Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editing. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

Yo, Novelists! What do You Place in Your Chapter 1?


Character sleeping, dreaming, and  waking up to nothing? Funeral calls, death, psycho lurking around? Terrorist planting a bomb, rape scene? Protagonist in the middle of a bodily function like jerking off, peeing, vomiting? Cheesy beginnings with a play of words like “opening”? Opening what?

These are items literary agents dislike to see in a novel’s Chapter 1, writes Writer’s Digest University. If you want your book published, it is best to follow them. After all, literary agents are also editors, and they know what’s saleable to publishing houses. Working with an agent for publication or not, the recommendations are worth considering.

Here are more of their pet peeves: Starting your story with a battle, projecting characters as perfect heroes and heroines, inauthentic dialogue, over- description of the scenery.

More: Beginning with a killer’s point of view, sex and violence; a laundry list of character descriptions.

All of these slow down writing and it shows in their nature: Prologues that have nothing to do with the story; long, flowery descriptive sentences for introductions, character’s back-story, information dump.

These are patently unnecessary:  Introducing the narrator to the reader, introducing the character, setting up the scene, description of the weather, addressing the reader as in “Gentle reader.”

These are boring: An ordinary, predictable outlook, too much accounting.

And these cheat the reader: Adventure-dream stories where at the end, the author says it was only a dream; Character would find out later this and that; Character dies at end of chapter.

What do they want to see in Chapter 1? Action that hooks the reader, some mystery. Moreover, you do not tell but show through the character.

 
 
 

Sunday, May 19, 2013

Publishing in Scientific Journals: Ten Principles for Improving Manuscripts


A CHINESE DOCTOR WHO submitted her paper for publication to us couldn’t understand why her manuscript was taking a long time to be processed. Processing included review and editorial advice to improve her paper. She insisted she did her best and followed what was told her. After two reviews, it was becoming clear there was no research method systematically carried out. She was finding it hard, therefore, to return her manuscript to us for another review. If done after the study, this kind will find it hard to fix a research instrument  and then prepare it to fit results. In fact, this practice should never be done.
 
For those who did their work properly but are finding it hard to have their study published, here are 10 principles for increasing the likelihood of manuscript publication written by James M. Provenzale.

Principle 1: Properly Organize the Manuscript
Principle 2: Clearly State the Study Question and Study Rationale
Principle 3: Explain the Materials and Methods in a Systematic Manner
Principle 4: Structure the Materials and Methods and Results Sections in a Similar Manner
Principle 5: Make the Discussion Section Concise
Principle 6: Explain If—and Why—Your Study Results Are Important
Principle 7: Avoid Over-interpretation of the Results
Principle 8: Explain the Limitations of the Study
Principle 9: Account for Unexpected Results
Principle 10: Fully Incorporate Reviewers’ Suggestions into a Revised Manuscript