Tag Archives: writing

Let’s talk about homophones

First, let’s define “homophone” so we’re all clear on what we’re talking about. According to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary, “homophone” is defined as:

  • one of two or more words pronounced alike but different in meaning or derivation or spelling (such as the words to, too, and two)

There are LOTS of these in the English language, and they’re really, really easy for writers to mix up; they’re also really, really easy to miss at the editing phase, especially the self-editing phase. (This is why my husband and sister are invaluable in editing my blog posts…though usually after I’ve published. So I look stupid for a day or two until one of them points it out and then I fix it. Imperfect system, I know).

Here are some common sets of homophones:

  • Two, to, and too (as mentioned above)
  • Ate and eight
  • Ant and aunt
  • There, they’re, and their
  • Bare and bear
  • Night and knight
  • Tale and tail
  • Through and threw
  • Its and it’s (this one is mixed up SO often)
  • Etc….

While I was thinking about this, I had a momentary mental block and did some googling – there are so many of these (usually pairs) that I hadn’t even thought of! I stumbled upon this really interesting site that has a bunch of worksheets for teaching kids how to choose the right (write? hehe) homophone, check it out!

Not on my short list above and probably not often taught to children is the following set, which also happens to be the one that has prompted my current rant about homophones:

  • Peek, peak, and pique

Now, most people are probably taught the difference between “peek” and “peak,” but I’m going to venture a guess that “pique” is not commonly taught – because I rarely ever see it used correctly; typically I see “peak” used in its place. However, I just read a novel in which I’m honestly not sure any of the three homophones was used correctly even once (eek)! So, I’m going to try to clear up the confusion with some definitions and sentence examples – and then make a plea for authors to utilize the services of a good copyeditor!

For starters, definitions (all from Merriam-Webster online):

Peek (also peeked; peeking; peeks): 1a: to look furtively (A little girl peeked around the corner of the chair at him.); b: to peer through a crack or hole or from a place of concealment —often used with in or out (peeked in through the window; peeked out at us from behind the curtains; 2: to take a brief look: glance (peeked ahead to the next chapter to see what would happen)

Peak: 1: a pointed or projecting part of a garment; especially: the visor of a cap or hat (The cap’s peak shades his eyes.); 2: promontory (a steep rocky peak); 3: a sharp or pointed end (the peak of a roof); 4a(1) : the top of a hill or mountain ending in a point (the fog hung … heavily on the peak of the hill), (2): a prominent mountain usually having a well-defined summit; b: something resembling a mountain peak (Beat the cream until it forms stiff peaks.); 5a: the upper aftermost corner of a fore-and-aft sail; b: the narrow part of a ship’s bow or stern or the part of the hold in it; 6a: the highest level or greatest degree (a singer at the peak of her popularity); b: a high point in a course of development especially as represented on a graph (The graph shows that murders in the city reached a peak two years ago.); 7: widow’s peak

Pique (also piqued; piquing): 1a: to excite or arouse especially by a provocation, challenge, or rebuff (sly remarks to pique their curiosity); b: pride (he piques himself on his skill as a cook); 2: to arouse anger or resentment in: irritate (what piques linguistic conservatives)

So, here are some ways you can NOT use the above words:

  • A collared shirt cannot “peak” out from inside a sweater. (Correction: “peek”)
  • A subject cannot “peak” the interest of a character (Correction: “pique”)
  • One cannot reach the “peek” of anything – be it a mountain, a social hierarchy or anything else. (Correction: “peak”)

And now my plea: Writers – PLEASE find yourself a good copyeditor to ensure your work is free from such easily preventable errors – this could be a friend, spouse, parent, etc. It doesn’t have to cost you money but WILL bolster your reputation as an author.

 

Is editing ruining my pleasure reading?

Sometimes I wonder if editing is ruining my ability to read for fun. There are some books I struggle to get through because I notice so many errors, or so many ways to just make it better. But then I read an awesome book (most recently, The Martian – SO GOOD) and realize – no, editing is NOT ruining my pleasure reading, I am just sometimes choosing books that aren’t particularly well done.

I have two thoughts/feelings about that.

  • One: sadness! I read one book recently in particular that had a great storyline and some really relatable characters. I was invested – but it suffered from a lack of adequate copy editing and proofreading. I just can’t read the rest of the books in the series now, nor can I recommend the book to others. Sad – because there’s so much potential.
  • Two: awe! The more I edit and beta read, the more I appreciate the effort that goes into writing a good book. The author needs to have ideas and a talent for storytelling, yes. But what sets the really good books apart, I think, probably comes down to the crazy amount of tedious effort it takes for authors and editors to work together and thoroughly edit — and then proofread — the text. ESPECIALLY for super long books.

Anyways, these are some of my random musings. I have a lot more, of course, but this is enough for today.

I’d love to hear what others think about this! Please, chime in via comments!

Professional Development – Copyediting Fiction

PD

A couple of weeks ago I participated in a webinar run by the Editorial Freelancers Association (EFA) on copyediting fiction. It was taught by Amy Schneider, who has been copyediting for over two decades. This was my first foray into editing-specific professional development, and I was pleased with the course. Amy described it as “a look over one editor’s shoulders,” which was right on target.

My primary take-away from the webinar is that I am intuitively good at copyediting. (Yup, I just patted myself on the back.) My mind just works the right way for the job, which is probably why I enjoy it so much. Much of Amy’s process and the things she says to look for I already do – I’ve learned it on the job. For instance, when I first started out I didn’t pre-read a manuscript before beginning to edit. I quickly realized I would be much more effective if I did so; this is something Amy described as standard practice for her. Additionally, looking for inconsistencies throughout the document (such as “e-mail” or “email”?) seemed to me to be just an obvious part of the job and something I do when proofreading as well.

Second, the presentation sort of cemented what I had previously only grudgingly accepted but now welcome with open arms: fiction writing is not bound by the same style conventions as nonfiction. Sure, I can use the Chicago Manual of Style as a guide, but hard-and-fast grammar rules just don’t really exist in fiction. Each author has his own voice, and it’s my job as an editor to ensure that voice is consistent throughout, not to, as Amy called it, “edit the life out of the prose.”

Finally, I learned a lot about editorial efficiency. I already do some of the process things Amy mentioned (though without the official-sounding names she had for them), but I can certainly benefit from learning about tools like Microsoft Word macros that can speed up the process. Though I charge by word and not by hour, my clients and I each benefit if I can be more efficient.

In sum, I enjoyed the webinar and will certainly look at taking more of the EFA’s courses in the future. And: I rock as a copyeditor.