Forum: Author Hangout

Don't count on Google Translate.

Didn't. Found a site with Russian swear words.

There were several sites, but all the others used the Russian alphabet. It looks more realistic, but I didn't want to bother with the special characters.

Thanks. Ross, thank you too.

There were several sites, but all the others used the Russian alphabet. It looks more realistic, but I didn't want to bother with the special characters.

I already did it for you, check the recent update of my original post. Just cut and paste the html commands into your text and it'll display properly in any SOL story.

I already did it for you, check the recent update of my original post. Just cut and paste the html commands into your text and it'll display properly in any SOL story.

Except this is from a novel I will publish. I use Calibre to convert the Word doc file to epub which I upload to Amazon. I don't want to deal with HTML for special characters.

Except this is from a novel I will publish. I use Calibre to convert the Word doc file to epub which I upload to Amazon. I don't want to deal with HTML for special characters.

If you do it within WORD, it should convert it all for you. That's what I do with all my books I post to Amazon, and I've never had a problem.

Still, just to be sure, open the finished file in Calibre, select "Edit" for the book and search for the foreign phrase to ensure they got the foreign characters correctly (you may have to move down the list of included files, searching in each until you find it). It it doesn't display correctly, then simply paste in the code I sent you for whatever they display and it will display correctly.

Either that, or just send the finished file to me and I'll check it for you, and make any necessary adjustments to it for you, myself. As I said, I'm currently the reigning king of formatting overuse! 'D

I also had the thought the words in Russian should be be italics (for words in a foreign language) ... but then I read CW's post, and I would bother with the special characters.

Ross is correct: use the italics, but it's always more effective if you use the foreign script when using foreign languages, otherwise it feels artificial in a story.

The special characters make the italics unnecessary, but I still italicize foreign exchanges the same way I italicize plays and book names within stories It's simply the 'accepted' formatting.

I also had the thought the words in Russian should be be italics

My understanding about italicizing foreign words is to do it in the narrative to let the reader know you didn't make a typo. And if you use the same word again, once the reader is oriented to it, you don't italicize it.

I thought dialogue is different.

My understanding about italicizing foreign words is to do it in the narrative to let the reader know you didn't make a typo. And if you use the same word again, once the reader is oriented to it, you don't italicize it.

I thought dialogue is different.

I'll have to double check, but the concept is similar, you're notifying the reader, visually, that you're showing a foreign language, rather than merely typing gibberish.

It's been a while since I've done it, so I'll need to double check how I did it in my previous stories, as I often mix foreign phrases, and not the Americanized versions of them, into the otherwise English dialogue.

In either case, if you show the actual foreign script, they'll recognize that it's in a foreign language, so the italics is really overkill.

On a side note, including the actual foreign text will allow text-to-speech readers to read it in the native language, rather than as screwing up reciting the story (since it won't know how to pronounce the Americanized spelling). But I'll double check that with my blind friend to be sure.

I take CW's point about "overkill". Readers will be in no doubt it is a foreign language (not gibberish) with either roman font and Cryllic script, or italics and Latin script.

As always, quoting CMOS means nothing, since they detail how to handle reference works, not fiction. As for using Roman or Cryllic scripts, I've found that most languages I use (mostly roman letter form with accent marks) work best in Arial, with the various accent marks created via html commands, making it compatible across a variety of different devices.

What gets tricky is when works are written right-to-left, because then you have to keep stopping as you prepare to copy and paste, and remember to copy it in reverse order. 'D

But I agree, the italics aren't required. The CMOS guidelines are only for when you intersperse foreign phrases in English, which most often means unfamiliar English words which originate in another country. If someone speaks entire sentences or paragraphs in a foreign tongue, they have no relevant advice.

As always, I assumed those here are capable of deciding for themselves the relevance of materials I quote from well-known references.
In this case, I thought there was one common sense piece of advice which would interest Switch.

That's why I changed my position. If the only time you italicize foreign text is when a single word or phrase is used, it's useless, as most novels tend to have one character speaking either sentences or entire paragraphs in a foreign language, rather than the author quoting another source from another language.

Again, that's always been my main objection with CMOS, it rarely addresses the needs of fiction authors, and when it does, it only does so half heartedly. Usually, you're better deciding for yourself how fiction authors handle these things, rather than misapplying 'rules' that were never intended for you in the first place (think of Ernest's rants about the dropped quotes).

I thought it would be useful information for Switch to know CMOS had NO useful information regarding his question.

It is. Thanks.

What you are doing here is exactly the same as what you (reasonably) complain about DS (among others) doing to you - the effect is you're shutting down an exchange because there's no perfect answer.

Note: Switch already answered this, so my rant doesn't really have much bearing. Still, it incorporates my frustration with CMOS. But, since your intent was to demonstrate that it's advice was not helpful, I recall my rant. :(

Rant follows:

You're correct, and for that I apologize, but your first 'go to' source always seems to be CMOS, despite no one on the Forum agreeing with it in most instances. I can understand why you'd start there, but you'd do better if you started where most of us end up, at grammar girl, and you'd lose a lot less time.

My point isn't that CMOS doesn't have very useful points, it's always been that CMOS isn't concerned with works of fiction, so there's NO way to evaluate their advice. Without a way of differentiating one guideline from another, it all ends up a gobbledygook, going in one ear and out the other leaving us none the wiser. The information is intelligent, but without a way to evaluate it (ex: such as "this is ONLY for fiction", or "this ONLY APPLIES to historical research"), it's meaningless.

It's not the research you complain about, it's its applicability. As such, our discussions would move faster if you referenced more relevant sources (i.e. those who specifically address the differences between fiction and non-fiction (as well as British and American) uses.

CMOS, despite no one on the Forum agreeing with it in most instances.

No one? How 'bout me? It's my style guide unless I disagree with it. So it's the basis for my style guide which is what I believe publishers do. I bet they have their own based on CMoS just like I bet the NY Times has their own based on the AP Style guide.

I can understand why you'd start there, but you'd do better if you started where most of us end up, at grammar girl, and you'd lose a lot less time.

Grammar Girl is for grammar issues. When it comes to style, she references style guides, such as CMoS. Since I don't own a copy of it, that's where I get most of my information about their style recommendations. Italicizing foreign words isn't a grammar issue. It's style.

What do you suggest?
As far as I know the references I often quote are those most commonly used by mainstream publishers of fiction, CMOS for American English and Harts for British English. If there a reference specifically directed at the needs of fiction writers, I would use it.
I'm happy to discuss the occasions when these are not appropriate for fiction, but I'm heartily sick of people complaining about the source for a quote without offering any alternatives.

I'm not sure about the others (aside from DS not enjoying any discussion of 'accepted standards' at all), I do know that Ernest, Switch and I have all decided to create our own Style Guides, since none of those currently available seems to fit the modern wave of Independent Publishers. (The only reason most authors accept the standard Style Guides is because their publishers dictate which variant they're required to use.) As a result, we're continually struggling with which standards to accept in each case. So your repeating what CMOS says doesn't really help. We're all looking for the 'consensus opinion', rather than the 'authoritative source' opinion.

As a result, when we ask questions, we're not asking 'what the experts say', we're merely asking 'what does everyone else use, and why'.

Ross, you're still at the 'which resource is the best' stage of the process, while the rest of us are in the 'which solution to this problem is the best for my uses'.

So your repeating what CMOS says doesn't really help.

It helps me.

The main thing that I don't follow from the CMoS is the ellipsis. I use the ellipsis font (Word converts 3 dots to it). CMoS says to make it

xxx . . . xxx

To do that I'd have to put in non-breaking spaces and 3 dots and spaces on either side of the ellipsis. That's how it's done in published books. I simply don't want to bother so I use the font ellipsis.

But if I know of a CMoS style, I follow it.

I simply don't want to bother so I use the font ellipsis.

I used to use the font ellipsis but I had problems in the converted text. Lazeez told me the SOL converter does not handle Word's ellipse character. Strange things happen to the surrounding text.

I used to use the font ellipsis but I had problems in the converted text. Lazeez told me the SOL converter does not handle Word's ellipse character. Strange things happen to the surrounding text.

I've used the ellipsis font with SOL with no problem.

If the only time you italicize foreign text is when a single word or phrase is used, it's useless,

No, CMoS's point is if it's not a common foreign word, like "adios," then you italicize it the first time. It lets the reader know you didn't type a word wrong.

in a foreign language that are incorporated into an English text are normally treated like quotations in English, set in roman type

That's why I thought it okay not to use the Russian alphabet. If it were Chinese, I wouldn't use their alphabet (or Hebrew or Arabic).

As to dialogue, I still contend it's not like using "isolated words and phrases" in the narrative. It's written, in Roman letters, how it sounds.

That's why I thought it okay not to use the Russian alphabet. If it were Chinese, I wouldn't use their alphabet (or Hebrew or Arabic).

It's fine to use a different font (though that's just as hard to do on SOL as including accent marks), my point was only that using the foreign script is more powerful. Think of it this way, rather than forcing your characters to SAY (telling them) that they're speaking Russian, you can SHOW the readers by displaying the Russian Script. In that case, they don't NEED to understand the words to get the point, but best of all, you don't need to TELL them someone is speaking a foreign language.

Side Note: For publication purposes, you should also be aware that, for foreign phrases in general, it's best to include the html < abbr="xxx"> command, so readers have a simple way of figuring out what was said without having to search for a dictionary (when readers pause their mouse over the phrase, the translations pops up, and goes away when they move their cursor somewhere else). But, that's a little harder to implement than most of us are ready for.

Point taken, I'll take it under advisement for the next time I use a foreign language. However, in most cases, I'd only use it for very short translations, rather than full sentence or paragraph foreign dialogue. Just sayin'.

The very same text read by a native German speaker will sound considerably different

That's very interesting.

That's why I thought it okay not to use the Russian alphabet. If it were Chinese, I wouldn't use their alphabet (or Hebrew or Arabic).

Personally, I would use a phonetic spelling in our alphabet so that the reader can tell what the word sounds like, as if they were watching on film. Throwing in a bunch of Chinese characters would jar the reader out of the flow.

Personally, I would use a phonetic spelling in our alphabet so that the reader can tell what the word sounds like, as if they were watching on film. Throwing in a bunch of Chinese characters would jar the reader out of the flow.

My thoughts exactly, especially since it's dialogue. But to change the alphabet on the reader would be weird.

She replied "I only speak English, but I understand several (I don't recall the exact number - more than 4). Just because someone doesn't speak your language doesn't mean they don't know what you are saying."

Having lived in downtown Chicago and Manhattan for many years, I can relate many similar stories, as you frequently run across many people who speak a variety of languages. (I've used a few in my stories.) It's not uncommon for some petite little Chinese girl to curse a bunch of Hispanics because they were saying negative things about her in Spanish (or Korean, or Dutch, or Russian). Out in the country, it occurs much less often.

After 6 years in Indonesia, I still have a very limited vocabulary. I can usually make myself understood - but it's hopeless when locals speak to me as I only recognise occasional words.

I can read and speak Spanish decently well, but that's because it's more on my timing. It's harder for me to understand speech because it flies by. If I catch some words I try to get the context.

For example, I went into a pupuseria and ordered takeout in Spanish. The young lady then asked me a followup question, and the only words I caught were 'arroz' and 'maza' What could she be asking that included the words 'rice' and 'corn'? What kind of tortilla did I want! "Maza!" I replied.

I reckon that we only actually process 20% of the words we hear because our brains have worked out what to expect.

The very reason that authors need editors. The author know what to expect for they wrote the passages and read right over their errors. Editor do the same thing but to a lesser extent.

Proof-reading is a lot more fun than editing, a lot easier, too.

I always have a problem with separating what an editor does versus what a proofreader does.

I get conflicting descriptions of each function.

When I search to find out what an editor does, I get multiple job positions and functions. From what I can tell a Manuscript Editor is probably the closest to what I think of when I say Editor.

Your description seems to have the Proofreader doing what I think of as editing.

So what are Editor functions versus Proofreader functions?

Your description seems to have the Proofreader doing what I think of as editing.

So what are Editor functions versus Proofreader functions?

I've done some proofreading for friends. Typos and bad grammar or phrasings, or using Canadianism for American settings stand out to me. I mark them as I see them and continue.

Editors would be judging the quality of the writing. Does it use too much telling? Is the reader confused? Do the words adequately convey what's happening? Is it 'on the nose' or does it make good use of subtext?

The story editors would be looking at the story structure. I did a critique where the author wrote a series of events, but I wanted to know, "Where's the conflict? What the protagonist's goal?"

I checked the Internet to find out what an Editor does. After checking several similar articles, I concluded what an editor does is dependent on their job title. The following is a list of the different types of editors mentioned in the article and they generally perform different functions.

http://theeditorsblog.net/2011/02/01/duties-of-an-editor-how-editors-help-writers/

- Editor in chief or editor at-large

- Managing editor

- Acquisitions editor

- Developmental editor

- Copy/manuscript editor

- Proofreader

- Freelance editor

- Developmental editor

- Substantive editor

- Non-fiction editor

- Fiction editor

So what are Editor functions versus Proofreader functions?

I don't remember editor titles, such as, copy editor, line editor, structural/developmental editor, etc., but they do different jobs. A proofreader is the person who looks at the final printing of a novel and is the last set of eyes, both for the spelling and formatting.

Editors do things like:

1. checks for spelling errors and such (I think this is the line or copy editor).

2. checks for sentence structure and word choice (if #1 is the copy editor, this is the line editor).

3. checks for plot holes, inconsistencies, unrealistic characters, etc. This is the developmental editor and is typically done before the novel is written. Done off the synopsis.

And then there are the Editor titles in the industry, such as, Editor in Chief, Acquisition Editor, etc.

Thanks. I got most of that in trying to respond to Joe Long's post.

It just seems like everyone has their personal definition of 'Editor'. Some people, like Richard, assign what I think of as editing tasks to Proofreaders. There seems to be no consistency in what we mean when we say Editor. :(

It just seems like everyone has their personal definition of 'Editor'. Some people, like Richard, assign what I think of as editing tasks to Proofreaders. There seems to be no consistency in what we mean when we say Editor.

Even with my amateur editors on SOL, every editor naturally fits certain rules. Some do basic proofing, some do 'specialized' proofing (i.e. mainly just punctuation, or only spelling, or only homophones), others do a variety, while the rare few will dig up a variety of outstanding plot holes, causing you to delay the release of the entire book as you try to figure out how to correct them.

By the way, REP, many of your editor roles are redundant, as several are administrative. Thus a Managing editor is a 'normal' editor who's in charge of the other editors (orchestrates who does what). It's sorta like when they promote an engineer so they are no longer allowed to do engineering.

many of your editor roles

I just made the list from the titles in the article. I glanced at their defined task but didn't look closely.

So what are Editor functions versus Proofreader functions?

There are multiple editor roles, but a typical editor will do the following in addition to proofreading: research and authenticate story details (including any quoted sources), format story elements properly, reduce clutter, simplify sentences (or at least mark where they're difficult to follow so they can be rewritten), point out plot holes (though not as intently as a content editor does).

However, it should be noted that most 'editors' suggest you hire someone else to proofread it once they're done, since just as authors have a hard time writing and editing, editors have a difficult time doing the multiple editing tasks at the same time without missing things.

There are also proof-readers who aren't editors. They don't care if there would be better ways to express what the author meant, they worry if the words are spelled correctly and aren't homonyms and even if the word is spelled correctly is it the right word.

Technically, proofreaders ARE editors, but you pay a hell of a lot less for it, since it takes less time and less rigid attention to detail. Content editing is the most expensive, since it requires dissecting the entire book as you read it.

I would say No and No.

Nuts. :(

Maybe when I go through my editing phase I'll remove it. It really doesn't add much.

I went back to your original post after reading REP's comment, and I agree that interpretation is possible

Wrong interpretation is the risk the author takes by not telling everything.

In fact, I once read an article on "show don't tell" where the author quoted (and he was a famous author) said he writes more than one novel because different people interpret it differently.

Wrong interpretation is the risk for any author writing anything

He was 6'5"

can't be misinterpreted.

He was a tall man

left to the reader to define tall

As he followed everyone to the picnic table, he ducked under the oak tree

Was he tall or were the tree branches low? No one else had to duck so he was tall. Or was everyone else short? If he was tall, just taller than the others or a giant?

I know and I can't understand why the Brits stick to the french spelling.

it makes it simple - metre is a distance while meter is a device

E before R except

...except for "theatre"

Well, for those of us who grew up in NYC where every Broadway theater was spelled "theatre."

Or is that I before E?

For a line jumper, it is always I before E.

The fact the suspect starts speaking Russian shows HE was convinced the detective spoke Russian, so why would readers question that assumption?

Actually, that's not why. Just like someone mutters something under their breath so the person they're cursing doesn't really hear it, that's why he said it in Russian. When they realized Steele understood it, their heads popped up (in surprise).

so why would readers question that assumption?

Because we know that sometimes, people say impolite things to us because they know we don't speak the language.

Because we know that sometimes, people say impolite things to us because they know we don't speak the language.

That was part of an earlier discussion, which only exemplifies the power of Switch's character confronting someone who tries that very thing. He might need to tighten the language, so it's obvious he knows precisely what was said, but I wouldn't belabor the point. It's a common enough exchange, especially in the movies and TV shows, that readers should be familiar with the theme.

Again, readers are more likely to question the setting if it's not presented in the native script (i.e. Russian), as they'd immediately question it if they thought it might be a typo. Seeing it's in Russian, they're more likely to assume the characters recognizes it than not.

In short, I don't think it's something that would throw many readers out of the story, though as always, that varies depending on each author.

The fact the suspect starts speaking Russian shows HE was convinced the detective spoke Russian, so why would readers question that assumption?

My post was simply a reply to your post's question. You indicated that the Russian speaking Russian showed that he believed Steele understood the Russian language. That is an interpretation/assumption on your part. Then you asked why a reader might question your assumption. So I answered your question.

You indicated that the Russian speaking Russian showed that he believed Steele understood the Russian language.

Just the contrary. He said it in Russian because he didn't know Steele would understand him. I showed that by having all 3 Russians' heads pop up when Steele understood it.

And Steele was coy about whether he spoke Russian or not when he said something like, "In English" after the Russian rattled something off in Russian. He didn't say "I didn't understand you, speak English." He simply said to speak in English.

I was showing a lot without explicitly telling the reader everything.

SB,

The statement was made by CW, I just quoted what he said.

The statement was CW's interpretation/assumption of what you wrote meant. He asked why a reader would not accept his assumption. I provided an answer to CW's question.

The statement was CW's interpretation/assumption of what you wrote meant. He asked why a reader would not accept his assumption. I provided an answer to CW's question.

No, Switch got what I meant. No problem there.

I was showing a lot without explicitly telling the reader everything.

Subtext!

Subtext!

Pretty good article, although I don't like the term "subtext." I liked this from the article:

reaction it creates in readers: their sudden ability to become an intelligent participant in interpreting the story.

Someone on wattpad asked if Rowling is a good author because she uses a lot of adverbs. One person said she knew her audience — middle grade.

The younger the reader, the more telling because their reading comprehension is lower. She was writing for that age group.

That is why it is such fun not letting people know you understand their language. I've only been called out on that once when we were both using to us a foreign tongue - she was a beautiful young blonde from Latvia or that area. We had a good laugh about it

I once met a beautiful young thing in Madrid when I was there for a month for business (it was supposed to be an 'extended weekend'). We hit it off, and she was so busy telling me her whole life story, I simply smiled and nodded, never telling her I didn't speak the language. It took about a half an hour before my friends lowered the boom on her.

People make all kinds of assumptions about language.

People make all kinds of assumptions about language.

When my sister was a teenager, she got a call. The two girls chatted for 10–15 minutes (don't remember) before one mentioned a name the other didn't know. It was a wrong number. Teenage girls! Sheesh.

Having established what each person should do, what is the order?

From the least to most detailed.

Start with the story editor to review the plot, theme and characters.

Next the writing editor, who'll review that sentences are constructed properly, not too much telling instead of showing, use of adverbs, etc (independent of the story).

Lastly make sure everything's punctuated and spelled correctly (technical)

it would be logical for the proofreader to get the document first

I think last.

The terms are used interchangeably nowadays, but I believe the proofreader in the past was the one who looked at it right before it went to print. The typesetter might have made a mistake. Maybe a color on a picture didn't come out right. He checked out the single printed copy before they printed thousands. He wasn't an editor. He compared what they wanted to what was actually printed.

That is to say, they read the proof?

Technically, they 'proofed' the proof.

Having established what each person should do, what is the order?
For me it would be logical for the proofreader to get the document first to get spelling and the most obvious grammar errors sorted. he/she might point out apparent errors for the editor to consider. Then the editor has a relatively clean oeuvre on which to work.

Nope, the proofreader is supposed to get it last, so they can review for any outstanding issues before a book is finally printed/posted. The first is supposed to be the content editor, who often works from the plot outline, who points out any potential plot holes, though due to the cost, they've mainly avoided in most circumstances.

On SOL, since professional editors are rare, most amateur editors contain a little of each, in different combinations, so you end up with a hodgepodge of skills, and you give everyone the same material. Even if they should be in a different order, many edit at their own pace, so you take their input when you can get it. But generally it goes:

1) Content Editor - preview of plot summary
2) Content Editor - detailed analysis of completed story
3) Editor Editor - cleanup of completed story
4) Poofreader - final cleanup of book before final posting

1) Content Editor - preview of plot summary
2) Content Editor - detailed analysis of completed story
3) Editor Editor - cleanup of completed story
4) Poofreader - final cleanup of book before final posting

I'm best at 2 and 4.

While I'm reading I seem to be good at spotting the proofreading errors, and if I know the author will past them into a wordpad file. After I'm done reading I frequently post commentary about the characters and plot revelations on the forums.