, all rights reserved
