Use the right word

I read a book over the weekend. That in itself is not newsworthy. The errors within the book indicated the author apparently used editing software, but not a human editor.

Editing software doesn't necessarily distinguish meaning. It certainly cannot tell nuance. It cannot and will not advise the author to cut out unncessary scenes that merely pad a story's length or offer little more than repetition. Software's limitation and the author's unquestioning acceptance of digital intelligence often lead to unintended and funny results.

In this book, a romance, the author used the word "lave." Well, she meant to use the word "lave," but actually used the word "lathe." Okay, the words do sound similar, but they have very different meanings. Grammatically, either word works: he lathed that, she laved this. In other words, the author got the correct tense. In context, however, applying the wrong word ("lathe") to certain body parts induced cringes and laughter. Ouch!

(That book also suffered from several unnecessary scenes, such that I soon started skimming through the story to get to where the plot resumed.)

Using the right word that means what you want to say usually confers the added benefit of brevity. Dr. Alan Koppenhafer (deceased), a professor of English, coined the term "ingfish" to describe the use of several words where the one right word would do. When writing for an age group of limited vocabulary (e.g., young children), the author may find it necessary to use five simple words when one less common word will do, due to the readers' expected limitations in vocabulary. However, it's also important to introduce new words so the reader can discern their meaning through context. Those dreaded spelling lists and vocabulary tests also help to expand vocabulary.

Mark Twain prized brevity. So did William Shakespeare. Both could also be poetic, which does not mean "blathering at length." Sonnets, haiku, and other poetic forms prize brevity to convey meaning and tell complete stories. Good writing need not expound or pontificate, except occasionally in dialogue when pontification exemplifies the character's personality.

For those writers who produce content meant to be read beyond the author's self and his or her best buddies, reliance on software for editing does not replace the intelligence and perception of a human editor. That, of course, does not guarantee the editor will always grasp what the author means. The editor's confusion indicates a need for revision to better and more clearly convey the concept.

Don't get me wrong: editing software is great. It provides a valuable service. However, its utility depends upon the author's diligence in reviewing the corrections and changes software suggests to ensure those corrections and changes are in the best interests of the work. Sometimes they're not. Sometimes the software misses errors entirely.

When it comes to self-published fiction, the author does his or her intended audience a disservice by not engaging a human editor. Yes, professional editing is expensive, but don't your readers deserve that improvement in quality?

If you value your readers, invest in professional editing. Contact me to discuss your manuscript.

Every word counts.