Point of View - An Author's "Twelfth Man"

In football, the fans in the seats are referred to as the "Twelfth Man." Each team is only allowed eleven players on the field at one time, but the crowd becomes the twelfth. A well-trained crowd, such as the one Peyton Manning trained here in Indianapolis to be quiet when the offense is on the field and to get rowdy when the defense is, can create turnovers, cause penalties, and even help the home team score a touchdown. They are a critical factor in every game, which is why home field advantage is so coveted. The home team feeds off the energy of the crowd, and the visiting team has to overcome the noise of the crowd to prevent turnovers and penalties. You football fans out there know what I'm talking about.

Much like the twelfth man in football, point of view serves as the "twelfth man" in your book. Point of view, when used skillfully, can become a character in and of itself, and it can bring the entire story to life. Point of view is what allows your readers to immerse themselves into the story. It allows readers to feel what the characters are feeling, to see what they're seeing. Point of view (POV) is what brings tears to your readers' eyes, makes their hearts race, and makes them curse the bad guy. It is a living, breathing entity that acts as an extra character to make things happen that otherwise wouldn't without it.

In short, POV is a vital weapon in your writing toolbox.

In my last blog post, I talked about head hopping, which is directly linked to POV. If you didn't read that post, you might want to take a moment to do so. Head hopping involves jumping from one POV to another to another without showing the readers where that shift in POV is occurring. You show this POV shift through the use of blank lines, asterisks, chapter breaks, or some other "marker" that serves to inform your readers that a change in POV is taking place, but without that "marker," the reader doesn't know the POV is shifting, thus a head hop.

The problem is that I think there are some major misconceptions and misunderstandings about what, exactly, POV is. For example, as I stated yesterday, I used to be a head hopper. And I used to be the worst kind, because I didn't even know I was doing it. I didn't understand what point of view was or how to write using clear POV. I didn't understand the concept of head hopping, and I had even taken some pretty hefty writing courses. How did I not fully understand POV and head hopping with all the training I'd had? I "sort of" grasped the concepts, but I was more or less throwing darts in a dimly lit room, hoping I was hitting the target. But I didn't give up, and I continued to read and study until finally POOF! I got it.

Was point of view and head hopping simply my kryptonite? My nemesis? Every writer has at least one area they really have to work on, so is POV mine? Or, is the concept of POV simply that confusing and hard to understand? In my post yesterday, I mentioned that I have talked to other authors who seem to hold the same confusion over POV that I used to have. They have been told so much about the different types of POVs they can write in that they're a mental mess over whether they're writing first person, third person, omniscient, close third person, limited omniscient, and so on.

So, here goes. I'm going to make this super simple for those of you who struggle with POV and how to use it:

There are three main types of POV in writing, and only two that dominate in fiction:

1. First Person (I need to go there. I saw him pull a gun. When he yelled, I trembled and ducked my head.)
2. Second Person (This is not a POV used in fiction. It's used primarily in nonfiction, where the author is addressing "you," the reader, so you can scratch this from your fiction arsenal.)
3. Third Person (Trace tried not to grin when Micah opened the box and pulled out a revolver. He knew how Micah felt about guns, preferring his blades to a bullet any day. And if Micah did use a gun, he preferred his semi-auto with the wide grip. But the way Micah's lip curled and his nose crinkled broke Trace's resolve, and he threw his head back, laughing loudly. Trace felt for Adam the next time Micah saw him. He really did.) [Note that every character was referred to as "he" or by name. Even the POV character, Trace, is referred to in that way.]

Screw omniscient and close third person and whatever other fancy POV names you've heard. First person and third person. That's all you need to know right now. Those two POVs will suffice in every story you want to write, and they're the safest place for new authors (and the majority of indie authors) to live.

NOTE: In stories, we refer to character POV, meaning, "What character's point of view are you writing from?" Stephenie Meyer wrote Twilight in first person POV, but her first person POV was Bella's, not Edward's or Jacob's. I write in third person POV in my stories, and I write third person from the points of view of Micah, Samantha, Traceon, Arion, Severin, etc. So, POV is a two-parter: 1) Will you write first person or third person? and 2) Which character will be your narrator, or point-of-view character, for the story or a particular scene?

FIRST PERSON
The benefit of first person POV is that it allows your reader to become deeply ingrained inside the main character's head, which allows readers to see and feel the story more actively. The pitfall of first person is that you are relegated to one character's POV for the whole story. You can't go into another character's thoughts, because then you have broken the first person POV rule: How does character A know what character B is thinking? You would use first person if one character's POV is all you need to tell the story, as well as if you are comfortable writing first person, which some authors (me, for example) are not.

Example:

I held John's hand as we walked slowly back to my dorm. I was nervous. Would he kiss me when we got to my door? Or would he simply walk away?

Suddenly John stopped. Right there in the middle of the sidewalk. When he turned to me, he saw the way my eyes sparkled and stared down at my lip gloss-moistened lips, wondering how they would taste. 

Obviously, we are NOT in John's POV in this excerpt. We are inside the thoughts of whoever he's with. Let's call her Julie. Would Julie know that John was seeing how her eyes sparkled? Would she refer to her own lips as lip gloss-moistened? Would she know that John was wondering how her lips would taste? No. In Julie's POV, she would probably think something like: When he turned to me, the way he stared first at my eyes and then my mouth made me frown. Did I have something on my face? Was there dried mustard on the corner of my mouth from the hot dog he'd bought me earlier at the carnival? Why was he staring so intently at my mouth? Would I taste like dried mustard if he kissed me right now?

See the difference? If we're writing from Julie's POV, all she can do is speculate about what John is looking at and why, as well as what his thoughts are. When you're writing in first person, you can't hop out of Julie's head into John's unless she's psychic or a mind reader.
Think about in real life: When you're standing in line at the grocery store, do you know what the guy in front of you is thinking? No. You can use visual cues to make an educated guess, for example, if he turns and scowls at the twenty items in your basket and then glances up at the sign that says "Express Lane - 12 Items or Less," but you can NOT know exactly what he is thinking. In the first person POV, this might be written as, "As I stood flipping through the latest gossip trash, I glanced up at the man in front of me. He was glaring into my basket, his head bent down in an almost accusing nature. Pointedly, he looked up at the sign over the register. 'Express Lane - 12 Items or Less.' Then he turned back and scowled at me. Apparently, the guy was the Gestapo of express lanes, and I could feel him mentally flogging me for committing a cardinal sin of the express checkouts everywhere. Setting my jaw, I felt like saluting the bastard with my middle finger, but kept my composure as I offered a stiff smile and squared my shoulders, not to be bullied by his passive-aggressive abuse."

I didn't have to fall into the Gestapo's POV to convey his thoughts and feelings. The POV of our first person narrator was able to do that.

NOTE: These examples show you how you can use your "twelfth man," POV, as a tool to create suspense, drama, characterization, and even comedy. I bet you even smiled at Julie's dried mustard musings or our checkout vigilante's middle fingered salute, didn't you? And wasn't Julie's POV so much more interesting than John's because of her mustard obsession, because she has no idea what John is seeing and thinking. That's how POV can become a living, breathing counterpart to your characters.

THIRD PERSON:
In third person, you are now writing a character's POV from a little bit of a distance, but through their eyes. The benefit of third person is that it allows you to step into the minds of multiple characters within one book. The pitfall is that it puts a measure of distance between the reader and the character. If multiple POVs are crucial to your story, this is the choice you must use, whether you'd like to use first person or not.

Example:

Julie's POV
Julie held John's hand as they slowly made their way back to her dorm. She was nervous and wondered if he would kiss her once they reached her door or if he would simply walk away.

Suddenly, John stopped and pulled her to him. His gaze ranged her face, from her eyes to her mouth, and for a moment she wondered if dried mustard was stuck on the corner of her mouth from the hot dog he'd bought her at the carnival. Just her luck if it was. She always had bad luck like that.
God, he was going to kiss her. She could tell. It was in the way his eyelids half-closed and he gazed at her mouth. Please, please, she didn't want to taste like dried mustard.

When his lips pressed against hers, all thought stopped, and it was just the two of them, kissing under the light of the full moon.

John's POV
Julie's hand felt good in his. Small, delicate, even kind. How did a hand feel kind? He didn't know, but hers did. And her palm didn't get all sweaty like other girls' hands did. She was perpetually dry, even though he could sense her nervousness.

He liked that she seemed nervous. It made him feel more chivalrous for some reason, as if she were a shy rabbit ready to skitter away even as he held out a carrot, hoping she would take it and snuggle up against his hand.

More than anything, he wanted to kiss her. He had wanted to kiss her all night, and to hell with caution, he couldn't wait any longer. Stopping in the middle of the sidewalk, he turned toward her and pulled her close, catching the way her eyes sparkled under the nearby streetlamp before letting his gaze drop to her heart-shaped mouth, pink and moist from the lip gloss she had applied earlier. Would she taste like strawberries or watermelons? Perhaps cherries? He needed to find out. Lowering his head, he let his lips embrace hers, drawing in the faint taste of...yes, watermelon.

See how much difference a change in POV makes?

This is where it gets fun. Whose POV do you use? Well, you use the most important one to the scene and/or overall plot. If Julie's neurotic behavior is what is most important, you would use her POV, but sprinkle in bits of John's through dialogue or through Julie's observations of his behavior. On the other hand, if John's romanticism is more important, you would use his POV and may not even need to delve into Julie's.

This is where the work of being an author comes into play, and it's why I get a little frustrated with authors who say, "Both POVs are important, so I'm just going to use omniscient or head hop. Maybe both." Both POVs may be important, but you can convey both POVs without head hopping and by sticking to the "one POV at a time" rule, as I've demonstrated in a couple of these examples. It just takes a little more work, but nobody said writing was easy. You do have to work at it. I've written plenty of scenes where multiple POVs were relevant, but instead of head hopping, I looked at each character's POV in turn, one at a time, without letting the action and chronology of the story suffer, while still conveying everything that needed to be conveyed to the reader and moving the story along. Yes, it required forethought and a little cognitive input from me. Yes, I had to rewrite a few scenes into another character's POV during edits when the original scene didn't work. Yes, I had to work at this. But that's what I have to do to make sure the story is reader-ready. It's what all authors should have to do if they care about their readers.

Furthermore, you don't want to "spill all" immediately and from every character's point of view all at once. You want to draw out the action and keep some suspense. Using POV skillfully helps you to do that. By keeping one character's POV silent, you can use another's to get the reader thinking about what's going on inside that other charcter's head. Is he the killer? Is he a witness? Did he sell the murder weapon to the killer and is afraid to speak up? Does he have a shady past that puts him in jeopardy? If we go into that character's POV, we'll be giving some of that information away, and that could be detrimental to the story. And if you use omniscient POV but keep the murderer's POV silent, readers will see the ploy and get a bit upset about it. I guess Agatha Christie did this, and it didn't go over, so she abandoned her omniscient POV experiment and returned to a more basic method of writing.

So, yes, writing POV is an art, and it can make or break your story.
I want to say to the authors who take the easy way out and head hop instead of utilizing strictly one POV at a time: You are missing a fabulous writing tool by not employing and using POV to help you tell your story. This is your twelfth man, for God's sake! Use him to build suspense, drama, conflict, and to let the reader in on the joke when the punchline is relevant! By skillfully utilizing POV shifts, you can have a powerful influence on your readers' reactions and can create a much more dynamic, multi-dimensional story that pulls your readers along like a current in a river, making them practically salivate to see what's going to happen next.

Most authors just don't know any better, though, like me when I was struggling to grasp the POV concept. They don't understand it, so they don't know how to use it. That's not their fault. They just need more practice and guidance. They get themselves tangled up in all the advanced literary jargon and confuse themselves, which is so easy to do. But this is why I try to post on my blog what I've learned, so that I can help those who want to be better writers achieve their goals.

When it comes to POV, keep it simple: use first person or third person, and stick with one character's POV at a time. See the world and tell the story through one character's eyes until it's time to switch to another character's. Once you master this method, you can experiment with more advanced POV methods...or not. You might find this is sufficient and perfect for your needs. Either way, with practice, you'll get there.

Happy reading and writing!
-D

The Head Hop - Being Talented Enough To Pull It Off

In fiction, the majority of editors and authors will tell you that head hopping is a major no-no (and this blogger consulted with some industry experts to corroborate that position and had excellent feedback regarding why head hopping is not reader-friendly and should be avoided. You should read that blog article if you're interested in learning more about the concept.).

Head hopping is one of the best ways to lose and piss off your readers, because they will struggle to follow along with your story and might even give up and toss your book aside, labeling you as a writer who doesn't know what you're doing, especially if the rest of your manuscript is sloppily written. In short, if you're going to head hop, you would be well advised to make sure you know what you're doing and are talented enough to pull it off. It takes years of practice and work to master this skill, and that's only after you've mastered writing for story, sentence structure, story structure, punctuation, showing vs. telling, character development, and grammar, among other writing skills. And even then an author might not be able head hop effectively.

My point being, you have to have an expert handle on your writing mojo to master the art of the head hop.

If you don't know what head hopping is, it's when you write in multiple characters' points of view (POVs) without breaking between POV changes.

Example:

Micah thought Samantha looked ravishing in the black, gossamer gown he'd given her for her birthday. How many times had he asked her to wear it, and yet she had coquettishly declined each time.

Her slight curves beckoned for his touch, and her green eyes sparkled as she smiled and shut off the bathroom light, leaving only the lamp behind her to cast her inviting silhouette into shadow that showed through the thin fabric.

He licked his lips, sensing her mood.

Samantha knew what she was doing to Micah, and with the way his gaze raked her body, it was clear her plan to surprise him had worked.

Maybe now she would be able to put that sexy smile back on his face. He had been coming home from work in much too brooding a state as of late.

Did you see it? I started the passage in Micah's point of view, but in the fourth paragraph, without warning, I jumped to Samantha's. Imagine if Micah's POV had gone on for several paragraphs or even pages before the beginning of this short example. You would have been good and seeped into his mind, following his thoughts, seeing everything from his eyes, and then out of nowhere, you're no longer in Micah's POV, you're in Samantha's. It might even take you a couple of paragraphs to realize the change has been made, and then you'll have to stop and backread to figure out where the new POV started, then shift your mind into Samantha's and beginning reading again.

Imagine if this happened over and over, and you had to stop reading, backread, and restart each time it happened? Can you understand why head hopping can become extremely frustrating to a reader, let alone disrupting to their reading experience? Because who wants to constantly be shattered out of their reading experience by these abrupt stops and starts? I don't.

I'll make a confession. About two years ago, I was a head hopper. I really struggled to understand the concept of point of view and will admit that this was probably THE hardest skill for me to learn. It took years for me to completely understand point of view, and until you understand POV, you can't understand head hopping. After years of working hard to understand POV, I finally figured it out after my first short story was published in an anthology. The light bulb went on and I suddenly "got it." It took years, lots of studying, and lots of research, but I understand it now. In talking to other beginning authors, it's become clear that I'm not alone. A lot of beginners don't "get it," either, when it comes to point of view. They want to call their POV omniscient and close third person, yada-yada-yada, and then the next thing I know, they've got themselves so confused (and me, too), they don't know which way is up. Poor things, and God love 'em for trying, because Lord knows, it can be confusing. My heart goes out to them, because I was once in their shoes, and somewhere along the way they've fallen into POV purgatory. I'll talk more about POV in my next blog post and see if we can't pull these poor innocents out of the muck, but for now, just know that until you understand POV, you shouldn't even go near head hopping.

I've had some indie authors get pretty upset with me during discussions about head hopping, because I think, at least at the indie level, there is a lack of understanding about POV and the head hopping concept (as referenced in my previous paragraph). In my opinion, which is based on a ton of research and studies with published authors and editors in two lengthy writing courses, authors should be clearly conveying to readers where the POV shifts from one character to another by inserting a blank line, asterisks, or even a chapter break. The argument of those who disagree with me is, "It's the author's book. They should write it however they want." My counterargument would be, "No, it's the reader's book. The author is simply writing it. As such, the author needs to make sure they write it in a way that allows the reader to easily follow along and in a way that doesn't disrupt their reading experience." When an author can't even grasp simple grammar, spelling, and punctuation, as well as sentence and story structure, it's safe to say they will not have the talent to pull off head hopping, and in the conversations I've been involved with where an author is defending another author's right to head hop if they want to, that has been the case.

Ultimately, it's the decision of the author, so I bow out of discussions pretty early where it's clear the author's mind has been made up that they will arbitrarily change the POV from paragraph to paragraph if they want to. I've read scenes like that in books, and I get so frustrated that I either skip the entire scene or toss the book aside, because I can't keep up. On occasion, I will power through and will go back to read and re-read over and over until I can figure out who's talking so I can understand the action. Sometimes I can piece it together and sometimes I can't. Either way, as the reader, I shouldn't have to work so hard to follow a story, which should flow easily and seamlessly in a way that I can follow along and immerse myself in the plot.

However, there are authors who can pull off the head hop. They are talented enough not to lose the readers, and they can head hop almost from paragraph to paragraph.

Sylvain Reynard is one of these authors. I'm currently reading his book, Gabriel's Inferno, which a friend recommended to me, and I'm just blown away by his talent. From what I understand, he started out more-or-less as an indie author, but true to cream rising to the top, he has been noticed by the big publishers and has made the jump to the big leagues, and rightfully so. It's not often that I find an author who head hops with such ease that I barely notice it. But, as I've said, head hopping smoothly takes talent. And talent seems to be something Mr. Reynard has in spades.

Not only does he head hop, but he seemingly breaks all the rules of fiction writing, using an abundance of adjectives and adverbs, as well as big words I would normally need my dictionary to look up, and creating an obnoxious character, who, by all rights, I should hate.

However, Mr. Reynard's talent is so incredible, he's able to head hop smoothly, to the point that my reading experience isn't disturbed in the slightest and so that I can remain deeply immersed in the unfolding tale. The excessive adjectives and adverbs are barely noticeable and contribute to the visual image created in my mind. The big words are clearly represented and defined from the context of the sentence or scene, and I find myself falling in love with the obnoxious character for the subtle, you'll-miss-them-if-you-aren't-paying-attention hints as to just how vulnerable and likable he is under his thorny armor. My heart goes out to this obnoxious man, Gabriel, and my inner cheerleader is waving her little pom-poms: Gimme a G! Gimme an A! Gimme a B!...

At any rate, this blog isn't necessarily about Mr. Reynard, despite his genius and talent in the fiction realm. It's about head hopping. I'm only focusing so much on Reynard, because he is the kind of author all indies should aspire to be like, and because he has mastered the head hop where 99 out of 100 authors who try to, can't. It's obvious he works hard at his craft and meticulously hones each sentence, not rushing his books in an effort to build a back list fast so he can make lots and lots of money at the expense of quality and reader trust. No, Mr. Reynard comes off as the type who savors each scene, crafting and weaving them together so that the story unfolds bit by bit, drawing me further in.

Furthermore, it's clear that Mr. Reynard understands grammar, story structure, sentence structure, punctuation, and can spell. It's clear he edits and proofreads his work ad nauseum. In other words, it's clear he knows the rules of writing, which is the first requirement to breaking the rules. Only when you understand how to walk can you learn how to skip or shuffle your feet. But when you try to skip before learning how to walk, you'll fall flat on your face.

And therein is the lesson to be learned here. An author must first learn the rules of writing, whether they intend to later break them or not. Until they have grasped the basics and all the rules the basics entail, they can't successfully break them without repercussions.

I think this is the biggest issue indie authors should concern themselves with if they want to be successful: Learn the rules and practice them until they know them inside-out. Too many try to move into the advanced class before finishing the remedial one. Think about school and jobs. You don't start off in fifth grade, do you? You start off in first grade and learn everything you need to progress to second, then third, then fourth, then finally to fifth. If a child skipped and started right off in fifth grade, they would be lost. They have to learn all that comes before to succeed at the higher grade levels. Same with a job. I didn't get hired on as an executive assistant straight away. I progressed from receptionist to administrative assistant and finally to executive assistant, learning more from each role to prepare me for working as the right hand of the president, director, or owner. I needed the basics before I could progress to an advanced level.

Same with writing. Authors must know the basics before they can write at an advanced level. In other words, head hopping (as well as other advanced techniques) need to be honed before they are employed.

Just to note: In comparison to Mr. Reynard, I'm also reading a Nora Roberts book, and in it, she also head hops. Sorry to say, her head hopping isn't as seamless as Mr. Reynard's, and I wish she would take a lesson from the latter, because when she does it, it jolts me every time and I have to take a second to mentally shift gears into the new POV. So even well-written authors struggle with the head hop, not just those who are starting out.

With all that said, if you're an author and want to see how a talented author works the head hop, pick up Gabriel's Inferno. Be warned, it is a long book, and it is not the typical erotic romance. About 1 in 7 readers who reviewed it hated it, but the 6 out of 7 who liked it, LOVED it. But it's a great example of someone who understands the craft of writing very well, and for that reason alone, I think it should be required reading for every indie author.

Happy writing and reading!

-D

Editing and Proofreading Defined - Repost of the "Controversial" Post

Okay, so the picture is a bit dramatic, but yes, I've felt crucified lately. So, pphhhtttt. I'm here now to purge  myself so I can move on.

I recently wrote a post called "When did Misspelled Words and Punctuation Errors Become Deep Edits?" Many of you noticed that when you clicked on the link to that post in your twitter feed, you got an error that said the page could not be found. The reason for that is that I was threatened with legal action and accused of defamation, even though I didn't name names in my post. Since identities could have been inferred from my post for those industrious or desirous enough to hunt them down, I removed the post. For those who saw that post and commented, my thanks. I did save the post and your comments, which were encouraging and much-appreciated.

Being that I think the message in that post was noteworthy, I have rewritten and restructured the it so that those interested can see what all the fuss was about and possibly learn something. Leading references have been omitted so no one can find out who or what I'm talking about. This will be the last I write about this incident, and then it's time to move on, but I wanted to at least clear the air and set the record straight on a few things. So, here goes:


First, let's start with a couple of definitions.

Editing (here's just a few definitions, but there are more)

1. To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting.
2. To modify or adapt so as to make suitable or acceptable.
3. To prepare (text) for publication by checking and improving its accuracy, clarity, etc.
4. To modify by, for example, deleting, inserting, moving, or copying text.
5. A stage of the writing process in which a writer or editor strives to improve a draft (and sometimes prepare it for publication) by correcting errors and by making words and sentences clearer, more precise, and more effective.

Proofreading

1. To read in order to find errors and mark corrections.

Here's another way of putting this: During an edit, an editor will look at everything. They will look at sentence structure, word usage, content, punctuation, spelling, etc. They will point out where the author is losing the reader, where content contradicts itself, where wording is unclear or unnecessary, etc. They are like a surgeon performing open-heart surgery on an author's manuscript. On the other hand, during a proof, a proofreader will only look at words and, maybe, punctuation. They are like the doctor who addresses superficial problems and prescribes medicine, but they don't cut open the patient and start rearranging things to prevent a heart attack or stroke (or a major manuscript malfunction). That's the editor's job.

Still another way of putting this: An editor will catch discrepancies in content, such as when a character has their hands cuffed behind their back in one sentence, and then is running their hands through someone's hair in the next. A proofreader will simply proof the sentences for spelling and punctuation errors but not point out the content error of a character with the tactile dexterity that comes from having four hands: two cuffed behind their back and two running through another character's hair.

With that said, I was recently asked to proofread a series of stories, which were in their final stage before publication. As I began the proofread, it became obvious right away that all but one of the stories weren't ready for proofing. They still needed a LOT of editing. The stories contained lots of content errors, poor sentence structure, misused punctuation, and mechanical dialogue, among other mistakes. I emailed the publisher regarding my concern but didn't hear back, so, knowing what I knew about these stories, I proceeded by marking editing errors that needed to be addressed, as well as the proofreading mistakes. So, I did double duty. I proofed, and I edited. However, I only edited the glaringly obvious items that needed to be addressed to make the stories "suitable or acceptable..." "...for publication or presentation," as defined above.

I spent at least 100 hours of time (probably more) that I had to steal from every aspect of my life to perform this work, and I did it because I knew the importance of these stories. The stories were later published, and I started reading them. Only two of the six authors made any of my suggested changes. When I compared the published manuscripts against my marked-up copy, four of the authors didn't make but maybe two changes of all I had noted. They didn't even correct the misspelled words or the punctuation mistakes.

In short, I wasted my time. On BOTH the PROOFREAD and the edit, which is worth noting. I'll get to why that is in a minute.

I don't know about y'all, but I don't have 100+ hours to waste. Do you? I'm extremely busy, working a full-time job, writing full-time when I'm not at the day job, and trying to get at least some time with my husband and to relax. I mean, I consider myself lucky if I get a night of six hours of sleep. So, yes, seeing that pretty much all my time was wasted, I wasn't happy.

I approached the publisher with my concerns and to convey that I was upset over wasting so much time (I wasn't paid, per the agreed-upon parameters of the project). This was what I was told, in a nutshell:

1. The authors were responsible for their own edits and thought their stories were clean and ready upon submission.
2. I was only supposed to proofread, not perform "deep edits." Since I took it upon myself to edit, it was my own fault my time was wasted.
3. I was more or less accused of trying to inflict and force my style on the authors.
4. The authors had written in their style, according to what their readers expected.

My response and mental musings over the above points:
1.Okay, so if the authors thought their stories were clean and ready, and if they were responsible for their own edits, why did the publisher send them to me to review?

2. 
A) The proof may not have been intended for "deep edits," but the manuscripts were nowhere near proof-ready. The person who had supposedly edited before the proof was sent to me had obviously not done a very good job editing, which left that task to me, unless the objective was to put out shoddy work.
B) I didn't realize spelling, punctuation, and simple grammar errors were "deep edits." If anything, those were the types of mistakes I should have caught on the proofread, and yet the authors didn't correct those errors, either, leaving misspelled words and punctuation mistakes in the finished manuscripts. So, even my proofread was a waste of time, not just the edit.
C) If the publisher hadn't wanted me to perform "deep edits" (which my editor has told me are called "substantive edits." No such thing as deep edits exist), she should have responded to my email, where I pointed out that I was finding a lot of editing errors and was going to point out the worst of them on the finished manuscripts. Instead, she failed to communicate by answering my email.

3. How is pointing out grammar, spelling, and content foibles an act of inflicting and forcing my style? I did make suggestions in my comments, and within the manuscripts themselves by way of Word's Track Changes feature. As Nathan Bransford writes in his Ten Commandments for Editing Someone's Work:
"It's okay to offer up some illustrative directions the writer could go to fix something that isn't working, but ultimately the writer is the best equipped to come up with ideas for new directions. Your job is to spot what's not working, not to rewrite."
This is what I did. I pointed out what wasn't working and, in some cases, offered up suggestions and illustrations to improve/correct, as well as explanations regarding the why and how. I never changed the ideas and components of the stories by rewriting them in my own voice and style. I occasionally rewrote sentences or phrases that needed structural correction, but did not rewrite the content or alter the voice. And my corrections and suggested rewrites were just that, suggestions. They were examples for the author to use to reconstruct and/or rewrite the problem areas in their own words if they chose not to use my suggested change. Never once did I say, "This has to be done my way and rewritten just like this." My corrections were presented in the following manner: "Perhaps try this," or "How about something like this?" or "Could you instead say something like this?" I think I might have even commented, "Use your own words," but I'm not sure.

Where something was way off base, such as when one author continued to use big words that made me stop and pull out my dictionary, I explained in the notes, "Perhaps use [a simpler word] so readers don't have to stop and pull out their dictionary, which disrupts their reading experience." I further explained that the generally accepted rule is to write using words every 8th grader knows and that by using big words, the reading experience will be disrupted because the reader will either have to stop and look up the word or will gloss over it and not capture the full meaning of the sentence. In the case of this story, sometimes these big words were used back to back with their simpler counterparts, much like saying "He suffered from an acute myocardial infarction heart attack." An acute myocardial infarction is a heart attack, so there's no point in using the terms back-to-back, which makes no sense. Use one or the other, but not both. And sometimes the definition of the big word didn't fit the context of the scene or sentence, such as saying "The chisel galvanized the wooden block." No definition of galvanize, which has to do with stimulating electrical current, startling into activity, or coating in zinc, fits this content. It sounds impressive, but to those who know what galvanize means, they see right through this as an attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, and it's insulting to their intelligence.

This poor word usage just made it look like the author was showing off her vast knowledge of vocabulary or had used her Thesaurus to pick out the fanciest-sounding word for something that would have been better-represented by a simple one. This is a cardinal sin. A story/book isn't for the author to show off their mastery of big words or to make readers feel stupid. It's for the reader to get a good story and to be entertained. As an editor, it is MY JOB to point that out (and in a case like this, where it's clear the author is disregarding the reader so blatantly, I have every right to be upset, because in the editing role, I play reader's advocate, and I don't like seeing readers insulted like that), and it's the AUTHOR'S JOB to correct it. I did my part. The author didn't and left her big words to litter her manuscript.

4. How are errors considered an author's style? What readership wants to read a bunch of misspelled words and sentences that are so badly punctuated that their meaning is unclear? And in the case of the big word user, do her readers seriously want to have to be talked down to like that? Seriously? They want to have to read a dictionary alongside her story? Ooookaaaay. I guess my perspective is that authors would like to expand their readerships by writing as cleanly and clearly as possible. Am I wrong?

In hindsight, this situation is greatly disturbing to me. I went in to my responsibilities on this project ready to help and do my best, because unlike what some of the authors and the publisher might think, I was clearly aware of the importance of this project and who would be reading it. As such, I assumed clean, perfected stories that were nothing short of the best that could be offered were the goal. I was wrong. I tried to communicate with the publisher about what was happening, but she did not communicate back to me until AFTER the published work came out, and then it was to basically blame me for wasting my own time instead of getting angry with the authors who blatantly disregarded not only my editing marks, but my proofreading marks, too. I feel like the priorities are way screwed up here. I feel like I'm the only one who cared about the quality of these stories, and I feel like I was framed: Tommy stole the cookies, but I'm the one who's been spanked and sent to my room for the rest of the day without dinner.

Am I wrong to feel confused and frustrated?

I'm sorry if these authors don't have the grasp of grammar that I have, or that they can't afford to buy a grammar guide, or that they're too lazy to open the one they've got and actually learn how to use punctuation, or that they don't want to learn to be better writers. But that's not MY fault. I should not be punished for their lack of knowledge or their laziness.

I think many of them think that proofreading is the same as editing, because I've seen how some of them "edit." I even know someone who calls herself an editor, when all she's doing is proofreading (and proofreading badly, I might add, because I would calculate that 90% of her corrections are wrong). Editing and proofreading are not the same thing. Not even close. Rather than get pissy at me, who understands the difference, maybe these authors need to look in the mirror. And, yes, I understand that I was only supposed to proofread these manuscripts, but as I said, the person who acted as editor on them obviously didn't understand how to edit and missed everything, leaving it to me to catch in the proof. And it wouldn't have mattered had I only done a proofread, because, as I said, the authors didn't even change the mistakes I caught on the proof, as it was.

One thing is certain: I will never edit or proofread again without getting paid. And even then, I may never edit or proofread again. Period. My experience in this venture has been that authors seem to think they know what editing is, but they don't, and when they get back an actual edit (which is far tamer than what they would get back from a real editor who edits professionally for big publishing houses), they freak out and begin the blame game, pointing their finger at everyone but themselves, rather than look in the mirror and think, "Hmm, maybe I need to get better at this." To them I say: If you want to be an author, you need to understand the responsibilities and terminology involved. Don't punish those who are doing their jobs because you don't know yours, understand theirs, know what the difference between editing and proofreading is, or because you can't communicate better than you are. Learn the craft and grow a thicker skin before blaming others for being too harsh on you, because you're only wasting the time of those who do know, do care, and do understand.

Happy Reading and Writing
-D