Imaginary letters

From Loretta:
      I spend a lot of time, when I’m not actually writing, composing letters in my head.  Every day, for instance, my brain produces a new letter to the editor of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, noting some egregious typo, such as--in a headline--Dcotor for Doctor.  I’m thinking, Hey, you’re an actual newspaper.  Don’t you have any actual proofreaders?  Or have they gone out of fashion, along with putting real news on the front page, rather than a story about someone’s missing dog or cat or the strange case of the Vanishing Reservation Book.  No, I'm not making that up.  It was a front page story:  A local restaurant’s reservation book disappeared, then reappeared with all the pages of reservations for Mother’s Day & college graduation weekends torn out.  News, yes:  Strange little crimes like this intrigue me, and it’s fun to ponder motives.  But on the front page, when we’ve got wars all over the place &, you know, crazy stuff in Washington, DC to fill up that space?  What's the Local Section for, anyway, then?
       Then there’s the April issue of REAL SIMPLE magazine.  On page 197 begins an article offering “26 easy ways you can help save the planet.”
      Along with the usual tactics most of us know about--e.g., not letting the water run while you brush your teeth--they advise us not to wash clothes unless they stink...  Um...eeew.  But...O...K.  I mean, this is the Earth Day issue, right?
      Then on page 225, they offer their “road test” of cleaning wipes.
      Let me see if I understand this.  I should save water by wearing dirty clothes but it’s OK to clean my house with cloths made out of an artificial material impregnated with cleaning chemicals, which I’ll use once and throw away, to add to the mountains of garbage in landfills.
      Not to badmouth wipes.  My being environmentally aware does not mean all my consumer choices are ecologically virtuous.
      It’s the contradiction that gets me.  At least for the Earth Day issue, maybe someone could have found a product a bit more Earth-friendly to rate?  Like, I dunno, brands of recycled paper or something.
      So I compose a letter in my head.  Which wouldn’t be my first to this magazine.  I even write and mail some of them, like the one about how impossibly difficult and complicated and time-consuming I have found it, trying to get REAL SIMPLE to send me scent-free magazines.   Or the hoops you have to jump through to register for the online version if you're not on AOL.
      But most of the time I merely amuse myself with my witty observations about how someone is doing something wrong or foolish or dumb.  I don’t actually write the letters.  Who has time?
      Which brings me to sex.
      The New England Romance Writers conference was held this past weekend, and I joined some friends for our annual post-conference dinner.  As often happens when women gather, the talk turned to sex.  How much is necessary, how much is too much, when it works, when it doesn’t.
       I mean sex in books.  Romance writers, remember?
      This got me thinking about my reading choices, and made me realize that I write letters in my head to book publishers, too.  And so, very likely, did all the other women sitting at that table with me.
      For instance:  We’ve got nothing against sexy books, but it would be nice if the sex had something to do with the stories and the characters.  And maybe could we up the sexual tension and reduce the Slot A into Slot B details?
      But it isn’t just the sex.  As comments here on the blog have made plain, some of us could write impassioned letters about bringing back the traditional Regency.  Others long for denser and intenser historical novels, in wild and exotic settings.  There are plots we want to see more of and some we want to see less of.  Character types we loathe and types we love.
      Some would write about what covers should or should not look like.  Some would ask why we can’t have larger print--not as in LARGE PRINT edition, but as in not-so-teeny type.  Some would ask if proofreaders are an extinct species.  Some would object to character names or anachronisms or language misdemeanors.
      What about you?  Has something you’ve read lately made you want to write a letter--positive or negative--to a publisher? But maybe instead of writing or thinking about it, you ranted or raved about it to a friend?  If you could influence a publisher with your message, what would you say?
         

      

Comments

[Elaine McCarthy]

Good morning from England, where the letter in my head this morning is to British Airways, complaining about how it is f***ing impossible to actually talk to a human being about the fate of one's lost luggage!

As to letters to publishers, the one I most frequently write in my head is on the subject of the TWO SEPARATE VERBS "to lie" and "to lay." I'm getting cranky in my old age and it *annoys me* to see such sentences in print as: "She lay her head on his shoulder." I don't know whether to blame the copy editor or the writer. But I realize that the Word Police are not always popular. I offered to explain "lie" and "lay" to an excellent writer of my acquaintance once and was told she didn't want to know!

I suppose the disappearance of copy editors is all-of-a-piece with the current trend of making everything cheaper and cheaper so that we can all buy more and more to fill our larger and larger houses and awfuller and awfuller landfills. But that's a whole 'nother subject, and I am jet-lagged and babbling.

So I will LAY down this computer and go LIE down on my bed for yet another nap! Adieu for now...

[Cathie]

Hi Loretta and Patricia, MaryJo, Jo, Edith, Susank, SusanH, and hope I didn't miss anyone! Its my first time here, and a joy. I've dearly loved historical romances for a few years now, and more so during now with my health because they are just wonderful comfort reads! So thank you for all the joy reading yours!
The only thing that I think I'd write to publishers now as a reader, is the lettering of the books getting smaller and smaller! Really I rather buy a longer book or a book in trade size with larger or rather normal sized so that its easier to read. I love longer read book too! So I don't want the stories cut, I want the whole stories still.

[Sherrie Holmes]

Hot button! Hot button! Oh, Loretta, the letters I've written in my head! As far as publishers go, my unwritten letters have to do with the size of the type (too small!) and the fact they run the margins so far out to the edge of the page that you practically have to break the book's spine in order to read the words closest to the spine.

And the lack of editing! Oh my! Since I do that for a living, bad editing never fails to catch my eye. I have even (sheepish grin) been known to highlight the typos, bad grammar and punctuation, over-use of certain words, etc., in books.

Elaine, the lie/lay thing is one of my pet peeves!

[Francois]

Dear Publisher,

There may well be a naked man in the book somewhere but I do not need to see him on the cover. Especially if he is historically inaccurate and doesn't even look like the man described in the book. One requires a great deal of chutzpah to read such a thing on the train of a morning.

And while you're about it, please do not give away major plot points in the blurb on the back.

Thank you kindly.

[Ingrid]

Elaine, your letter has arrived with a vengeance! I just saw on BBC news that BA loses more luggage than any other airway.

[Maggie Robinson]

Oh, Loretta, loved this post. Years ago I wrote a letter to a NYC TV station after they'd featured a "dog psychiatrist" who was trying to analyze and correct neurotic and vicious pet behavior. I believe I thought at the time you could hardly find a more foolish way to waste money when there were so many neurotic and vicious PEOPLE in the world and that the bad dogs should be dispatched to dog heaven post haste. The reporter wrote back to me with a hilarious retort to my crankiness, something like "Did you know someone is sending out crazy letters in your name?" I realized then that I was a bit of a crackpot, casting my pearls of wisdom before swine.

Oh, and to clarify, I love dogs. Cats too.

So I probably won't be writing to publishers asking why they print such consistently crappy stuff from certain authors (not you Wenches) when my own manuscripts, so superior, are languishing unread!

[Kalen Hughes]

"There may well be a naked man in the book somewhere but I do not need to see him on the cover. Especially if he is historically inaccurate and doesn't even look like the man described in the book. One requires a great deal of chutzpah to read such a thing on the train of a morning."

Ack! You've just nailed my book. LOL! But they claim sex sells . . . *sigh*

I would write rants about clench covers (hate 'em!), major honking historical gaffs (esp. ones that are required to make the plot work!), and BEG for a trade-size option for most books, even if it had to be special ordered. I love trade-size books.

[Kathy Kremer]

"there may be a naked man..."
Well, if he's naked, how can you tell he's historically inaccurate? (BG) The basic anatomy hasn't changed much over the years. I write snarky letters to a variety of institutions or "services" (I use the quote marks because the lack of service is often the problem.) But I totally agree about clinch covers. It makes me hesitate about buying a book unless it's by an author I really, really like. Then I'm tempted to carry it around in a plain brown wrapper. As with many romance readers, my eyesight is getting worse, so I'd appreciate a larger font. And I'm also crabby about editing, or lack thereof, in all kinds of literature. Have to run, I'll look in again later.

[Susan Wilbanks]

On the subject of copyediting, I would rant about use of "reign" where "rein" is correct. I used to only see "free reign" or "he loosened the reigns and let the horse gallop" in unpublished work, but in the past few years it's started cropping up in published books, newspapers, etc., and it DRIVES ME CRAZY. Same for "tow the line." It's TOE! TOE! "Toe the party line" means staying within bounds, not joining the tug-of-war team!

Um, sorry. Those are my favorite pet peeves, which I fully expect to be grumbling about in a nursing home when I'm elderly and senile, no doubt confusing and annoying my nurses.

As for rants on packaging/content, I'd join Kalen in ranting about clench covers, particularly ones in which the heroine is wearing no underwear and/or her "period" dress is obviously fastened by a zipper, and major historical gaffes. Also, I'd beg for more historicals with epic sweep and lots of history.

[Janga]

If I were writing a letter to publishers today, I would ask why the bare back of a woman with her dress falling off has become the flavor of the week. I have stacks of books with variations of this cover--and more on the way. Clearly variety is not a spice beloved by the publishing industry.

The poor editing bothers me too, but it is not a romance problem. It is epidemic. When I correct my students, they defend themselves by showing me the same errors in print sources. And I must admit some hilarious errors result from my students' errors. Perhaps my all time favorite example of the lie/lay error is the student who wrote, "My father can lay aroused on the beach for hours."

Ths was the same essay that began "During my eighteen years as a human being."

[RevMelinda]

Janga, you read my mind--I was just about to post something about this being "The Year of the Bare Back" or something! (although I might add that this seems to be a phenomenon affecting males as well as females, if Kalen's cover is any example, LOL!) (He's very handsome, Kalen. . .)

Rein/reign bothers me, too--and can I add mantel/mantle and douse/dowse to the list? (I know there are more, I just can't think of them right now.)

[Diantha]

Janga,

You and I must have some of the same students! Today I gave them a two page "Things to remember when writing" hand-out with examples of a whole list of sins which I took directly from their last round of papers. I also included a list of URLs for them to use as sources for proper grammar - not that I expect many of them to actually USE these sources (many of which were already listed in the syllabus.)

As for book pet peeves ... clinch covers, verbal anachronisms, poor editing, so-called historicals with plot-lines that could just as easily be written as a contemporary (WHY is this book set during the American Civil War? Yes, Dear Author, there's supposedly a war happening around your characters - use it!)

Diantha

P.S. When did "definite" morph into "defiant"?

[Jo Beverley]

""there may be a naked man..."
Well, if he's naked, how can you tell he's historically inaccurate? (BG)"

Well, Kathy, until very recently he wouldn't be surgically altered.*G*

Seems clear to me from some very graphic descriptions that authors are envisioning a circumcised man, and it would look very different on a completely naked cover. :)

I'd simply like to tell all publishers of historical romance that they've used up their allowance of dukes!No more. Not a one, unless a real historical person, for a decade while the supply regenerates or soon they'll be extinct.

Jo :)

[Maggie Robinson]

I think that historically accurate bare-chested man on the front cover might have a chest hair or two...they weren't waxing and oiling in the Regency period, were they?

[LorettaChase]

Oh, the words! Flaunt and flout. Oh, the punctuation! The "it's" where an "its" should be and vice versa. And "like" for "as" or "such as." "Like he said"??? "Like I wanted"??? My 5th grade teacher--and all the other ones--would go nuts. And where did "snuck" come from?
As to clinch covers--if we must have them, as apparently the powers that be believe we must--can we have some poses that are not anatomically impossible or attainable only by Plastic Man or Gumby?

[Jo Beverley]

Actually, Maggie, a lot of British men have little or no chest hair. It's a northern European thing, I think.

If you saw the movie of As You Like it, the Branagh one, it starts with all the men leaping naked out of their baths? Hairless chests in all directions and IIRC, the one man with dark chest hair really stands out.

But if he's got hairless armpits, then yup, that's not right. Mind you, neither is a woman with a shaved armpit.

Jo :)

[RevMelinda]

Since we're on the topic of hair, may I point out one of my current bug-a-boos--all that "crisp" hair out there. Chest hair or "nether region" hair, it's all "crisp"--as in "the hair on his chest was crisp beneath her seeking fingers." I am so tired of that word--it's in every bedroom scene in every book and it just makes me think of dry toast.

Oh, and while I'm at it, how about "hair-dusted"? As in "his muscular, hair-dusted legs." It doesn't work for me. I just see a feather duster and a French maid and it totally gets me out of the mood.

[Sherrie Holmes]

From Sherrie:
I am laughing out loud at all your comments, especially Maggie's "Did you know someone is sending out crazy letters in your name?" LOL! And yes, I see rein/reign all the time. And Diantha, I'm suddenly seeing definite/defiant in many of my client manuscripts, and it completely puzzles me. I also see "could of" instead of "could have."

And mixed metaphors galore: frothing at the bit--it's frothing at the mouth or champing (not chomping) at the bit.

One of the most common things I see in manuscripts is they're/there/their. And here's one *I* got caught on recently (and I should know better!): hand-died instead of hand-dyed. *g*

I think one of the most prevalent things I see in manuscripts are Pat's wordbugs. A writer gets a favorite word or phrase and uses it repeatedly. And if it's a clever and unique phrase, you only get to use it once in a book. The first time, it's witty. The second time, it isn't, and it diminishes the effectiveness of the first. The third time, it loses all its charm by self-consciously calling attention to itself.

[helen]

My father writes technical scholarly books that are very well regarded in his field. After his old publisher retired, my father was alarmed to find the replacement was a man educated in the business school model, who boasted to him that he had never read any of the books he published, because it would be a waste of his time. In my letter I would say "If you don't love books, and the words and wit in them, go find something else to sell".

[Mary]

Couldn't agree more about the editing. I have actually gone back to my bookshop and got my money back because I told them I was expecting an edited book. I also contacted the company. It was one of those fantasy romance books. I also have a problem with the use of 'off of'. It seems to be more and more commonly used but has no discernable rules. Another one that gets to me is 'not being adverse' to something.

[Maggie Robinson]

Jo, I've decided to make it a priority to check out the chest hair (or lack thereof) of every northern European man I can find. Where should I start? I now have a new life goal. *g* And Melinda, I promise to touch it too to see if it's "crisp" or merely somewhat wilted.

[Francois]

Actually, I was thinking of historically inaccurate hair-styles and disarrayed clothing. And anyone who looks like Fabio is right out. Especially since he is the antithesis of the classically handsome English gent.

Kalen - Your book looks great! He is sufficiently blurry to be alright on the train and in any case the excerpt seems to make it worthwhile.

[Susan Sarah]

Great topic, Loretta, and I agree with so many of these comments. Seems like a few publishers might want to check out your blog to see what readers would really like to say to them. ;)

I have a few pet peeves in books, though lately I'm more peeved with the grammatical sloppiness that I see too often in the general media, including the web, newspapers, signs, headlines and running text on tv, all of it. For example, "loose" for "lose" is appearing a lot lately, and I see a lot of "site" for "sight" (and vice versa). These things catch my attention when they just shouldn't.

I'd like to know if anyone here has actually sent a letter to any source to point out an error or something that they thought should be changed -- and was there a response?

In my house we call these NastyGrams. I sent one once--to a principal, when one of my kids got a form letter for frequent absences--the term in the letter was "pattern of delinquent behavior." What?!! My kid had a chronic injury that caused him a lot of pain from the age of 11, and of course I was MORE than glad to point this out in a letter to the principal. I also took exception to the word "delinquent" applied to my kid (who had been home schooled for 4 months due to the same injury). Grrr, Mama Tiger busted out of her cage (and surprised everyone, including me *g*).

The principal had never even read the form letter -- it was just sent after a certain number of absences. End result, the school changed the wording of the letter to something more respectful. :)

~Susan Sarah, who rarely sends out a NastyGram, but they can be effective....

[Kathy Kremer]

Jo, I hadn't thought of the, um, sugical procedure. And since the likihood of a Jewish man being an English noble is just about nil during that time, I'll bow to your erudition. You see, there's always something new to learn.

[Kalen Hughes]

I laughed pretty hard when I was pointed to a site that slammed my book for having a "none historical" (sic) cover. LOL! I'm 99% sure I got a naked guy so my editor wouldn't have to listen to me scream about how the clothing was wrong (oh, how she knows me). The hair is still wrong (my Georgian man does not have an MBA’s yuppie version of a high and tight), but that’s a small quibble.

And I’m with you all about reign/rein, it’s/it, etc.

Shall I even mention the horrors that are perpetrated against horses? If you don’t know anything about horses (or riding, or jumping, etc.) then for heaven’s sake, DON’T CREATE A CHARACTER WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPERT.

[Susan Sarah]

Kalen wrote -- "If you don’t know anything about horses (or riding, or jumping, etc.) then for heaven’s sake, DON’T CREATE A CHARACTER WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPERT."

This is a good note of caution on any topic where a character is supposed to be expert in something, anything, whether it's horses, swordfighting, painting, bridge-building, dairy farming, costumes, whatever.

And this is where good, deep research comes in, because if we don't know anything about it, we shouldn't be writing about it. Writers always have the chance to learn something new, to read books about the subject, take lessons or really get a good look at whatever the thing is, and of course talk to experts. Find someone who IS an expert and knows all the little details, ask for help, ask them to look over the manuscript.

But woh yeah, make sure the research and included details are impeccable...or you'll get letters...! *g*

~Susan Sarah

[Edith]

Now, let's be reasonable, folk. If we object to hairy heroes with circumcisions, we ought to also have our haughty heroes shoveling snuff up their noses and spilling it down their vests, peeing in the street, and not bathing very frequently - at least, not all over. And going to a ball without deoderant after fencing and riding and sparring, at Gentleman Jackson's.
Heaps of horse manure on every street.
Early death and treacherous childbirth.
And cumberson condoms, and lots of sexually transmitted diseases that can't be treated.
I've no doubt that authors in the future will view the 20th century hero sans cigarettes and Lord knows what else that will be considered yuchhy by then.
Veracity is loverly, but Romance is in the eyes of the beholder.
and as for what I'd write to pubishers to ask for?
More of that brilliant Edith Layton's books.
More, more, more!
(a very big ol' grin here, friends.)

[Kalen Hughes]

Edith wrote: "If we object to hairy heroes with circumcisions, we ought to also have our haughty heroes shoveling snuff up their noses and spilling it down their vests, peeing in the street, and not bathing very frequently . . . Heaps of horse manure on every street. Early death and treacherous childbirth. And cumbersome condoms, and lots of sexually transmitted diseases that can't be treated."

I think the best romance novels DO have at least some hint of these things. They have "atmosphere". But then I strongly object to hairy, circumcised heroes. LOL! I had to explain what was happening to a critique partner in a sex scene I wrote (she’d never seen, let alone touched, a “natural” penis).

Susan/Sarah wrote: “This is a good note of caution on any topic where a character is supposed to be expert in something, anything, whether it's horses, swordfighting, painting, bridge-building, dairy farming, costumes, whatever.”

Good point. Though sometimes knowing what your doing still doesn’t translate on the page. I fenced in college and have a pretty good idea of the sport. But my editor objected to how I described my heroes stance: “He balanced on the balls of his feet, waiting for the man to draw his own sword”. She said it made him sound like a mincing ballet dancer. But I don’t know how else to explain it. You DO balance on the balls of your feet so that you’re quicker on the attack or retreat. If your weight is flat-footed or on your heels you’re screwed.

[Kalen Hughes]

Oh, and I second Edith about more Edith Layton books. I love them!!!

[RevMelinda]

Maggie!

I will be forever grateful to you for my new mental image of Salad Man (the newest Romance Superhero).

How crisp do you suppose his fig leaf is?

And is this possibly related to the phrase "salad days"?

Somebody slap me!

[Sherrie Holmes]

Jo said: "Mind you, neither is a woman with a shaved armpit."

This has always made me wonder--I've never seen a contemporary fashion plate where the female model had hairy pits, or even a Rowlandson or Cruikshank cartoon with such. I've always wondered why.

[Jo Beverley]

Sherrie, have you seen a period picture that shows a woman's armpit? I can't remember one, but I suppose it's possible, arm raised in dancing, or something, in Grecian draperies.

Edith,we could show some pretty abysmal stuff in contemporary novels, but we rarely do in romance, so a certain amount of gloss comes with the territory, but I like characters to need a chamber pot, and a crossing sweeper, and perhaps step in a cow pat in a field.

As for BO after Jackson's etc, we don't have them using deodorant, either, do we? So we let the reader imagine whatever they want when the heroine enjoys his "manly smell."*G*

I think I actually read that there was a baths as part of Jackson's, or next door, and that the men usually went on there. I might even have referred to some such thing in Lady Beware. I should remember that, shouldn't I?

So it's all nicely complex and interesting. Yum,and to return to Loretta's original question, people should write to editors about errors that irritate them. Why not? They'll ignore it unless there are lots of people as nutty as the complainer, but at least they might get the idea that some readers care. As few readers OBJECT to most types of accuracy, it should work out.

Jo :)

[Sue]

This is a great topic. I have written numerous letters to newspapers and companies when something bothers me enough. I am addicted to historical romance but being a Brit I will stop reading a book if something is not accurate. The worst plot line I came across was a heroine in great peril from a snake, in an English garden setting!!!! The next most stupid was a wedding described like an American wedding but set in Regency England. It was a big evening production with groomsmen (I had never heard of such a thing until I came here) and multiple bridesmaids who preceded the Bride down the aisle. I laughed out loud and gave up on the book. I have to say I'm a big Jo Beverley fan (I do actually have all the books) and Edith Layton because of their attention to detail and accuracy. I will be trying out all the rest now I've found this site. (Thanks Jo)

[Patricia Rice]

Oh, look at all the fun I've been missing while I've had my head buried in a manuscript! I am definitely a Letter Writer. I began my protests in 6th grade--and the newspaper printed it too.

Now, I really don't have time to actually write most of my mental protests (although occasionally, really, the media has to be slapped), but every time I see a misspelled sign, I want to go in and shake the business owner and ask them how they expect future generations to spell!

I'm not touching the hairy armpits, though. "G"

[LorettaChase]

Purely in the interests of knowledge--in this case to try to answer the hairy armpits question--I reviewed my book of erotica by Rowlandson. I can definitely say...I'm not sure. The pubic hair is quite clear. But underarm hair does not seem to be portrayed. No hairy legs, either, but most of the ladies, even when mostly naked, are wearing stockings.

[Jo Beverley]

Loretta, you have a book or erotica by Rowlandson? What fun!

Of course -- stockings as the veil for hairy legs. Most ladies back then would hardly ever show a bare leg. Also, as with chest hair on men, many English women tend to fine, paler body hair. Not invisible, but rarely the dark hair on the legs more common from southern Europe.

Glad you're enjoying my books, Sue!

Jo

[Kalen Hughes]

"The worst plot line I came across was a heroine in great peril from a snake, in an English garden setting!!!!"

I remember that book . . . I actually researched poisonous snakes in England it bugged me so badly (turns out there is some kind of poisonous asp, but I don't know how common it would be to find it in a garden in London). I’m 99% sure this was the same book where the (unmarried) heroine was also supposedly the “acknowledged mistress of a duke” but was worried about her “reputation”.

[Sue]

Kalen: Yes that was the same book. The snake is an Adder and it is so elusive and scared of people that it hides when there is any vibration near by. (from anything walking). I once spent a summer trying to find one for a biology project, and I was in the area where they live. I didn't find a single one.
On the hairy theme.... I didn't shave my armpits until I was in my late teens and the hair was very fine like my arms. Shaving was never a big deal in England in the 60's. In fact you were thought "fast" if you did. I remember having a big argument with my Mum because she assumed I had become promiscuous because I shaved my underarms!!! Before safety razors, I imagine it was hard, if not impossible, to shave that area.
This topic is fascinating and highlights the differences in just one or two generations in England and the States.

[Ranurgis]

I should have gotten to this earlier but I was too wrapped up in an English to French warranty translation. I can hardly understand all that fine print in English and translating it into French was mega no fun.

Two of the issues mentioned here really caught my eye, mind and heart. The first was the pollution issue. What gets me too is that so many disposable methods of cleaning--with chlorine and other substances dangerous to us and the environment as a whole are being constantly lauded in ads. All those fine Swiffer products that are shown being used once and then neatly disposed in the garbage. I am guilty of buying them because I have certain physical limitations which make these products easier for me to handle and thus help keep my place cleaner. But I cringe every time I have to buy more. On the other hand, I do not dispose of them after one use but shake out the dusters and reuse everything as much as is humanly possible.

The other is the sexy stuff. We were talking about Candice Hern's upcoming book after she posted a few excerpts and one board member mentioned how "hot" she got after just reading about how the hero stroked the heroine's fingers. (My paraphrasing). I think there can be much more love in something like that than a long detailed sex scene. I must say that in general I'm just a little sick of them. After a while they just get too boring. After all, as you said, how many different ways do you want to describe A fitting into slot B.

Besides I've read of several authors who've been "forced" by their publishers to include more of this in their books. Let those who love writing this sort of thing write it, but let the authors as a whole have more say in how much they want to put in and feel comfortable with. Not all of us readers are the same. Besides, for me it's the story that matters, not how many sex scenes or bangs for the bucks (any pun intended) the book contains.

[Ranurgis]

Oh, missed that proofreading bit. I would love to do proofreading. I'm no good at writing anything but factual stuff. No real creativity in me.

But I seem to pick up every grammar mistake in most books--even books written by Harvard grads. These are apparently the only people who are hired as proofreaders, at least by the big publishers. Paperbacks, so it is stated, are not read by proofreaders. The author has to do that himself. And as you probably all know proofreading your own work, no matter how good your English, is very difficult.

I read this book by a graduate of Harvard and in general the grammar wasn't too bad but the use of "who" and "whom" within sentences was truly a hair-raising affair. They same problem persists with the use of "to lie (prone)" and "to lay sth. or someone on sth".

Either it has been decided not to bother about correct usage of "who" and "whom" at all anymore anywhere or someone has decided that it's always "whom" in side a longer sentence and that is not so.

Of course there are those who advocate letting everybody write just as they want to without regard as to whether others understand the sentence or not. This, however, makes it especially difficult for those who have to learn English for the sake of commerce because it is more or less the only international language. When I was teaching in Germany, most of the English teachers were very scornful of English native speakers: "They don't even know their own language" was a very frequent complaint I heard.

I look around for a grammar in the library and there's no decent one in a city of 350,000 to be found.

[Ranurgis]

Aah! I see that someone else is cranky about "to lie" and "to lay". I constantly write letters or articles in my head about bad grammar. I just don't know to whom I should send them for maximum effect.

Also "She better go home" instead of "She'd (had) better go home." Granted, the "d" gets lost in speech. But does that mean that the idiomatic expression should be? What remains as a possible verb is "better" and there's really no meaning of "better" that fits in here.

Another annoyance: "she bought a couple dresses, a lot books, a box Kleenex, etc." Just because people started saying "a coupla" (instead of "a couple of...", etc. it now seems perfectly correct to a lot of, if not most, writers to leave out the "of". Are we just getting lazier all the time, or what is it?

BTW, I do have some good grammars but because of two recent moves, everything is sort of "lost" or MIA.

And it should be "...or someone has decided that it should always be "whom" 'inside' a longer sentence..." What did I say about proofreading your own work?

I'd better get off my hobby horse really quickly.

[LorettaChase]

Ranurgis, I'm with you all the way. I have copyeditors, who are supposed to catch my errors, but sometimes they correct things that aren't wrong while missing a glaring error. The dropped "of" drives me crazy, and I can't figure out why people don't learn the how to use "lie" & "lay" in the same way they learn multiplication tables. OTOH, I do have an awful time working out "who" and "whom" in certain sentences. I do consult my CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE but getting English--as opposed to American--usage right can be very tricky. Unfortunately, publishers can't afford to provide each of us with three proofreaders--one for general usage, another for English usage, and one from the Department of Historical Accuracy.