Errors of notorious proportions

Quick! What's wrong with this paragraph?

Colin Lloyd Skorupski. His whole name including middle. Like John Wilkes Booth, President Kennedy’s assassin. People sometimes marveled at how notorious criminals are always known by three names. It was no conspiracy. It was no uncanny coincidence. It was a function of a reporter’s accuracy. By using an accused criminal’s full name, a newspaper avoided accusations of libel from some poor John Booth or Colin Skorupski who had nothing whatsoever to do with assassinations or sexual misconduct.

If you spotted it right away, you're better than the seven people who read my manuscript before my editor. Find it? John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Lincoln, not Kennedy. I knew that, but it's not what I wrote. I edited my own work and didn't catch it. This is yet another reason why even great writers need good editors.

My editor changed the paragraph thusly:

Colin Lloyd Skorupski. His whole name including middle. Like John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, the assassins of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy. People sometimes marvel at how notorious criminals are always known by three names. It’s no conspiracy or uncanny coincidence. It’s a function of a reporter’s accuracy. By using an accused criminal’s full name, a newspaper avoids accusations of libel from some poor John Booth or Colin Skorupski who had nothing whatsoever to do with assassinations or sexual misconduct. 

You'll notice he changed the verb tense, too, which makes perfect sense. 

Well done.

What good editors do

A good editor sees through your hack jobs.

One of the stories in my book features seven characters -- a lot of voices to keep track of. When my husband read that chapter, he was confused. This is an early chapter in the book so I knew confusing the reader that early would be deadly. But rather than rewrite the chapter, as I should have, I just deleted two of the characters and changed a few plural verbs to singular.

But a good editor sees through short cuts like that.

My editor kindly suggested that chapter was one of my weaker chapters. "You kind of lose the reader," he said. "You need to get to the point quicker."

Other readers had mentioned other problems with the chapter, but my editor explained it in a way that convicted me. As he spoke, I knew he had a point because I knew how that chapter got there. And I realized why the other readers struggled with it.

My clumsy fix had been revealed for what it was: Lazy.

This is why even the best writers need good editors. Good editors look at writing the way readers do, but they are able to articulate clearly what's wrong. And very good editors gently point this out in ways that even the most territorial writers concede the point.

Book trailer in the works

In the end, or perhaps in "an" end, I sent the manuscript off to an editor with 77,442 words. The evolution will continue, I expect, to include numerous revisions and cuts and possibly additions, though I feel like I opened my soul with all the revelations in my memoir and I'm not sure how much is left to tell.

This morning, on Independence Day, I filmed a YouTube video to launch this memoir to the world. It combines the book pitch and footage of the author (me) explaining why she wrote it. I couldn't swing the pro videographer, but I have confidence my brother-in-law can put together something fabulous (and he worked for French toast and scrambled eggs). Apparently, book trailers are all the rage nowadays. We'll see.

Stay tuned.