Here’s an entry in a useful series from The Passive Voice, in this case that “out-of-print” clause that can prevent authors from ever recovering their rights to their own work. The discussion is complicated, but worth storing somewhere when the day arrives that you have this problem. I was able to get my rights back easily, but then, my books had been out of print for a fairly long time. Search this blog for “reversion of rights,” and you’ll find links to several related discussions of the kind of language any contract should contain.
Category Archives: Print on Demand for fiction writers
I’ve also found that members of one of my writing groups struggle with this distinction between publishers, packagers, and distributors from Sarah Bolme. There’s also some great information about Amazon’s imprints. Enjoy!
I’ve reblogged Louise Harnby’s “10 Ways to Proofread Your Own Writing” from Chris the Story Reading Ape’s blog. Harnby’s post is full of free tools for catching slips in your final copy. I decided to try out one of them, “The Bookalyser” on the completed ms. of my as-yet-unpublished Surfing the Bones, a 98,000-word mystery.
STB had gone through an extensive edit, not least because an online critique process had left it much richer emotionally but far too long. Even though I’m currently responding to a beta read by updating some of the technology driving the plot and making minor setting changes, I considered the draft a good example of my own editing process. So I was curious to see what an editing app could tell me. What did I miss?
I have an advantage because I’m a grammar nerd capable of catching non-standard verb forms and recognizing passive-voice constructions. I can also form plural possessives, an apparently challenging task. So standard “grammar-checkers” don’t help me much; they usually just object to my deliberate sentence fragments or my decision to start a sentence with “But.” I wanted to see if The Bookalyser offered more.
Like many programs for writers, the BA has a free version and two levels of paid versions. I used the free one. The site says out front that the tool won’t help you with style and usage questions; Word, it says, can do that. Instead, this tool provides a numerical/statistical portrait of certain features of your ms.
As advertised, if you register with email and password, it will run through your full manuscript in seconds and provide a full printout of its findings.
Rather than describe the “more than 70 different tests (and growing) across 17 report areas,” I’ll discuss what I found most useful.
I learned that
- I use the word “maybe” 166 times, which is 10 times more than usual for fiction. Worth a search to see if I can cut some of those. Still, 166 times in 98,000 words isn’t cause for panic, I am relieved to say.
- Less than 1% of my text consists of the dreaded “-ly” adjectives, and only two appeared more often than expected. The app did call “belly” an “-ly” adverb, but I guess that can be forgiven in such a complex app.
- “Filler words” like “actually,” “fairly,” “just,” and “really” made up 0.59% of my text, as compared to 0.65% for fiction in general. Still, worth doing a search to see whether these are needed.
- I used “said” as a dialogue tag 207 times and some other tag 41 times, with only 7 of these tags used more than once. I report proudly that I used a dialogue tag with an “-ly” adverb only 8 (!!!) times in my 98,000-word text.
- The app did look for “passive” constructions, which it defined broadly, with “is dead,” “was afraid,” and “be afraid” alongside true PV forms like “was followed” or “been killed.” In other words, predicate adjectives counted in this category. Even so, the app said that only 2.5% of my sentences fell into its “passive” categories. Hooray.
- The app compared phrases that I had hyphenated with instances of the same phrase that I did not hyphenate. I’m pretty good on hyphens, but this choice is well worth a search.
- It also encouraged me to look at spelling inconsistencies like “check out” vs. “checkout” and “web site” vs. “website.” Quick checks should allow me to decide on a preferred form.
Suggestions for eliminating possible redundancies were less helpful. I looked at a number of these and will look at them all, but found that the shorter version often sounded less natural, especially in dialogue. These are judgment calls often resulting in a savings of one word. While in my aggressive edit to eliminate 7000 words, every word did count, the trade-off (hmmm, hyphen?) was problematic. Example: “He didn’t admit to a crime” vs. “He didn’t admit a crime.” I’ll stick with the former. That said, the program did catch “more perfect”—but this one was in dialogue.
Oh, and it said it didn’t find any “Clichéd similes/comparisons.” ♥♥♥
I didn’t find useful information under “Commonly confused words and phrases,” but many writers will probably appreciate this section. The app captures proper names and variances in capitalization as well. It listed word counts of various kinds, like most frequently used, most frequently used word trios, and most frequently used to open sentences. In my first-person text, “I” opened 1329 sentences compared to “He” (645) and “The” (435). Probably not a problem, but maybe worth a look.
In short, this is a FREE, rapid-acting tool that does provide interesting insights into my writing habits, offering me the chance to save a copy editor some work one day—and to produce a better-edited text should I publish this book myself. I recommend.
It’s a plain truth that our eyes skip over typos when we’re proofreading our own work. Words you left out or accidentally cut (or accidentally failed to cut) may be the hardest mistakes to catch. But the good news is that you CAN catch another type of invisible errors: punctuation and spacing glitches that detract from the professional manuscript you want to market under your name.
In this pdf, What You WILL Miss When You Proofread, I’ve combined three blog posts to show you some simple tricks using an old friend, Find/Replace, to search for and fix common typos from double periods to missing quotes. You won’t need any elaborate codes; all the commands you need are right there in the FIND box.
My fixes are based on Word, but you should be able to adapt them to any word-processing program you use.
For years, I’ve used a 2008 version of Word that came with the computer before this one. I’ve successfully uploaded to Smashwords, Ingram, and Amazon using that ancient system. At the same time, my curiosity is whetted. Have you tried any of these programs? Do they work better than Word, and if so, how?
on Just Publishing Advice:
Do you really need all those Microsoft Office programs just to write?
Writers write words. Are you a writer?
I’m sure you don’t prepare business plans with charts and graphs. You don’t use online collaboration tools. You don’t schedule meetings for a group of directors.
I doubt if you would ever need to create business presentations with 100 slides.
You write your words down for blog posts, content articles, guest posts, short stories and maybe poems. So why do you pay for MS Office to do these simple writing tasks?
There is no need to pay for a word processor
I’ve included a chapter on ISBNs in my little book on formatting your paperback interior with Adobe InDesign (soon to be republished in an updated version), but this post from AuthorImprints is extremely clear, concise, and helpful. It explains in detail why you need an ISBN for your paperback, but may not want to accept the Kindle Direct Publishing free ISBN. According to the author, David Wogahn, Amazon is using the migration to KDP Print to persuade writers to accept the free ISBN. As his article makes clear, that is a fraught decision we all need to make with our eyes open.
How are you handling ISBNs, and how does your process work for you?
Courtesy of Indies Unlimited, Melinda Clayton shares her experiences with the changeover from CreateSpace to KDP Print. Straightforward tips that you may find useful. I’m going to tackle this soon. Read the comments; they are helpful as well.