Be Kind to Your Creatives and They Will Be Kind to You
Process gets overlooked in a lot of the places I’ve worked. Management doesn’t always have a clear idea of when and where it’s appropriate to make what changes to a creative piece and that often ends in frustration, with the creative team being labeled as either whiny, unwilling to compromise, or unable to take constructive criticism.
The problem here is not with input from outside, the problem is with timing. Good creative people try to get input along the way during a project to make sure the deliverables are on track with the expectations of management. As they get closer to deadline, they like to make smaller and smaller changes to reduce the likelihood of errors being made.
On the flipside, often when a person farther from the project looks at a piece, they may offer a tongue-in-cheek initial reaction and then after thinking, have more extensive changes. This is when things get frustrating. As the manager ruminates more, he comes up with more extensive and more detailed changes. As the creative spends more time working on the same thing, he gets more and more attached to what is there. And that is when conflict occurs.
The best way to avoid this conflict requires action on both the manager’s and creative’s parts. The manager needs to request comps with adequate time for approval and get approval early in the process. Ideally, this would be before production begins. Then, after the overall concept is approved, the creative needs to identify what changes should be made at what point. This can be organized by number of reviews or number of proofs. At each proof or review stage, the severity of the changes should be decreased, so that by the end the changes being made are only the most crucial, leaving less room for error.
To try to accomplish this in my own world, I made a chart I posted a while back detailing my take on the differences between editing and proofing. This is only the most rough of distinguishing factors in the editing process, since it only introduces two stages. But it’s a start.
What is great about a multi-stage proof or review process that has guidelines is the ability to set expectations. When expectations are set, you eliminate disappointment. When disappointment is no longer a possible consequence of their design choices, creative people will respond by being more creative, because they know they won’t ever get rejected for it. While criticism and rejection are indeed different, when you are told to change a design you have put hours of work into, it’s hard to feel like they aren’t the same.
If you haven’t had this conversation with your creative team, get their input and establish a proof or design process that works for your team.
Be kind to your creatives, and they will be kind to you.
Chalk full/Chock full
Chalk it up to inexperience. Or lack of proofreading. Or both:
Many times copywriters are asked to write things they may have only heard said. There are many sayings like this, colloquialisms or turns of phrase that are spoken often, but when we get ready to write them down, we aren’t exactly sure how it goes. That’s when you end up with cut lines like this ad, in which the editors apparently measure the quantity of information its publication can hold in units of chalk.
Some examples:
*Anchors away/Anchors aweigh
*Another/Nother
*Chock full/Chalk full
*Would of/Would have
Do you know which one is correct for each? Read below for the answers.
Sites like Common Errors in English, Grammar Girl, and online dictionaries make it easy to correct these mistakes. Here’s what to do if you run into problems spelling the spoken word:
1. Google what you think you hear, the closest spelling you can find, or both.
2. When you find the actual spelling, search on that.
3. Read WHY the correct version is correct. It makes it easier to remember.
A good practice is to always follow these steps when you aren’t completely comfortable with a word or phrase. If it’s often confused or misspelled by others, note the correct version in your company style guide and make a note or flag in your AP/NYT/Chicago style guide so the entry is easy to find. If someone you work with has been misusing the word for years, you may have to show evidence of a correct spelling from an authoritative source.
And now for the correct answers to the entries above:
*Anchors away/Anchors aweigh – Anchors aweigh is correct. The nautical term is to “weight the anchor. “ As Phrases.org.uk notes, “An anchor that is aweigh is one that has just begun to put weight onto the rope or chain by which it is being hauled up. Sailors were fond of adding ‘a’ to words to make new ones, for example, ‘astern’, ‘aboard’, ashore’, ‘afloat’, ‘adrift’, ‘aground’, etc.”
*Another/Nother – Another is the correct term, although some sites note that it can be used knowingly to evoke rustic charm. There are several sites that list “nother” as a word unto itself, so this is a good reminder to look at sources before you get smug.
*Chock full/Chalk full – “Chock full” is a deviation of the origin of this phrase, to be “choke full,” or, full to the point of choking. Chalk full is just a mishearing of the word due to the similar sounds of the o-c-k and a-l-k construction and accent. Some people pronounce the a-l combination deep in the back of the throat in chalk, while others slur straight to the hard k, making it hard to pick up the L-sound.
*Would of/Would have – This is another hearing mistake; the “of” sound is generated by leaving the h-sound off and going straight for the meat of the verb, a-v. The fact that a construction written in this manner would have no verb should be the first tip-off that this is wrong.
The Vocabulary of Mad Men
The AMC series “Mad Men” is now in it’s fourth season, and there are no shortage of blogs dissecting every aspect of the show, from fashion to vocabulary. This summer, a blogger from Vocabulary.com made it in The New York Times with his analysis of several would-be anachronisms that were brought to his attention, and if you’re a word nerd like me, it’s worth a read:
Web site or website
The word Web site gives me more headaches than just about any other word, mainly because the evolution of it seems to have surpassed the intended usage. When the phrase Web site was coined, it was determined by someone that it should be two words, capped. This is because there is only one World Wide Web, and so it’s a proper noun by default. Likewise, you cap Internet.
However, Web sites themselves are ubiquitous, so every time I cap that W, I wince. Writing it “website” just seems right. But every reference from Merriam Webster to AP to the NYT says the first way is correct. Explain this, then, on the back cover of my NYT guide:
* How to express the equality of the sexes without using self-conscious devices like “he or she.”
* How to choose thoughtfully between African-American and black; Hispanic and Latino; American Indian and Native American.
* How to translate the vocabulary of e-mail and cyberspace and cope with the eccentricities of Internet company names and website addresses.
The NYT, which in its very pages espouses the two-word version, crams it all together on its very own back cover. Flip inside, and you’ll see the entry for “Web site.”
Initially, I thought maybe it was a product of it’s own undoing, since books are often published under the Chicago Style Guide, which originated as a publisher’s handbook. That would certainly explain the mention of the authors on the back cover as having “seventy-five” years of experience rather than 75 years of experience.
But in Chicago “Web site” is two words as well.
Anyone know the answer?
Ending Sentences with Prepositions
You’ve likely heard the famous quote by Winston Churchill, prompted by an editor who rearranged a sentence of his to avoid ending it with a preposition: “This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put.”
Prepositions such as “with,” “of,” “in” and “to” let the reader know where a noun is in relation to another noun. So theoretically, you can’t end a sentence with a preposition because then that function would not be served. However, the common sense aspect of the rule doesn’t take into consideration the fact that concepts and ideas are nouns, too. Additionally, prepositions can represent places all their own as well, such as in “Put up your shoes.” “Up” is where they are going, which could be a closet, under the bed, or depending on how tired your mom is, anywhere not in her current sight line.
Churchill’s point is valid; sometimes the need to make a grammar rule happen circumvents the point of the statement. The NYT Guide to Style cites good writers and editors having the savvy to know when rule breaking is appropriate.
So when is it appropriate to break the rule about prepositions?
I find it often varies by audience. Older readers tend to feel more strongly about this particular grammar rule, although Churchill would be a notable exception, perhaps because it was his words being rearranged. Younger readers, used to greeting each other with the ubiquitous “What’s up?” or the invitation, “Wanna come with?” may not notice at all. Strict adherence to this rule would also depend on the context of your writing. In dialogue, your characters may sound stilted and too formal if you edit them closely. In feature writing, it may appear sloppy if you don’t fix a preposition at the end of a sentence.
Take these things into consideration if you run into an ending preposition when editing:
- Was it intentional?
- Is it dialogue?
- Does it advance a point I am making or a character I am writing?
- Does it sound awkward if I rewrite it to be correct?
- Will my audience stumble over it?
Good writing never takes your reader out of the text. Even if it’s appropriate for your audience, advances your characterization, and you intended it to be there, if an ending preposition feels awkward, rewrite.
Win Wednesday
I have noticed something amazing at various stores lately. When you get in an express lane, the sign overhead now more frequently reads “15 items or FEWER.” As you may remember from my post on Less and Fewer, a writer should use the word “less” when referring to items occurring in amounts that cannot be numbered, such as water, dust, or salt, for example. “Fewer” should be used when you can count it, such as with people, cars, or perhaps, items you intend to buy at the grocery store.
For years the confusion between these two words has been compounded due to incorrect casual use, such as when a person is in the checkout line and sees signs identifying lines for people with “15 items or less.” But for whatever reason, I am seeing these signs slowly change.
One point for grammarians everywhere!
Writing About Music
As an editor, I have had to edit and proofread a huge variety of subjects, but never has one presented more difficulty and detail than writing on classical music. I am lucky to have a skilled partner in crime–a music lover who moonlights as a proofreader for the Foundation—but even luckier to have found what appears to be the sole, single-volume published reference on the topic: D. Kern Holoman’s Writing About Music.
Most editors know the rudimentary rules for song and album titles, most of the time a tap of the quote keys and a “Shift + I” will do quite nicely. But when you get into catalog names, symphonies, given names, nicknames and movements, it quickly gets sticky. What’s worse: most major music organizations have their own style guides, they aren’t published, and none of them seem to agree. I arrived at the central problem when discussing this with my helpful volunteer: “The people who care about music and the people who care about writing don’t seem to intersect,” I lamented.
There are two exceptions to this rule. First is the long-trusted Groves Encyclopedia of Music. It’s just what it says, and provides the valuable insight and resources it takes to sometimes determine how a piece title is properly notated. They do have an in-house style guide, but it’s not published, so until then, hope your organization has already invested in the World-Book size collection. If not, you can trust the venerable Writing About Music, a small tome that serves as the essential introduction to doing just what the title indicates.
A music program, it turns out, contains a wealth of information in its sparse lines. Through subtle placement of commas, italics and quotes, the audience can tell if they are looking at a song or a series of songs, if the composer gave it that name or not, and even when to clap.
Never, ever rely on management or publicists for program information. Programs are considered quite formal, while e-mail is not. What they will likely give you should be considered a rudimentary start to be supplemented with a music resource such as Groves or input from a musician or music scholar.
When first encountering a program, determine what kind it is: Vocal? Orchestral? Composer-driven? Recital? Then decide how to organize it. Chronological is a given, but what information you include and how is optional. If it’s a composer series, you may choose to omit listing the composer each time. If it’s lyrical, you need to decide how to attribute the lyrics if not by the composer of the music, and how to provide them and any translations needed for attendees. If the ensemble changes for each piece, figure out a concise way to note the personnel who will be performing.
Most importantly, the first time you do make all these decisions, WRITE IT DOWN. Make a policy, and hence your own internal style guide. More important than how you do anything is the consistency with which you do it. Audiences can adapt to any style as long as they know what to expect and it does not change, either from page-to-page or season-to-season.
Failblog Friday: I’d Like to Meet this George Brownridge
This retracted thank-you ad is a great reminder that you should always have someone who represents your audience but DOES NOT work in your office/building/company proofread your ads, publications, or anything else it’s feasible have read in advance. In this ad, the responsible party clearly knew what they meant, but did not make that clear to the audience. It’s also a good idea NOT to write anything a 12-year-old boy would laugh at unless you are meaning to make that inference. That was our rule when I wrote for broadcast because you never knew what would send an anchor into a fit of giggles, and also many of them did have the sense of humor of a 12-year-old boy.
Where I work, it works best for us to proofread most items internally, but major items that go out to our subscribers or a general audience are proofread with two individuals who represent our audience but do not work here. We are lucky in that we are a nonprofit that benefits greatly from a devoted volunteer constituency, but you don’t need an army, just one person with some common sense who represents the market you are trying to reach.
Grammar Shirts!
Editors, show your pride in your job with these awesome grammar shirts.
Like this one from Skreened:
Or naughty commas from SackWear:
Or if those around can’t seem to grasp the difference between you’re and your, try reverse psychology with this shirt from T Critic:
Get rid of unwanted apostrophes any place you frequent when you wear this shirt from CafePress:
And lastly, this Cafe Press shirt, which reminds us that it’s never too late to fix a grammar error:
Failblog Friday: Now Hiring
Many editors and writers are working on multiple projects at multiple times. It can be tempting to compartmentalize and focus on what you are doing without considering the big picture, but try to keep in mind how your total project will look.
If it’s a newscast, ask an editor to look over your show your help you visualize the elements. If it’s a print piece, grab your designer and make sure pictures and words don’t contradict each other. If it’s a print publication, talk to the managing editor about the dummy and what will go where. When all else has been tried, get a fresh set of eyes to look at your proof with an everyday-person perspective.
That way you don’t end up with something like this:
Copyright © 2012 Advice from a Freelance Writer All rights reserved.
Site Developed and Designed by burtinteractive