I am finishing up Amy Einsohn's The Copyeditor's Handbook (I know, it seems like I've been taking a while, but I got distracted by other things). The most recent section I read brought up a question in my mind about the nature of "PC" - you know, that 80s term that came around: it means "politically-correct". More specifically (or more truthfully) it means "gender-racial-sexual-orientation-correct".

The discussion is centered around the gender-nonspecific use of the slash-paired 'his/her' in lieu of the word 'their' in sentences that are ambiguous about the gender of the subject.

Ex. "Everyone took their seat." vs "Everyone took his or her seat."

As an editor, the jarring nature of the second sentence irks me, and I will change it to the former. Why? Because it sounds better, and its just as grammatically correct. What also bothers me about it is the feeling of many authors to PC-ize their work in order to satisfy some unseen naysayer who's going to chastise them for being some sort of biased just by their use of 'their' instead of 'his/her'.

There is a distinction to be made here, though: business writing and fiction operate very differently. When you're writing in a business or trade setting, keep in mind that there are some standards and the 'their' usage might be frowned upon, but feel free to stand your ground and back yourself up with proof from the DEU that 'their' is a legitimate neutral pronoun. On the other hand, if you're writing fiction, don't write yourself into a PC nightmare just because you don't want your book to be banned for using the "N-word" when it might be justifiably pertinent to your story.

There is a place for PC; and there is a place for it to be thrown aside. Use your judgment, but always consider consulting someone (possibly an editor) when you have a question.

Coincidentally, two editors - John McIntyre and Angela Booth posted on similar topics this week, and I think it pertinent to respond to them with my own opinions, though I already did give a bit of an opinion on Angela's post.

I would have to agree more with John in saying that my characters are only ever mechanisms to further my story. That isn't to say that I can't write empathetic characters or realistic ones, but I can't say that a character has ever gone off to do his own thing. My characters do what I tell them to do, because they are my creation. As well, while I know my characters well, I never really craft them in such a way that I'm conversing with them at every turn of the corner.

Characters can be as you wish them to be, though, and I would say that however you create your characters works for you. So long as they are fully completed when they are placed into the story and successfully act their part to further the story in such a way that it brings across your point.

So how do you create a character? Do you go through the process of living their life through story? Or do you chisel them from a block of character clay and mold them as they are put through the plot of the story?

BarCamp Milwaukee was this past weekend (October 13 & 14), and I did two presentations: one was on Electronic Publishing, which I've talked about before, and the other was on "Fast-paced Fiction".

The session was a bit misnamed, I suppose, as we talked about a variety of things, but mostly it was geared towards the concept of online writing and creating fiction in somewhat non-traditional ways. In the session, itself, we actually wrote what might be called a short story, but it was a fun collaborative effort, that I think everyone enjoyed taking part in. We also talked about shared-world projects, flash fiction, and collaborative works. There are an innumerable amount of each one of those on the internet these days, and I think they're wonderful ways of expressing yourself as a writer. (At the end of the post, I'll link to some of those sites).

I think one of the things that I felt the group really latched onto was the idea that traditional writing is certainly the best means of making a name for oneself as a writer, but because of the internet, there are more ways - and more inventive ways - to truly present oneself and stand out from other writers who may not have as firm a grasp on the internet as you.

Outside of a good writers group, I think online communication with other writers is a great way to continue to keep yourself in writing mode. If you're not always writing, then it's hard to get yourself motivated to write. Having contact as often as possible with other writers is great motivation, and I think that any one of the three ways mentioned above is a good way of doing that - even if it's just a casual thing.

Having a writing buddy is good, too, but I'll touch on that more next time, as I discuss the upcoming National Novel-Writing Month, which I will eagerly be working on throughout November.

Flash Fiction:
365 Tomorrows
EveryDayFiction
Flashshot

Shared-World Projects:
Fargoth

Collaborative Works:
Viyala Project

Recently at the Milwaukee Writers Workshop we discussed poetry. (It's a Google Group, so you have to register to be a part of it). Generally the group discusses works of fiction written in prose, so it was a nice change of pace to discuss something a bit more colorful.

What I found most interesting, though, was the overwhelming presence - or lack thereof - of punctuation in the poems. Now, there's nothing wrong with free verse poetry, but just because it's a poem doesn't mean a writer should automatically nix the punctuation.

"E. E. Cummings did it, though," you may say. And I would respond: Yes, but Mr. Cummings was an experimental master. What he did was unique. Doing it just because you think it's the proper way to do things doesn't make you an emulator; it makes you look like you don't know your craft.

The real discuss came down to grammar, syntax, and semantics. In order to play with the rules of grammar to craft a truly fluid poem, you have the know the rules of grammar. It was obvious after reading many of these poems that knowledge of grammar was in short supply. It's not entirely the writer's fault, but I believe that there is still some fault that lies in the hands of the writer. If you wish to perfect your craft as a writer or a poet, you have to know the craft; and I think with poetry - more so than with prose - you really do have to know the rules of grammar and syntax inside and out in order to manipulate them in a way to craft your poem effectively.

If you want an example of a master of this, read some of Emily Dickinson works. Her use of punctuation is phenomenal, and when you know the rules behind the use of particular pieces of punctuation, her poetry becomes more powerful.

The point is, ultimately, is not that you should always use punctuation in your poetry; the point is that in order to bend the rules of grammar in your poetry, you have to know them. If you don't, take a class, pick up a grammar manual, or ask someone. One can never learn enough.