Fail! My café writing experiment

Picture yourself here....

Apparently J.K. Rowling did it rather well during the early stages of writing the Harry Potter series. Some of my writer friends do it regularly. I've had some mild success with it in the past, too.

And after a long winter of being tied to my home office, I thought it would be kinda fun. Get out of the house, drink tea made by someone else, take some time to make myself presentable (no, I don't work in my pyjamas, but there were a few days this winter during which the mirror shivered a little when I stepped in front of it...).

So, off to a wonderful downtown Guelph café I go. (Clue for locals: the one on Douglas Street.)

This is what happened.

1. No street parking nearby or even far off, so parked in the public City of Guelph lot on Baker Street, for which I will pay about $3-$4. I'm okay with this. Parking fees help keep the City rolling. Of course, I don't actually live in the City of Guelph. But never mind.

2.  Walked to Douglas Street and entered the café. Warm. Cozy. Perfect wallpaper music playing (not too loud, not too ear-catching). Lots of empty space. A number of people ensconced with computers, books, friends. Loving this!

3. Got my big cuppa and wandered to the back room. Looked around. Window tables taken. Okay, I'll take this little one in a row of tables-for-two along the banquette. Sit down. Start to organize my bits and pieces...and then I hear it.

4. Conversation (loud) between student (grad?) and professor (wearing suit & tie; authoritative questions about research). They are nearby, at a table with comfortable, lean-back leather chairs. Which means they are talking at a volume necessary to be heard across that space and over the thrum of the music.

5. Everyone in the room can hear every word about (a) her research on body language and what that means in a counselling context (b) her sideline as a ballet teacher (c) the racist professor who has been singling out a student in her class for discrimination (d) lots of other stuff that I really, really don't want to hear.

6. No one looks over at them. They are oblivious to the rest of us. Silent questions form in my mind, including (a) are they flirting, or is this just a professional cup of coffee between academic colleagues? (b) do they know that we can all hear every word? and (c) if the answer to (b) is "Yes", do they care?

7. The guy at the table by the window stands up and gets ready to leave. Score! I wait until he clears the area, do a quick pack-up of my clobber (computer, notebook, tea, coat, bag...) and take up residence as far away from the Loud People as possible. Excellent.

8. Now I'm able to focus (despite the continued loud conversation). By now some other pairings have arrived and the room starts to burble a bit. Ahhh. That welcome white noise of music and voices that makes café writing so appealing.

9. Ready to get started. About to open a file...

10. Notice that an email has come in to my business address. Check it.

11. Big mistake.

12. The next thing I know, I'm dealing with that instant join-the-dots, flow-chart kind of thing that happens when you read one email. This has to be done to respond, and this, and this, and then this. I finally deal with the last piece and...

13. Thirty minutes have passed. My tea is all gone.  The Loud People have left. I've done nothing creative.

14. I get more tea. ("Free refills!" says the nice girl at the counter. I could hug her.)

15. I open the file I'm interested in, and for about twenty minutes read, fiddle, and wonder why I'm not feeling creative. Eventually I realize that that I've used up the time I allotted myself and should be packing up and heading home.

Which I do.

So, to recap my failed café writing experience:

1. Sounds distracted me.
2. Work/internet distracted me.
3. I didn't have a goal for my writing.

Next time, I will:

1. Prepare myself for possible noise distractions.
2. Turn off email, web, work.
3. Show up with a plan and a purpose.

This time? Fail. But I've promised myself there will be a next time. I might bring my earbuds, though...

Does correctness matter in your business communications?

After years of explaining to business students the importance of using correct grammar, spelling and style in all forms of business communication - yes, even in that informal email message to a colleague - I am beginning to wonder if I was completely misguided.

Why?

Clearly many businesses, not to mention media outlets (who should know better), don't really care about correctness.

What do a few mistakes matter, anyway? People are still going to read that email message or advertisement or headline, process its weaknesses, and move on. In some cases, I wonder if readers even notice.

Here's what I mean. Yesterday I received this marketing mail from a local business, inviting me to a special discount day:

My Invited?

The mind boggles. How did such an error get past any number of readers involved in the marketing process and make it into the mail? How many of these messages were sent out?

And does anyone care that this should read "You're Invited!"?

I care. As a customer of this business - and I might add it's a solid business, with great products and excellent customer service - I can't help thinking "If you can make such an obvious, public mistake, what other errors are you capable of?"

An error in communication reflects badly on the communicator, and shame on us if we let businesses, or even our own colleagues, get away with it.

Businesses leaders need to recognize that communicating effectively is a necessary skill in the workplace, and one that requires training and oversight. That internal email written completely in lower case and containing a few typos or Textspeak isn't going to be seen by a client or customer (you hope), but it's still incorrect. Why should your business communications be any different from the processes involved in providing your product or service? You have supervisors, checkpoints, quality control in other areas of your business, so why not in your communications?

Do it right. Ensure that your employees learn to write well. Hire a professional writer or editor to train your employees or provide oversight to your communications, especially if your message is being mailed to customers like me.

Your welcome. Oops! I mean, you're welcome.

Here are a few more bloopers that reflect badly on their writers and editors:

An email message from a national organization
for writers. Self-emploted writers, apparently.

Is it possible to remember in? Just wondering...

I don't even know where to begin with this one!

Grammar Wall of Shame #7: How to punctuate "however"

However you slice it, a punctuation pie is sure to have its share of "however" goofs; however, there are simple rules for getting it right. Pay attention, however, or you will find yourself taking a punctuation pratfall.

Take a look:

Warning! Comma missing!

So, what are the rules for punctuating "however"?

Rule 1:

When it's a conjunctive adverb joining two sentences, it needs a semi-colon before and a comma after:

The food was terrible; however, we at it anyway. 

Rule 2:

When it's an aside or interruption in the middle of a sentence it needs a comma before and another comma after:

The food was terrible, however, but we ate it anyway.

Addendum to Rule 2:

If however is used as an aside at the end of a sentence (see the closing sentence of this post, for example), then it should be introduced - set apart - by a comma.

Rule 3:

When it's an adverb meaning "no matter how" it doesn't require any punctuation.

However you look at it, the food was terrible.

Clear?

Writers and editors need to learn just three simple rules. I'm sorry to say, these rules are frequently broken, however. 

(Sorry! Couldn't help myself...!)

Grammar Wall of Shame #6: Punctuation gone wild

When teaching grammar to college students, I always enjoyed - in a subversive sort of way - hearing their stories about grammar lessons learned in school.

"My teacher said never to start a sentence with because."

"A sentence is a complete thought." (Define complete, I would tell them, which they couldn't.)

My favourites always had to do with punctuation, such as:

"Use a comma whenever you take a breath in reading a sentence." (To which I would ask: "What if you had just run up stairs? What if you had a cold?")

"Always introduce a list with a colon."

"Use semi-colons to separate items in a list after a colon."

Punctuation is a minefield. That is something we can all agree on as the rules continue to confound the unwary writer. Take a look:

Commas and hyphens gone wild!

Matthew Bell married Isabella Humble in 1840 and just over a decade later in 1851, they moved...

Okay, this is nitpicking perhaps, since the meaning is very clear, but without a comma after later (blue circle), this sentence suggests that a decade took place in the latter part of 1851. Without a time dilation device, this would be impossible. Add a comma and the reader no longer needs a working knowledge of the space-time continuum:

Matthew Bell married Isabella Humble in 1840 and just over a decade later, in 1851, they moved...

But there's another comma problem in this paragraph as well (second blue circle). The writer wants to add information about the city of Guelph: at the time of the Bells' settlement, the city was 24 years old. The modifying clause beginning with which needs to be enclosed by commas to set it apart. But the writer added an unnecessary and confusing comma smack in the middle of the clause:

...Guelph, which was at the time, only a 24 year-old settlement. (I'll deal with that hyphen in a moment.)

Remove that comma after time! It's not required - in fact, it complicates the meaning by suggesting Guelph simply "was at the time" - or, in other words, Guelph was, as opposed to not being in existence. That comma removes the connection of Guelph to its 24 years and leaves it simply as "Guelph was." Complicated, subtle - wrong! Here is the correction:

...Guelph, which was at the time only a 24-year-old settlement.

There were not 24 Guelphs, each one a year old (yellow circle). There was one Guelph, and it was 24 years old. If you turn that age description into an adjective preceding the noun settlement, you need to add hyphens. Not just one hyphen, but two - enough to turn the age description into a single adjective: ...24-year-old...

Punctuation has the power to obscure - or facilitate - meaning. But you have to put it in the right place.

Why is current YA fiction so dark?

The world is a troubled place right now, and YA fiction appears to be enjoying the darkness. No, not just enjoying it - relishing it. Gorging on it. Drowning in it. (I could go on...)

But - is all this dark, violent, dystopic exploration of unhappiness really what the kids are reading? Or is it just what YA writers and publishers think the kids want?  (I don't know the answer - I'm just asking the question...)

I guess I should be happy that the Era of Vampires appears to be waning. Okay, I read the Twilight series to stay current, and although it didn't thrill me the way it did my teenage daughter, I could see the appeal.  Ditto the Hunger Games and its sequels. Engaging fantasy, strong female character, a bit of romance. Before those two entries, kids worked their way through the increasingly dark Harry Potter. And of course there has been a fair share of lightweight Young Chick Lit as well. Trends come and go - we all know that.

But this past weekend I read about the following four YA books, each reviewed briefly on the Books page of the Globe. Here are snippets of the reviews by Globe reviewer Lauren Bride:

Mermaid in Chelsea Creek by Michelle Tea: "...a grouchy, pollution-sick, slightly frightening Polish mermaid whose broken English is elsewhere peppered with profanity..."

Letting Ana Go by Anonymous: "Following a nameless high-school student for over a year from lighthearted athlete through anorectic compulsion...the diary-entry format could potentially read as a how-to guide for the impressionable without quite giving an antidote or example of how to recover."

When We Were Good by Suzanne Sutherland: "...pitched into double grief...struggling to find her place at punk shows with tough, impressive kids...also finds trouble..."

Rush (Book One of The Game) by Eve Silver: "...electric high-action scenes, a world in peril (this time, by the threat of aliens), and amorphous morality in a broken society..."

Wow.

Confession: I haven't read any of these books; just the reviews. A little research shows that critics (at least the critics who have blurbed for the books) love them. For instance,  "A radiant hybrid of piercing realism, creeping horror, and heartbreaking fantasy - but fantasy with dirt in its hair and scabs on its knees," says author Daniel Kraus (his own book is called Rotters) about Mermaid in Chelsea Creek.

So am I the only writer (and reader) who thinks the current crop of YA characters and their stories sound (as my teenage son calls it) "messed up"?

Is this really what kids are reading - or is it just what publishers are publishing?

The teenagers I know are intelligent, curious, confused, funny and often under tremendous pressure to perform at school, at home and at all the other activities that fill their lives. Are they really reaching for the darkside? Are they really connecting with and finding pleasure and meaning in reading a book featuring a "slightly frightening Polish mermaid"? Is there anything else out there to choose from? Maybe even something with humour, lightness, hope?

Of course, I may be wrong.

Why is YA fiction so dark? I'm open to enlightenment.

Grammar Wall of Shame #4: Word choice

Ah! The power of words!

Especially when a writer picks the wrong one...

Infamous? A good way to drive away potential customers...!

In an otherwise engaging brochure for children's toys, clothing and paraphernalia, this goof jumped out like an elbow in the ribs. (Okay, there were actually quite a few editorial misses in this brochure, stay tuned). New pyjamas - great! But kids would probably rather not wear anything infamous (as in, notorious). Famous would be fine, of course.

Words have connotations, and sometimes writers don't pay enough attention to this slippery, elusive side of language. 

For instance, which would you rather hear?

"You look so slim!"

"You look so thin!"

The two adjectives are similar in meaning, but the first suggests a positive appearance, and the second - well, not so much. Thin has a slightly negative tone.

Back to my example from the brochure: Famous means well-known in a positive way, just the sort of word you would like to use to describe your product.  But infamous suggests that something is famous for the wrong reasons. Its connotations are negative. 

Here's another:

Don't over-excite yourself, kids!

If something is overdone, whether it's meat or make-up, it's usually not a good thing. Neither is it healthy to be overly excited. The connotation, once again, is negative. 

The writer probably meant to say something like "I am really excited..." or "I am so excited...." or just plain "I am excited", which would be fine: adverbs are frequently, horribly, misguidedly overused, especially in marketing materials. (Don't get me started on real estate copy writers!)

Choose your words carefully, writers. If you don't, you may be expressing the exact opposite of what you intended!

Grammar Wall of Shame #5: Subject verb agreement

Oh dear. I hate these mistakes.

But you would think an author - a professional writer - would know better, wouldn't you? Or that the editor in charge of publishing this writer's guest column in the newspaper would take a good look? Apparently not. Even the most experienced writers make mistakes. Read on.

Subject-verb agreement is a very simple concept:

Singular noun takes a singular verb:

The man reads.  He reads.

Plural noun takes a plural verb:

The children read. They read.

Problems arise when additional words are placed between the subject and its verb:

The man travelling with a pile of suitcases and two teenagers reads.

"Teenagers reads"?  Our ear picks up that the verb doesn't sound right next to the plural noun - but the noun teenagers is not the subject of the verb reads. The subject of the verb is man.

And that's exactly the problem that arises in this excerpt.

The subject of the sentence is surgeon, and its verb is state (circled in red).

But wait a minute... The ship's surgeon state...?

The phrase talking of novels separates the noun from its verb. And because the last word of the phrase is plural, the writer chose a plural verb to follow....

Fail!

Why? Because the verb state doesn't belong to the noun novels; it belongs to surgeon. Yes, the singular surgeon. Take out the modifying phrase and the subject-verb relationship becomes clear.

The ship's surgeon, Stephen Maturin, states that...

(I've added the required comma, too. I mean, how many ship's surgeons were there, anyway?? Don't get me started...!)

Which all goes to prove that even the most accomplished writers make mistakes. Editors, please take note!