Archive for the ‘Writing’ Category
Just Reviewed Stephanie Osborn’s “Endings and Beginnings” at SBR
Folks, I’m glad to pass along a teensy bit of good news tonight, as I was able to review Stephanie Osborn’s THE CASE OF THE COSMOLOGICAL KILLER: ENDINGS AND BEGINNINGS (otherwise known as book four of her Displaced Detective series featuring Sherlock Holmes as brought to the modern-day via the World of Myth hypothesis) tonight over at Shiny Book Review (SBR).
Why?
Well, sometimes it’s refreshing to read a romance, especially when it’s about two unabashedly smart, talented, thoughtful individuals. Much less two romances.
You see, there’s a romance going on between our universe’s Sherlock and Skye Chadwick-Holmes (Skye being the hyperspatial physicist who brought Sherlock to our world in the first place, natch). They’ve recently married, are on their honeymoon, and are also investigating a crime (as that’s what they do).
But the other romance between the secondary universe’s other-Sherlock and other-Holmes isn’t going nearly so well.
And our Sherlock and Skye know this and want to fix things between their counterparts. Which is something you see all the time in romance, but you only rarely see in science fiction . . . but as well as this works, I wish we saw more of it.
To see a couple in deep distress (in this case, other-Sherlock and other-Skye) figure out a way to rectify their distress and fix their relationship is the hallmark of a great romance. Which is why I’m urging you to go read Stephanie Osborn’s ENDINGS AND BEGINNINGS just as soon as you can if you love Sherlock Holmes (as brought to the modern-day), if you love intelligent romances, and/or you love intelligent science right along with your intelligent romance.
You won’t regret it.
Some Thoughts on Editing UK and American Spellings
Folks, after reading Stephanie Osborn’s latest guest blog about writing both British and American spellings — not to mention euphemisms and sayings — I started to think.
You see, I’ve edited for a number of non-Americans. Whether these have been Canadians, New Zealanders, Australians, or folks from the United Kingdom, I’ve given them the same advice I give anyone else.
So what changes when I edit for someone who isn’t from the United States? Mostly, it’s the spelling . . . but as Stephanie cogently pointed out, some of the sayings are dissimilar also.
And yes, that can be complicated, especially if I’ve never come across the euphemism before despite all of my reading and other experience.
So what do you do then, as an editor?
My job, as an editor, is to help the client, regardless of where he or she comes from. So if I don’t understand what the client is saying, I have to ask him — and I am not shy about doing so, either.
(Why I should be is possibly fodder for another blog entirely. But as always, I digress.)
Sure, it looks odd for me as an American who grew up with American spelling to see behavior spelled behaviour — or color as colour, either — though some UK-derived spellings aren’t so odd or outré.
Consider, please, that most people don’t even bat an eye when the word “theatre” is spelled with -re rather than the usual American spelling, theater. And most American writers use dialogue with the -ue rather than the technically preferred and American spelling of dialog, which drops the -ue entirely, right along with the word prologue.
Also, it’s not unknown to see an American spell the word marvellous with two l’s — even though that’s technically the British spelling — rather than marvelous with only one l.
Anyway, spelling differences aside, the advice an editor gives doesn’t tend to change very much. But you do have to make a note of it when you’re working with someone who isn’t from the United States and is writing for a world market as opposed to the U.S. market.
That aside, as a reader and reviewer, I find it refreshing to see Stephanie Osborn using British spelling in Sherlock Holmes’ point of view, while her American hyperspatial physicist, Skye Chadwick-Holmes, the wife of Sherlock, quite rightly uses the American spelling she grew up with.
Because I do think it adds to the narrative to do it that way — and, perhaps ironically, points out that the differences between men and women are not always merely cosmetic.
——–
Quick reviewing update: I hope to have a review of LINCOLN’S BOYS up over at Shiny Book Review (SBR) by tomorrow evening. Stephanie Osborn’s fourth book in her Displaced Detective series, ENDINGS AND BEGINNINGS, is tentatively scheduled for this Saturday, as what could be a better time to discuss the actual wedding of Sherlock and Skye than Romance Saturday at SBR?
And if you live in Racine and want to see a good symphonic band concert, I urge you to come out to Case High School on Thursday night to see the Racine Concert Band. I’m playing the alto saxophone in this concert, so if you know me, be sure to give me a discreet wave. (I’d say “give me a yell,” but that would be quite rude under the circumstances.)
A Guest Blog from Stephanie Osborn: The Differences in Writing British and American English (and How to Write Both)
Folks, Stephanie Osborn is no stranger to the Elfyverse (or my blog, either, though sometimes they seem to be one and the same). She’s previously written a few guest blogs (here and here), and as her latest book in her popular Displaced Detective series featuring Sherlock Holmes and his wife, hyperspatial physicist Skye Chadwick, has finally arrived — this being A CASE OF SPONTANTEOUS COMBUSTION, it seemed like a good time for Stephanie to write another one.
So without further ado, please welcome writer extraordinaire Stephanie Osborn back to the Elfyverse!
******
A note from Stephanie Osborn: It is my great pleasure to make another guest appearance in the Elfyverse. Barb is an amazing writer and editor, and I am so happy to have made her acquaintance through her review of several of my novels; she has become a special friend. We’ve been able to help lift each other up at times when things were down, and that’s so much better than trying to haul oneself up by one’s own bootstraps! I hope you enjoy my little cameo.
American English and British English, and Learning to Write Both
By Stephanie Osborn
I’m sure you’ve all seen it.
We in America would say, “I don’t recognize this caller ID on my cellphone; I thought this app specialized in emphasizing identification. Could you wake me up at seven in the morning? Everything has been taken care of, but I have to run over and see Mom before the announcement is publicly known.”
But a Brit would say the same thing like this: “I don’t recognise this caller ID on my mobile; I thought this app specialised in emphasising identification. Would you knock me up at seven in the morning? It’s all sorted, but I have to pop over and see me Mum before the announcement is publically known.”
It’s the difference between the American version of English, and the British version of the same language. Sometimes people who travel back and forth between the two countries — the US and the UK — have been known to remark, “We speak the same language, but we don’t.”
And the difference encompasses terminology, slang, and even spelling.
Did you know that J.K. Rowling was made to change the name of the very first book in the Harry Potter series before it could be published in the USA? The original title, the title you’ll find on bookstore shelves in London, is Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. But publishers felt that Americans might not recognize the alchemical reference, and so it was changed to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. And you may, or may not, be familiar with the use of “trainers” to mean athletic shoes, or “jumper” to refer to a pullover sweater. Cell phones are “mobiles” and refrigerators, regardless of brand, are “Frigidaires.” (I suppose this is analogous to our referring to all disposable facial tissues as “Kleenex” and cotton swabs as “Q-Tips.”)
Americans may call it a plow, but Britons call it a plough — that was even a major clue that Holmes found in one of the original adventures, denoting the suspect wasn’t British as he claimed. There is, it seems, and has been for something like a century and a half at the least, a tendency for Americans to eliminate so-called silent letters and spell more phonetically than our British counterparts. But at least Sir Arthur Conan Doyle only had to write in one version thereof.
When I started writing the Displaced Detective series, which has been described as, “Sherlock Holmes meets The X-Files,” I made a deliberate decision: If the speaker was American, dialogue (and later, thoughts and even scenes from that character’s point of view) would be written in American English. If the speaker (thinker, observer) was from the United Kingdom, dialogue etc. would be written in British English. This has held true right down to the book currently being released, A Case of Spontaneous Combustion, book 5 in the series (with at least 3 more in work, and more in the planning stages).
The series itself traces the exploits of Sherlock Holmes — or one version of Holmes, at least — when he is inadvertently yanked from an alternate reality in which he exists in Victorian Europe, into modern, 21st Century America. Because in his particular alternate reality, he and Professor Moriarty were BOTH supposed to die at Reichenbach, if he is returned, he must die. So he wisely opts to stay put and come up to speed on the modern world. Working with Dr. Skye Chadwick, her continuum’s equivalent to Holmes and the Chief Scientist of Project Tesseract (the program responsible for his accidental transition), Holmes ends up being asked to investigate unusual and occasionally outré situations.
In his latest foray, after an entire English village is wiped out in an apparent case of mass spontaneous combustion, London contacts The Holmes Agency to investigate. Holmes goes undercover to find a terror ring. In Colorado, Skye battles raging wildfires and mustangs, believing Holmes has abandoned her. Holmes must discover what caused the horror in Stonegrange and try to stop the terrorists before they unleash their bizarre weapon again, all the while wondering if he still has a home in Colorado.
And the cast of characters includes an American FBI agent, several members of the US military, two entire units of MI-5, and more. All of whom have to be rendered in their appropriate version of English.
Simple, you say? Just set Word to use the British English dictionary.
Right. Except then Skye, Agent Smith, Colonel Jones, and the other Americans would then be speaking Brit.
“So set both dictionaries operational,” you suggest.
Great idea. I’d love to. But Word doesn’t have that option — the two dictionaries would conflict. And even if it could use both, how would it know whether an American or an Englishman were speaking? More, one of those characters — Holmes himself — actually uses a somewhat archaic form of British English, in that he is a man of the Victorian era, and speaks in such fashion. So I am really using three different forms of English.
Well, the end result is simply that I have to make sure I read back through the manuscript very carefully, looking for places where either I’ve slipped up, or autocorrect replaced the British with the American equivalent (which it does every chance it gets). I’m also pleased that my publisher has assigned me a regular editor who is quite familiar with the British version of English, to include the euphemisms, exclamations, and general slang. She’s been amazingly helpful, and I do my best to stay up to speed on the latest version of slang in both the US and the UK.
So what has been the response?
Well, I’ve had one or two Amazon reviews refer to “misspellings,” and there’s one venerated author (of whom I like to refer as one of the “Grand Old Men of Science Fiction”) who is currently reading the first couple of books in the series and is amazed that I even attempted to pull such a thing off, let alone that I’m doing it.
But other than that, it’s rather strange; not one reader has volunteered the observation that I am writing in two different forms of the English language. Yet the sense among fans of the series is that I have captured Doyle’s tone and style, despite the fact that I do not use a first-person Watson narrative, despite the fact that we see what Holmes is thinking, at least to a point.
I believe the reason is because, subconsciously, readers are picking up on the fact that Holmes speaks, thinks, and observes in proper, Victorian, British English. And even when referring to more modern conveniences, maintains a solid British presence. Consistently. Throughout.
And that’s precisely what I intended, from the very beginning.
I love it when a plan comes together.
* * * * *
And that concludes Stephanie Osborn’s latest guest blog! (Insert another hearty round of applause here.) Thank you again, Stephanie . . . as always, I enjoyed your guest blog heartily.
For the rest of you, please do yourselves a favor, and go check out Stephanie’s intelligent novels of Sherlock Holmes as brought to the modern-day by hyperspatial physicist Skye Chadwick — and who later marries him, becoming akin to Dr. Watson in the process. They are truly SF novels, contain solid science and world building and characterization, and yet even with all this somewhat “heavy” subject matter are gripping and full of suspense.
That’s tough to pull off. But if you’re like me, you won’t recognize this in the heat of finding out just how Sherlock and Skye are going to solve the case this time . . .
A Quick Friday Round-up
Folks, things continue to be very challenging around here, but I thought I’d try to catch you all up on what’s been going on with me over the past few days.
First, I just played a concert with the University of Wisconsin-Parkside Community Band on the clarinet. I was fortunate enough to have solo clarinet parts on two pieces (Gordon Jacob’s William Byrd Suite and Gioachino Rossini’s La Cambiale di Matrimonio), and my former clarinet teacher, Tim Bell — who’s been retired for several years now, but looks as youthful and energetic as ever — told me he thought I played well, which was very nice to hear.
The reason I am mentioning this concert, though, is because it was the final concert for Professor Mark Eichner, who’s been the Director of Bands at UW-Parkside for many years. Professor Eichner was my faculty advisor when I finished up my Bachelor’s degree at Parkside many moons ago, and also helped me rough out some musical compositions (Parkside did not have a composition teacher at that time, so Prof. Eichner was gracious enough to help me on an independent study basis); I couldn’t have had a better one.
The Community Band played as well as we ever have in order to salute Prof. Eichner and send him into retirement on a good note. (Pardon the pun.)
Best of all, Prof. Eichner received three standing ovations after the concert was over . . . no musician could’ve had a better send-off.
Next, I wanted to let you all know that author Dina von Lowenkraft has put up a blog for the most recent Blog Hop (called “4×4” or “Four Questions for the Writer”) . . . please go check that out when you have time. (She had tagged me, as did Katharine Eliska Kimbriel; I discussed my own answers here.)
I am also happy to report that I read Eric Brown and Jason Cordova’s new novella KAIJU APOCALYPSE (which I discussed here) and actually reviewed it on Amazon. I enjoyed it; it’s a very quick read with a lot of action, very well-paced.
Other than that, though, it’s highly unlikely I’ll be reviewing anything over at Shiny Book Review (SBR) this weekend due to my cousin’s passing. But I should be back at it next week, so do stay tuned.
Aside from that, what’s going on with my favorite baseball team, the Milwaukee Brewers? Over the past week-plus, the Brewers have lost six of the last eight; before that, they’d started the season 20-7. Their record now stands at 22-13.
This is maddening mostly because the Brewers are not hitting very well. The starting pitchers have been really good to excellent with one exception (Matt Garza, I’m looking squarely at you), and the relievers have mostly been lights-out.
Still, I’m hoping the Brewers’ bats will get it together.
Before I go, it’s time for my weekly shameless plug: if you’re interested in buying something I wrote, or something my husband Michael wrote, please go to the “about Barb” page; there are links there that will get you to Amazon so you can purchase them to your heart’s content.
Enjoy your weekend, folks. (As for me, I intend to think about my cousin Jacki and reflect on her life, which was one well-lived.)
Reviewed Grant Hallman’s “IronStar” and “Upfall” Last Night at SBR
Folks, this past week has been a nightmare.
Why? Well, I’ve been dealing with a sinus infection. The hot water heater decided it had had enough, too . . . and even the cheapest and lowest-rated hot water heater is currently beyond my reach, though of course I’m working on that.
Anyway, I’d hoped to review Grant Hallman’s novel IRONSTAR and novella UPFALL a few weeks ago. But I knew I couldn’t do them justice, which is why I’d delayed . . . at any rate, I have reviewed them now over at Shiny Book Review (SBR, as always).
Now, why was I worried about doing two science fiction stories justice, when I’m a SF writer myself?
Simple. IRONSTAR incorporates some metaphysics into the mix (as you’ll see if you go over and read my review), and I was unsure at first how to discuss this without giving too much of the plot away. And, while IRONSTAR is military SF, I was worried about describing the many other parts of the diverse plotline . . . but it all came into place once I realized I could review both stories on Saturday.
You see, I’ve reviewed many books that have a romantic component on Saturday for SBR’s “Romance Saturday” promotion. And Hallman’s novella, UPFALL, is an unabashed romantic SF story of the old school . . . lots of good science, lots of intelligent romance, and a crowd-pleasing ending, so what’s not to like about that?
When you put UPFALL together with IRONSTAR, which also has a romance along with the military SF going on, it seemed a natural fit for Romance Saturday.
Anyway, I hope you will enjoy my review. So have at . . . and enjoy your weekend. (As for me, while I do intend to watch the Brewers play the Reds, I have a whole boatload of editing to get done by Monday morning.)
Eric S. Brown and Jason Cordova’s “Kaiju Apocalypse” Is Out
Folks, I mentioned this in my recent blog about the “Four Questions for the Writer” blog-hop, but why not mention it again?
You see, my friend Jason Cordova has a new novella out with Eric Brown called KAIJU APOCALYPSE. (Yes, Jason is the second-billed writer; Mr. Brown is first. The story is still quite interesting.) And it’s been described by one of Jason’s other friends at Facebook (then reprinted on Jason’s blog) thusly:
Hey folks, does your life not have enough excitement? <wah wah music plays> Do you long for the days of being able to pick up a book and lose yourself in the heroic struggles of man against 300 ft. tall alien/dragon/dinosaur things? Was ‘Pacific Rim’ a religious experience?
Then what the hell are you waiting for? Click, don’t drag, over to your local Amazon website! You too can own your very own, extremely handy copy of Kaiju Apocalypse!
The friend’s comment is actually much longer than this, and it’s well worth reading, just for its sheer, joyous effervescence.
At any rate, walk, don’t run, to your computer and take a look at KAIJU APOCALYPSE. It may just intrigue you.
I know it definitely intrigued me.
Received Results for Writers of the Future Contest, Quarter One
Folks, a while back I told you all that I’d sent off my last-ever story to the Writers of the Future Contest. I was under the impression that once my novel, AN ELFY ON THE LOOSE, was out, I would be ineligible.
I was wrong.**
But as I didn’t know it, the submission I sent in for the first quarter of the Writers of the Future Contest’s 2014 cycle meant a great deal to me.
You see, I was looking over one of my husband Michael’s incomplete novels. This novel, MINIATURES, features a space Naval officer who had been a Marine non-com for over fifty years, and who was more or less shanghaied into the Navy against his wishes.***
And I’d always wanted to know more about this character, Peter . . . so I wrote a story around 2,000 words of Michael’s writing, to explain just what had happened to Peter that caused him to go from a job he loved — being a Marine Sergeant-Major — to a job he really didn’t want to do, but didn’t actively despise — a Naval Ensign.
Michael’s novel picks up after Peter has become a Naval officer, you see. But one of the earliest parts of his novel discusses just how Peter meets up with his were-mouse (a companion who’s far more than an animal; were-mice are more like an allied species) while Peter’s on leave. Michael’s novel had this pivotal scene in a place where Peter had finished his training but hadn’t yet been assigned to a ship . . . yet it didn’t seem to make sense that way.
The more I thought about it, the more I realized there was much more to the story. So I wrote about what Peter had done that was so heroic that he’d be given a prestigious medal and taken from the service he loved — the Marines — and put into the Navy, where he’d never wanted to be. And flying starships seemed to be a part of it, as Peter loved to fly and could fly anything you care to name . . . but the Marines hadn’t officially known about it.
Because Marines, most especially non-coms, do not fly starships. They are ground troops. Maybe a few of them fly shuttlecraft. But Peter does a lot more than that, and because he basically had to take charge after nearly all the officers were killed (and the few who weren’t were already in Sickbay), that’s why he got the medal. And that’s why he also bonded with his were-mouse, because his were-mouse companion also loves to fly.
And as Michael already had this — yes, he did have this pivotal bit of information already in the text — why not write a story that made much more out of these events?
So that’s exactly what I did, adding seven thousand words or so to the story to make it all work out.
The story’s name is “To Survive the Maelstrom.” It won an honorable mention in the first quarter of the Writers of the Future contest. This is the first time I’ve ever had that honor — and it’s also the first time Michael had that honor.
I’m glad that “To Survive the Maelstrom” won an honorable mention, as it does validate, at least in part, what I’m trying to do in keeping Michael’s work alive while doing my best to add to it.
I will be sending “To Survive the Maelstrom” out to the various markets, including the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (they’re always the first ones I try), and if F&SF doesn’t like it, I’ll try it at Lightspeed. And Analog. And Asimov’s . . . and, down the line, if I can’t interest anyone in it, I will put it up for sale myself.
Because I believe in this story. I believe in my husband’s writing, and my own, and I think the combination of the two of our talents made for an exceptional short story — something that’s more than the sum of its parts.
And yes . . . now that I know I’m still eligible (as it’s unlikely that AN ELFY ON THE LOOSE will sell 5,000 copies any time soon, much less before June 30, 2014, the next quarter’s deadline), I’m going to try another story at the Writers of the Future Contest.
Why not?
———
**AN ELFY ON THE LOOSE is unlikely to sell 5,000 copies, most particularly not before June 30, 2014, the end of the next quarter for the Writers of the Future Contest. So because of that — and because my professional publications still stand at 1.5 (one co-written story with Michael, one alone) that have sold or will sell 5,000 copies — I am still eligible. Heard that from the Contest Administrator’s own e-mail, earlier this evening.
***BTW, the main reason MINIATURES hasn’t already been published is that I cannot find the final fourteen chapters. At all. Once I do, I will incorporate what I’ve written in “To Survive the Maelstrom” and just keep on running . . . Michael would approve.
Barb Caffrey's Blog 