WNW: One or Two Spaces?

Several weeks ago, while waiting to meet with the family after church, Erin and I started talking about our daughters, who are now great friends. Then she mentioned Word Nerd Wednesday and a possible topic.

I wondered why I hadn't addressed it before:

What's the rule for spaces after a period: one or two?

First the short answer, and then the explanation for the longer answer:

With very few exceptions, use ONE space.

I know that saying so will make a lot of people annoyed with me. Sorry! I know how hard it is to retrain your thumb to not hit the space bar twice.

I learned this the hard way with my first freelance article job. The editor (kindly) asked me to submit my future work with one space so she didn't have to remove the extra spaces for me. I got motivated (hey, money and bylines were on the line!) and quickly trained myself to do one space.

To understand today's rule, we need to understand the old one.

Why we needed two spaces in the past:

If you're 35 or older (raising my hand here), you were likely taught to type on an actual typewriter. That typewriter probably used Courier font.

Courier is one of the rare fonts in which each character takes up exactly the same amount of space, whether it's a lowercase l, an upper case M, or a period. It didn't matter what you typed; the carriage advance the same amount. In all, we got 10 (or maybe 12) characters in every inch. No matter what. That made calculations easy for figuring out how to center titles or tables. (Remember that math? Ugh.)

Back in the Dark Ages of Courier during typewriter-dom, had we typed with one space after a period, sentences would have run together, making text hard to read. We needed a visual cue for sentence breaks.

The solution: Two spaces after a period. Tada! A visual gap between spaces, making the flow of text easy to follow.

Why it changed:

Enter the computer era, with lots and lots of fonts, almost none of which have equal character sizes. Characters take up all kinds of spaces proportional to the letter or punctuation mark. An M is far wider than an I, for example.

With proportional fonts, we no longer needed two spaces; the end of one sentence no longer ran into the beginning of the next, because a space was naturally bigger than a period but smaller than wide letters like W and M.

We got the built-in gap we needed for clarity with one space instead of two.

It goes further than that.

If you stick with two spaces with the modern proportional fonts, the space ends up looking like a massive gap, far bigger than two Courier spaces. Worse, if your writing goes for several lines or paragraphs, you may end up with ugly "rivers" of white space going down the page.

Instead of clarifying your words, two spaces makes the whole look amateurish and unprofessional.

This is especially true if the document is fully justified, which spreads the text out evenly over the line to create an even look on both margins. With that formatting, if you type two spaces after a period, the justification will spread everything out far, including your double space. You'll end up with giant gaps. I've seen some gaps that look like 4 or 5 spaces.

Why you should train your thumb to tap the bar once:

The new rule may not matter so much if you're typing stuff only for yourself. If you prefer two spaces, and no one else will see or care, more power to you. (For my sake, don't fully justify the margins, though.)

But you should work on doing it right if other eyeballs will be looking at your writing. That includes not just professional or aspiring writers, but anyone applying for college or a job or writing a letter to a business or anything where another person's opinion will matter.

It's just like making sure you have no spelling errors. Two spaces doesn't look clean or polished in the 21st century. Most modern fonts simply look better with one space, and two tends to look like a mistake.

What if your thumb won't cooperate?

Thanks to word processing programs, searching for something specific and replacing it with what you really want is a snap. If you cannot get yourself to type one space, or you find yourself slipping from one space to two spaces and back again, don't stress it.

When you're done writing, do a search for two spaces and replace each instance with one space.

You'll look professional and save your sanity!

Super Cool Essay Book

I don't remember how I first came across DeNae Handy and her blog, My Read Life Was Backordered. I do remember laughing myself silly reading several posts, coming close to wetting my pants more than once.

The first time I met her in real life was about a year and a half ago at the Casual Bloggers Conference, where we were both speaking. She was as fun, funny, and awesome in person as she was on her blog. Turns out, DeNae is a great writer as well as a great person and friend.

Several months ago, DeNae asked me if I'd like to be part of an essay collection with a bunch of really cool people. The book would be about our lives—our real, normal, Mormon lives, complete with the chaos of motherhood (or fatherhood), the highs and the lows of faith and family. Nothing saccharine or preachy, just great essays about what it's like being who we are.

I immediately said yes, and the final book will be available really soon, to premiere at the Story @ Home conference (where DeNae and I are both teaching again . . . how 'bout that).

The collection is titled Tell Me Who I Am, and the cover is a gorgeous watercolor by contributor Jana Parkin.

Other contributors besides Jana and yours truly include a lot of names (and blogs) you may recognize:

Luisa Perkins, Melanie Jacobson, Becca Wilhite, Ken Craig, Debbie Frampton, Karen Burton, Patrick Livingston, Stephanie Sorensen, Cari Banning, Christopher Clark, Josh Bingham,

Michelle Budge, Gideon Burton, and, of course, DeNae herself.

I read it. I laughed. I shed a few tears. It's a great collection with a ton of variety.

Here's the awesome news:

It's available for pre-order now, at a significant discount, and bulk orders (20 or more) get even more off. Individual orders get 30% off, which, with shipping, is still less than the book all by itself. (Quite the steal.)

Just click on the PayPal order button thingy in the sidebar. For more information about ordering, check out DeNae's post about the book HERE. And to read more about what inspired to book, read THIS POST.

WNW: Valentine's Day Edition

For today's Word Nerd Wednesday, I'm chiming in a day late with relationship words in other languages.

This one's inspired by an article in Big Think by Pamela Haag. I stumbled upon it some time ago that listed top 10 foreign words about relationships that have no English equivalent.

Of course, the word nerd in me was all over that.

I love how languages have nuance and meaning, and how even a pretty simple translation from one language to another often lacks some of the feel and flavor of the original.

For example (taking a brief departure from Valentine's Day):

Two of my favorite words of all time are Finnish and have no English equivalent: sisu [SEE-soo] and jaksa [YAHK-saw].

Sisu is sometimes translated as "guts," but that's an incredibly lame word for it. Sisu is more of the drive, the fire, the power in someone who endures and comes out the other end. Sort of. You have to know the Finnish to really get it. If you can endure a really hot Finnish sauna then jump in a hole cut into the frozen ice of a lake, you probably have sisu.

Jaksa refers to the capability or strength (physical, emotional, whatever) to do something. If someone asks you to go do the laundry, and you say you don't jaksa, they can't argue with you. If you don't jaksa, you just . . . don't.

But back to the article, which you can read HERE from Big Think:

I'll touch on my three favorite words in it, and then you can read the full piece yourself. It's worth it.

The first one I'll mention is Cafuné (Brazilian Portuguese). As a writer who has written lots of romantic-ish scenes, this one really come in handy if we had something like it in English: "The act of tenderly running your fingers through someone's hair."

I'm totally with the author of the piece on the next one: Why on earth doesn't English have a word to describe "the happiness of meeting again after a long time"? (The words is Retrouvailles (French).

And finally, an Arabic word: Ya’aburnee: “You bury me.” In other words, "a declaration of one’s hope that they’ll die before another person, because of how difficult it would be to live without them."

As the Haag points out, it's a similar sentiment to "I can't live without you," but far more mature and poetic. I can see an elderly couple saying the Arabic word to one another.

The English version, on the other hand, is something a love-struck sixteen year-old would say.

Again, here's the link to the original piece. If you know other interesting words without good English equivalents, pass them on!

NOTE: THE 2ND PRECISION EDITING GROUP LIVE CRITIQUE WORKSHOP IS 2 WEEKS FROM THIS SATURDAY (ON MARCH 3). YOU WON'T WANT TO MISS OUT. TO REGISTER AND FIND FULL DETAILS, VISIT THE PEG WORKSHOPS BLOG.

Sherri Needs New Lungs

Next month marks 23 years since a landmark day in my family, a time that forever changed me.

My baby nephew received a liver transplant within days of his first birthday. In 1989, infant liver transplants were new. Something like two hospitals in the nation were doing them, and only a few hundred infant liver transplants had even been attempted. Omaha had one of those hospitals. A good number of infants didn't make it.

Michael almost didn't. I remember phone calls across the country to plan a funeral. Tears. My brother and his wife practically living at the hospital. Reports that Michael's bed looked like it was covered in plastic spaghetti because of all the tubes. It was one of the first times in my life I dropped to my knees and sobbed with a desperate prayer. He pulled through.

Then, at nineteen, having defied every odd, Michael was called to serve an LDS mission, and this spring, he graduates from Brigham Young University with a bachelor's degree and a teaching certificate. (He'll be an awesome teacher, by the way.)

Organ donation hit close to home again several years after Michael's transplant, when my cousin's son needed a new heart. He got the heart. It didn't last as long as Michael's liver has, but it did give him a few more years before he passed away shortly before his high school graduation.

When my son turned fifteen and got his driver's permit, he almost didn't check the box that would make him an organ donor. It was only then that I realized he didn't know all of his cousin's story. I cleared my throat to ward off emotion then simply said, "Check the box. I'll explain when we get home. You are going to be an organ donor."

Sherri

That same son was only weeks old when I met Sherri. We'd moved into her neighborhood, and I immediately liked her. She coughed a lot, but I was assured she wasn't contagious with anything (which put me at ease when my newborn son was near).

Later, my husband and I taught a Primary class filled with energetic 9-year-olds, including Josh, Sherri's son.

I learned that Sherri was born with Cystic Fibrosis, a disease I'd never heard of. She taught me about it. I learned how CF sufferers eventually die because their lungs get clogged and damaged with mucus. It's the mucus that made her cough. I found out that when she was born, the life expectancy of babies with CF had been about age 14. She wasn't supposed to have lived as long as she already had, let alone give birth and be around to see her son turn 9.

She's fought the odds, worked on keeping herself (and her lungs) as healthy as possible. That means regular hospitalizations, home treatments, medications, and so much more.

Sherri and I were good friends. We went to League of Utah Writers meetings together. We joined the same critique group. She moved. She kept fighting.

Josh is now in his twenties. He's a returned missionary and a college graduate. His mother wasn't supposed to live long enough to see any of that. She did.

But Sherri has now reached the point that her lungs are giving out. On her doctors' advice, she's on a transplant list

In short: Sherri needs new lungs. It's an extraordinarily difficult (and expensive!) decision.

Her family has a site devoted to Sherri's story, where people can donate what they can to help.

If you can donate even a few dollars, please do. Visit Lungs for Sherri, to learn more about CF, about Sherri, and to donate what you can.

WNW: Use (and Abuse) of the Semicolon

FIRST OFF, some news . . .

Back by popular demand: Precision Editing Group is hosting their next Live Critique Workshop in a month! It'll be held at the American Fork Library on Saturday, March 3rd. Attendees are divided among tables, and they get to work with an instructor (staff are all both published writers and professional editors) assigned to each table. Bring along several pages of a work in progress to be workshopped. It's a great learning experience and a bargain to boot. But space IS limited. For full information and instructions for registering, visit the PEG Workshop blog.

Now to today's topic.

Of late, I've come across oodles of egregious semicolon abuse, and it's made me realize that

a) Not everyone in the world loves that little punctuation mark like I do and

b) Fewer know how to use it.

This post is my small attempt to help a bit in rectifying the numbers of both camps.

First off, let's debunk a common misconception.

Myth: Semicolons are totally outdated for fiction and, if used at all in today's writing, should be only in stuffy non-fiction work.

(Note how I remained totally neutral in describing the myth. Ahem.)

Truth: Semicolons are alive and well in all kinds of writing, including fiction.

Of course, as with any punctuation mark (or word, or literary technique), semicolons can be overused, but that doesn't mean you should avoid them altogether.

For me, semicolons are part of my writer toolbox. I like semicolons because they do two awesome things:

1) They allow an association or connection between thoughts that no other method can achieve.

2) They provide a pause length that's different than any other punctuation mark creates.

In other words, sometimes you just need a semicolon to get the feel across. This is where I bring out my orchestra conductor analogy.

Imagine punctuation as being the signals from a musical conductor (a writer). Each mark tells you, the reader, how to interpret the sentence: whether to slow down, speed up, add emphasis, trail off.

As a writer, if you get rid of the semicolon, and you've thrown away what could be the tool for creating the exact feel your sentence needs.

The Semicolon Rule of Thumb

While the best semicolon use is when you're connecting two thoughts, technically (from a grammatical standpoint) you can use one to connect any two complete sentences.

Ask yourself: Can the words on each side of the semicolon stand alone as a real sentence?

If the answer is YES, you can use the semicolon, such as here:

Kelly asked if I'd go ballroom dancing with her; I can't dance.

Note two things from the above example:

1) Both sides could stand alone as a sentence.

2) The second half has more meaning because of the first half.

It's the second part that messes people up. Because the second half gets emphasis, writers sometimes get it into their heads that any emphasis at the end of a sentence requires a semicolon. Not so.

If whatever comes after the semicolon isn't a complete sentence, don't use a semicolon.

Let's show that in action.

How NOT to Use a Semicolon

Here's an example of trying to give emphasis to the end of a sentence when the second part cannot stand alone as a sentence.

David bought Mary a bouquet of her favorite flowers; miniature peach-colored roses.

ARGH! (I shall refrain from pulling out my hair, but only just.)

The flower description (miniature peach-colored roses) is not a sentence. Ergo, you cannot use a semicolon before it.

But what if you really want to emphasize the kind of flower (or whatever else) at the end?

Easy. Pull out a different punctuation mark from your trusty tool box. Use an em dash.

David bought Mary a bouquet of her favorite flowers—miniature peach-colored roses.

Here is where I'll add one punctuation difference that really is common between fiction and non-fiction. In the example above, you could use a colon instead of an em dash. Either is correct.

Just know that colons are relatively rare in fiction. You'll see them here and there, but the majority of the time, colons are saved for non-fiction, and in fiction, em dashes are used instead.

To learn more about em dashes and how to make them properly (because no, they are not hyphens smooshed together, and they aren't en dashes), see the last part of THIS POST I wrote for the Precision Editing Group blog some time ago.

The Daily Dish!

My cookbook and I were featured on the Daily Dish morning show today in celebration of National Chocolate Day.

Here's the clip, for those interested. I'll post the recipes of the two cakes here soon!

It's Coming: Story @ Home

In a little over a month, the Story @ Home conference will makes its debut in downtown Salt Lake City. It's not a writing conference, and it's not just about family history. It's about well, bringing stories and family history to life . . . at home.

Family history and genealogy are some of the fastest growing interests in the world.

We now have access to more resources and information than ever before on how to do it, how to organize, get involved, make it a family affair, or even how to blog or simply write your personal life story.

All that information can be overwhelming. The idea of writing your personal history can seem daunting, especially if you don't consider yourself a writer.

That's where this conference comes in.

Created by Cherished Bound, the conference will focus on three tracks: Blogging, Genealogy, and Storytelling. When you register (for the steal of $79, which covers both days), you'll indicate which track you're most interested in, but that's mostly so they can plan. You can attend any class that strikes your fancy.

I'll be teaching, as will several other writer and bloggers you may be familiar with:

Rustin Banks from the Blog Frog

CJane

Elisa Scharton (also known as The Motherboard and the co-founder of the Casual Blogger Conference)

DeNae Handy (I challenge you to read her blog and not snort with laughter)

Jana Parkin

And many others, including, as I mentioned, yours truly.

It's going to be a ball. Be sure to register soon!

WNW: Word Roots in English

I was going to call this "Latin Roots," but a lot of roots in English, well, aren't Latin.

This post was inspired by my 7th grader's English teacher, Mr. W, who teaches the advanced kids (*proud mom, ahem*) and has discussed roots quite a bit. I didn't do that until my honors 11th grade English class (thank you, Mrs. Oldroyd).

In my day, we were taught roots to help us figure out the meanings and spellings of vocabulary words, which, of course, if very useful. Mr. W, I'm sure, does some of that, but he also relates the roots to names in literature.

One of his favorite example is MAL, which means bad (or maybe evil). You can find this root all over the place, from malady to maladroit, malapropism, malodorous, and malicious.

My personal favorite MAL character is in Disney's Sleeping Beauty: Maleficent, the evil witch.

A more modern example is a bad family that constantly causes problems for Harry Potter, both for the title character and the entire HP world: The Malfoys.

Speaking of that family, Harry's classmate from the Malfoy family, who often becomes an antagonist or at least a bully, has a name that sounds like a fire-breathing monster: Draco.

Coincidence? I doubt it. JK Rowling was particularly aware of Latin and other roots when she wrote her books. Tons of names and spells play off them.

Another example is Philadelphia, known as the "City of Brotherly Love" thanks to its roots: PHILEO (LOVE) and DELPHOS (BROTHER).

I love the way it's put in an old Gene Wilder movie: "It's the city where all the brothers love each other."

FIN: Finally (oh how I crack myself up), FIN is a French ending meaning "the end," so if you ever watch an old French movie, that's what you'll see before the credits roll.

A student in my daughter's class asked about Finland, and if the ending was relevant there. My daughter, of course, sat up straight to hear the answer, because of our connection to Finland.

(The other student said that her grandmother was Finnish, which of course turned my daughter's head. "So is mine!" Also: turns out we know the other girl's family.)

Mr. W said that no, Finland was an anomaly.

I adore Mr. W and his teaching methods (seriously; I'm getting a child who thinks critically and analyzes things; it's awesome). But in this one case, he was wrong.

Years ago, I figured that the root FIN had to be connected to the name of the country, because the Finnish term for the country doesn't look a lick like what the rest of the world calls it.

Other country names do resemble their native versions. There's Sverige for Sweden and France for, well, France (even if we say it differently), Espana for Spain, and so forth.

The originals all have at least a vague resemblance, at least in pronunciation, to what we call them.

And then there's Finland: SUOMI

(Yeah, I know: Huh? Where'd we get "Finland" from?)

Thanks to the SOPA blackout online, I couldn't find the guy's name, but the story goes that an explorer went there and figured that it was so out in the middle of nowhere (maybe he was there in the dead of winter) that it had to be the

LAND (wait for it . . .)

at the END (FIN) of the world.

Tada! FIN-LAND!

This kind of thing brings me no end of joy. I'm such a nerd.

Titanic: Going There

This April marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic.

I'm quite sure this is why the 1997 movie is being re-released right now in 3D, and why I've seen Titanic-related books and such as well.

What I'm talking about today has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the film. I don't particularly love it or hate it. It is what it is. It had special effects that were ground-breaking. It struck an emotional nerve with millions and broke box-office records. No matter your feelings about it, that film is a piece of history.

I recall a huge fervor in my (then) neighborhood when the movie came out. In particular, I heard a lot of murmurs about how it had bad, bad content and shouldn't have gotten a PG-13 rating. People were divided into those who oh, so loved the movie and saw it fourteen times in the theater, and others who, I must admit, seemed a bit self-righteous about not seeing the "evil" film.

The bad, evil content included a predictable one: upper female frontal nudity. Yes, some said, it's technically in an artistic scene, but it's a straight-on shot of a woman's chest. (Insert horrified gasps.)

Other content that made it inappropriate for "good" people to view included lots of violence, graphic deaths and more.

I reserved judgment. Maybe it was totally inappropriate nudity. Maybe not. Sometimes films have violence I don't want to be exposed to, graphic deaths I don't want in my head. Maybe these people were over-reacting. Maybe not.

I'd decide for myself some day. But for the moment, the issue was moot, because I had a toddler and an infant, neither of whom I felt comfortable leaving with a sitter. Date night almost always meant take-out and a video in the basement, often with the kids at our feet. If I saw any new release that year, it would have been a Disney matinee.

Two issues surrounding the neighborhood discussion still linger in my mind:

1) The Evil Fiance

A neighbor said she saw the film and wasn't so much offended by the art scene (although she didn't approve of that, either), but she was offended instead by the fiance's behavior. I asked what he did.

Neighbor: He's mean, controlling, and violent.

Me: Oh, so he's the hero? His behavior is acceptable in the movie?

(That was the obvious explanation. If we're supposed to cheer for a jerk, I don't want to see it.)

Neighbor: Oh, no. He's the villain.

Me: O_o

I believed then, and I do now, that a story, whether in a film or a book, can teach better than almost any tool. Just because something is portrayed in a story doesn't mean the creator is saying it's acceptable; in many cases, the portrayal is the reverse: a condemnation of that very behavior.

In this movie, we see Cal being a jerk. He treats the woman he's supposed to cherish in a bad way and does a lot of other bad things. We know he's a bad guy.

Ergo, cruelty to women is bad.

If fiction showed only good things and good people and happy events, there would be no stories, no exploration of ideas or problem solving, no understanding compassion or people who aren't us.

I was quite sure I wouldn't have a problem with the villain's actions. He's the villain. He's supposed to be bad.

What about the other big thing?

The Nudity

This issue was put into perspective when my mother told me about a conversation she'd had with some women. They'd raved over movies like Dr. Zhivago and Bridges of Madison County, about how romantic they were.

My mother stayed quiet, being the only one there who didn't like either movie and couldn't see how glorifying adultery (the topic of both movies) was "romantic."

They moved on to discuss the buzz around, of course, Titanic.

Did they like it? Was it romantic?

They hated it. It was totally inappropriate and evil. Why? Because of the art scene with the woman's chest. But the scene in the sex scene in the car? Romantic, just like the other movies. These were middle-aged, Mormon women.

Mom: O_o

I don't know if she said anything in the moment, but she told me her thoughts about it, and I couldn't have agreed more:

Since when is the human body evil, but extra-marital sex is good?

Better mention that nudity thing to Michelangelo. Whoa, that evil Sistine Chapel . . .

This isn't to say that I necessarily think the art scene needed to be there or whatever, but I do think the scene became a scapegoat. Some people saw it and promptly stopped thinking for themselves. They weren't thinking about real values, about what's right or wrong. They were reacting, almost Puritanically (the body is evil!), about what made them uncomfortable.

One of the biggest ironies to me is that these women (the ones I talked to and the ones Mom talked to) were all Mormon. Yet our doctrine celebrates the body as something you must have to attain eternal glory. It's not something bad and dirty.

We believe in reserving sex for marriage.

Yet these women flip-flopped the two concepts completely.

Somehow old-fashioned beliefs creep in anyway and make people squeamish. I get that. I also get that I have less squeamishness thanks to the fact that I lived in Finland for three years, where the body is viewed very pragmatically. Also, Mom's a Finn, so before and after our Finland years, in our family, the body just wasn't a big deal. (We weren't walking around naked or anything, but if you asked about something, you'd get a direct answer, no blushing.)

My kids are older now. I have daughters. Teaching them these things is a challenge. I see how easy it is to try to teach something like honoring and respecting your body enough to dress modestly, and have the value eventually twisted into something that makes them ashamed of their bodies instead. It's something I don't have answers to, but I'm working on.

A final note:

If you plan to see Titanic in theaters with this new release, whether for the first time or again, I recommend not doing so when you're nervous.

We made that mistake by watching it on video two years after its release, when we had two toddlers and an infant, on New Year's Eve of 1999 . . . while bracing ourselves for Y2K.

Holiday Hop Winner

Random.org picked the winner for the Holiday Hop giveaway, and it's time to announce who that is.

As a reminder, the prize is all three of my e-novels:

Lost Without You

At the Water's Edge

The Golden Cup of Kardak

PLUS (assuming the winner has a device that supports a .mobi file) an e-copy of my grammar guide, There, Their, They're: A No-Tears Guide to Grammar from the Word Nerd. The e-version is more comprehensive and up-to-date than the print version, so booyah.

The winner is Ruth!

Congratulations to Ruth, and thanks to everyone who entered!

I'll be back to regular posting after the new year. Now, off for more pie . . .

Holiday Blog Hop Giveaway

Yippee for book giveaways, and an extra hooray for ones that coincide with Christmas!

I'm part of the Holiday Blog Hop, which runs from December 15 - December 25. Visit The Holiday Blog Hop to find the rest of the participating blogs (and so you can win more ebooks!).

Extra bonus: The winners from each participating blog will be put together, and one of them will be randomly chosen to win a Kindle Fire. (I recently got to see the Kindle my mother-in-law owns. Didn't get to use it, as my kids were all over it. It's very cool.)

SO: Enter any of the giveaways participating, including mine, and if you win, you'll have an extra shot at the grand prize.

Due to personal writing and editing deadlines (and thing like, oh, family and Christmas), this will be my last post until after the hop is over and I announce the winner.

My giveaway will be very simple:

The winner will receive a copy of all three of my e-novels:

Lost Without You

At the Water's Edge

The Golden Cup of Kardak

PLUS an e-copy of my grammar guide, There, Their, They're: A No-Tears Guide to Grammar from the Word Nerd. (The e-version is more comprehensive and up-to-date than the print version, so booyah.)

Note: The 3 novels are available in formats other than .mobi (Kindle), but to date, the grammar book is only in .mobi. Apologies if the winner doesn't use Kindle; they'll miss out on that book.

As I did during my last giveaway, I'm not going to make people jump through lots of hoops. I like doing giveaways to thank my followers.

So that's all you need to do:

1) Be a follower (either on my blog through Google Friend Connect) or on Twitter.

THEN

2) Leave a comment on this post telling me that you're a follower (and which way).

That's it!

The fine print:

Entrants must be 18 years old, and I must be able to contact the winner, either via an email address left in a comment, or via a Blogger profile link. If the winner does not contact me to claim their prize within 48 hours, it's forfeit.

Merry Christmas, and happy reading!

Media and Young Women

Writer and bloggy friend Melanie Jacobson (hey, I spelled her name right!) recently linked to a page relating to a study at Dartmouth that I found both fascinating and disturbing.

The page had rows of photographs that had been touched up digitally. Above each row is a toggle button allowing the viewer to click between the original photo and the after, touched-up version.

I had several reactions. First, it's amazing what technology can do today.

Second, even though I already knew that photos we see of celebrities are enhanced, this was the first time I saw to what extent that's true. And, um, turns out that the stars don't look like themselves.

Third, the longer I clicked back and forth, the more uneasy I became. This is largely thanks to the fact that I have three daughters, and two of them are out of grade school and quickly turning into young women. The images of beauty and body images they see around them every day, everywhere, must have an impact on them.

The potential effects are frightening. Even if they don't end up with something as serious as anorexia or bulimia, it's hard to escape the pressure to meet society's vision of beauty: the hair, the makeup, the clothes, the body.

Recently our stake held a standards night where a BYU professor (apologies for not remembering her name; she was amazing) spoke about this very thing. She started out showing pictures of what's considered beautiful in other countries: neck stretching with rings, the old practice of foot binding in China, and so on.

Then she showed so-called "beautiful" women today, and charts showing that beauty pageant winners, over time, have ended up with lower and lower BMIs, to the point that they're now in the very unhealthy, almost starvation-level ranges.

Her point, which she made so well: Is our vision of beauty any less unhealthy than neck-stretching rings or foot binding? No. We see models with their collar bones sticking out, their ribs showing, so thin they're unhealthy. And our girls feel pressure to emulate that image.

While looking at the pictures at the link Melanie gave me, one thing made me particularly sad: several pictures were beautiful just the way they were. I'm not talking about getting rid of George Clooney's gray hair. Or giving a man teeth. I'm talking about "fixing" a sweet little boy's face so his skin had a perfectly even tone and no shine. Of "fixing" a male model who would probably make teen girls swoon . . . but whose mouth was slightly crooked, so he wasn't "perfect." Or of (seriously!) raising Angelina Jolie's left eye.

I quickly called my daughters in to look at the photos, hoping that they'd realize just how unreal they are. That they'd know how, when they see their favorite singers or actors in a photo, it's all pretend. No one really looks like that. And that's okay.

We also looked at the famous Dove commercial that shows digital retouching in action. I hope the message sank in.

The whole thing reminded me of the trip my husband and I took to Finland a few years back. The magazines at grocery store checkout lines looked different than what I was used to.

My initial reaction was that, man, those are really unprofessional photographs. But on second look, it dawned on me that no, the photos were professional.

They just weren't touched up.

One woman didn't have porcelain-smooth skin. Maybe a man had a shiny spot on his forehead. Or another model had crow's feet. They were real.

Every time I entered a grocery store after that, I eagerly looked at the photos and found them refreshing. Yes, the images were probably somewhat out there: makeup artists, fashion designers, lighting, and probably even blowing fans were still part of the photo shoots. But the people in the pictures were allowed to look like real human beings, blemishes and all.

I have a theory, although I have nothing to back it up: I wonder if the young women (or all women, for that matter) in Finland have slightly better self-images than those in the States. (That is, unless they're bombarded by US images, which is likely.)

If you're interested in looking at the pictures, here's where you can toggle between the before and after pictures on the Dartmouth site. As I said, it's fascinating and disturbing all at once. And if you're a parent, it's a great conversation starter.

Edited to add: Thanks to the comment from An Ordinary Mom, here's another video about this topic that's well worth your time to watch.

Music for Christmas

The other day, a dear friend of mine, Michelle, who is one of the powerhouses behind Mormon Woman, pointed me toward a beautiful song for Christmas.

It's called "Do You Have Room," by Shawna Edwards. As soon as I listened to it, I wanted my son to play it at church, accompanying someone singing it who sings far better than I do. (Twenty years ago, I had a voice. We'll not discuss my current vocal abilities.)

Watch the video for it below, and if you enjoy it, here's the great news: You can get a free MP3 of the song or the sheet music! Doing so is way easy:

Go to the composer's website and share a special Christmas memory or tell how you will make room for Christ in your life this Christmas. Easy peasy. (Link below.)

Here's the song:

For more information, visit (and LIKE!) the Shawna Edwards Facebook page.

To leave your Christmas memory or tell how you'll be Christ into Christmas, here's the Shawna Edwards website.

It's beautiful. I think I'll go play it again.

]

VARIANT Giveaway Winner!

Thanks to everyone who participated in the Gratitude Giveaway Hop.

I had a tremendous response, and I'm grateful for each and every new (and old!) follower.

The winner of VARIANT, by Robison Wells, is Kristi from Books and Needlepoint!

Congratulations!

WNW: Turkey!

In honor of Thanksgiving, today's Word Nerd Wednesday is all about a favorite staple the holiday: turkey.

Until I did a bit of digging with my trusty OED, I didn't realize just how many definitions turkey has.

For fun, a sampling of 10 of the many definitions and phrases associated with the word:

1) Guinea-fowl

According to a quotation into OED dating from 1552 to 1601, it's a bird originally brought from Numidia (a former kingdom in northern Africa) to the country today known as, of course, Turkey.

2) Bird of which all the species are American, one type originally domesticated in Mexico.

The definition goes on about predominantly where in Northern America, but as long as they're also available in the freezer section of my local grocery store, I don't know that I care that many of them are from Missouri.

3) The wild version of the domestic fowl above.

Again, found in North America.

4) The flesh of the bird mentioned above.

Now we're talking Thanksgiving. Pass the cranberry sauce!

5) To "talk turkey"

Speaking frankly or without reserve. Getting to the hard facts.

6) To "walk turkey"

To strut or swagger. This one was new to me.

7) Cold turkey

Quitting a drug or other addictive substance all at once. Not something I plan to do with chocolate any time soon.

8) A cinematic flop

US slang that hails back to the early days of film, first showing up in print in 1927. This term also referred to disappointing theater or any other thing that was a let-down.

9) A slow, stupid, or inept person.

This is a newer use, going back only to 1951. I think in modern usage, it's morphed into meaning less a stupid or inept person and more of a silly or goofy one.

10) Turkey tomb

A rather gruesome yet humorous way to refer to a turkey pie.

(I'll take my pie with pumpkin and whipped cream, thanks.)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Chocolate Never Faileth: Corrections and Bloopers

The first typo I became aware of in Chocolate Never Faileth was brought to my attention by my friend TJ, who came to a signing for the book with his wife and kids. He told me about the typo. I didn't believe him. Or, rather, I desperately hoped he was wrong.

The book had been all I worked on for almost a year, shoving my fiction (and creative writing self) aside. At least three people proofed the thing, including me.

On the other hand, I'd already published seven novels. I should have known that mistakes and typos can (and often do) slip through, no matter how carefully the writer and the publishing team work on a book.

As I became aware of a few more errors in the cookbook, I put corrections on my website. Even so, I still get regular questions about the same issues over and over again. I assume that means they aren't finding the list of corrections on my site, so maybe a blog post will help.

They're on THIS PAGE. If I find more things to fix (knock on wood!), that's where I'll put them. Future printings should have these things fixed.

In the meantime, these errors leave us all scratching our heads, wondering how they slipped through and who added them in the first place!

3-MINUTE MICROWAVE CAKE, PAGE 35

A mystery individual added a new first sentence to the instructions. Just ignore "preheat oven to 350." (This is, after all, a MICROWAVE cake.) This is the error TJ told me about. I'm convinced that this sentence didn't exist in the galley proof I saw, and it certainly wan't in my original manuscript. I'm guessing that someone along the pipeline, right before sending the book to press, saw a cake recipe without an oven temperature and added it. We'll never know what happened. Just take a black Sharpie over that bit.

BROWNIE COOKIE BITES, PAGE 55

Here's a situation where my test kitchen notes match the printed book, but the recipe doesn't seem right. The utterly weird thing is that the cookies worked beautifully, multiple times at home (evidence includes the fact that the picture of the cookies on page 54 are from my oven). But as written, they don't work so great. I'm as puzzled as anyone here. Fat is missing, so add some, around 1/3 to 1/2 cup. I'd go with butter, but oil works too.

HEAVENLY CHOCOLATE BARS, PAGE 70

Somehow adding flour got inserted into the instructions for the topping. I get people absolutely panicking about what to do because no flour is listed in the ingredients.

No flour is correct; ignore that word.

MOM'S HONEY CHOCOLATE-MOUSSE ICING, PAGE 176

This typo is in the anecdote above the recipe, which reads "Read Food Chocolate Cake." That should, of course, be Real Food.

CHOCOLATE PAVLOVA, PAGE 193

The anecdote in the original printing states that the countries who claim this dessert as their own are New Zealand and Austria. That should be Australia. (Yes, I know the difference between the two!)

To date, these are the only issues that I'm aware of. The Brownie Cookie Bites and Heavenly Chocolate Bars are the two issues that people contact me about most.

Hope this helps if you use the book for holiday treat making!

Gratitude Giveaway Hop

Yay! From today, November 17, through Sunday, November 27th, I'm part of the Gratitude Giveaway Hop!

It's a chance for me to say thank you to those who follow my online doings. As such, this giveaway doesn't have a bunch of hoops to jump through. No tweeting, FB-ing, blogging, or anything else. And no one gets more than one entry.

Why? To say THANKS to my followers!

Somewhere around a gazillion other blogs are participating, so you can enter to win stuff on all of them, too. To find the other blogs participating, visit I Am a Reader, Not a Writer, where you'll find a Linky with the full list.

Here's what I'm giving away:

Variant, by Robison Wells

It's garnered a ton of praise. It was listed as one of the best books on the Publisher's Weekly list for 2011 and got starred review in Kirkus. (Stars there are a very big deal.)

This book is a great read for anyone 12 years old, up to 110 or so. Boys will love it (my 16-year-old son couldn't up it down), but I loved it too, and I know lots of grown-ups, both male and female, who rave over it.

It's a GREAT Christmas gift for any reader in your life (even if you don't win!)

SO, TO ENTER:

Are you already following me? Great! Say so in the comments, and BAM! you're entered.

If you're not already following me, do ONE of these:

• Follow my blog using the Followers doohickey widget at the top of the side bar
  OR
  
• Follow me on Twitter (@AnnetteLyon)

Leave a comment saying which way you're following.

(No, you don't get additional entries for following both the blog and my Twitter feed, but if you do, you'll get good karma points. :D)

If you're already following (THANK YOU! You're awesome!). Just drop a comment saying you're already a follower via the blog or Twitter, and you're entered.

The Gratitude Giveaway Hop runs from November 17-27. I'll post the winner on Monday, November 28th.

During this month of Thanksgiving, this is my chance to express gratitude to the people who support me online. Thank you for reading, for commenting, for supporting me all the years I've been prattling online. My blog would be pointless without my readers, and I'm grateful for each one.

The fine print:

1) Be sure that I have a way for me to contact you if you win. To do so, either leave an email address in your comment or be sure your Blogger profile has your email embedded.

2) If I can't contact the first name drawn, I'll draw a second name.

3) If the winner I announce on November 28th doesn't claim their prize after 48 hours, it's forfeit.

Happy blog hopping!

The Choice to Write & Publish

Today I'm on my soap box about a truth and what it means to me. It has a few parts.

Part I: The writing and publishing life isn't easy.

Not everyone will tell you that, and not everyone who is told so believes it, but it's true. And the reality is that if you're going to walk the path seriously, you'll have to sacrifice something.

Some of what I've sacrificed: several hobbies and pretty much all television, with the exception of the news and the occasional Dr. Phil episode, prerecorded on the TiVo, watched while I fold laundry and do dishes. I've also sacrificed having a Martha Stewart house (if you can call that a sacrifice; I'm teaching my kids to do more, which prepares them for adulthood anyway).

What I haven't sacrificed is my family.

The truth is that a lot of people love the idea of writing and getting published, but don't like the reality of what that means. When push comes to shove, they don't have the drive to do what's needed before and after publication: work your tail off learning more, getting honest (sometimes harsh) feedback, attending conferences, networking, building a platform, promoting, and so much more.

Part II: If you don't want to do all those things . . . that's perfectly fine.

The published writer's life is not for everyone.

But please, if you decide it's not for you, don't pretend you aren't writing because of some noble reason like you're waiting to have the time because family comes first, that you'll write when your children grow up because they need you now, or some such. I hear those things a lot, sometimes to my face, and it's awfully close to saying I'm a bad mom.

My kids, I believe, would say I'm a great mom. (I totally am, so there.) On top of that, I've had plenty of experiences, including many spiritual ones, confirming that I'm supposed to be doing this.

Billions of people on this world means billions of paths. There's a good chance that your path isn't mine. And if your path doesn't include writing for publication, that's just fine.

I have a difficult time with people who put on a martyr act, as if they're somehow better, more righteous, more holy, for "giving up" writing, when the truth is, they never had writing to begin with, so they're really giving up nothing.

They never faced the terrifying fears of the blank screen, of rejection after rejection, of criticism, of deadlines, and so much more. They're never gone into and through the dark tunnels, coming out the other side. No, it's much easier to simply say, "Oh, I'd love to do all that, but my family comes first."

Guess what? My family comes first. But I still write. I still publish.

Part III: The writing life and the publishing life aren't necessarily the same thing.

I believe that writing without publishing (blogging, personal histories, journaling, poetry, short stories, essays, perhaps for yourself and your loved ones) is great. They have their place and can be fulfilling.

If the writing life (but not the publishing life) is where you are, where you feel happy, and where you're meant to be, embrace it. Don't pretend you're giving up something that, if you're being honest with yourself, you never really wanted in your heart of hearts.

Part IV: I couldn't have been as active on this path when my children were tiny.

Life has its times and seasons. No way could I have done some of what I do today when I had a nursing baby, for example. My kids are all in school during the day, and they no longer depend on me for the basics. They're all potty trained, can get dressed, make their beds, take showers, get themselves breakfast and lunch, and so on. There was a time when they couldn't do those things, and the job fell on my shoulders.

On the other hand, I still wrote when they were little, but the extent and purpose were somewhat different. (For starters, the biggest purpose for my writing was to keep me sane, although I still sought publication and had my first article published when my second child was a year or two old. She's in ninth grade now.)

Also: blogging didn't exist back then.

But being a novelist was always my end-goal. Not just one novel. A career as a novelist. Some days, the mountain feels as tall as it ever did. Every step I take presents a new one, a new challenge or goal. To use another metaphor, each lap I finish presents a new one; the race never ends.

Part V: Everyone has God-given talents, passions, and missions.

I believe that motherhood is one of mine. And that so is writing. But it's not everyone's.

If you decide that this particular path isn't for you, I'm sure you'll find another one, something that's what you are supposed to be doing. Hundreds of things could be your path, your mountain.

For some reason, writing seems to be a popular passion for people to lay claim to, then place on the altar, give it up, then sigh nobly and walk away from it.

The truth is that writing and publishing require all kinds of sacrifices, including things like ego, to keep going. Remember how I said it's hard? In some ways, walking away from it would be the easy way out. (I can't count the times I've said or heard writer friends say something along the lines of, "Why do I do this? Seriously, am I crazy?")

So I get a bit uppity when I hear people (especially mothers) claim that their children and their calling as a mother are why they never wrote. I don't buy that reason. (Or, rather, that excuse.)

I'm betting that most of those same people are probably investing time, money, and energy into something else (running marathons, quilting, photography, gardening, jewelry making, greeting card design, an Etsy shop, PTA, community theater, whatever). You could be putting the same time, energy, and money into writing, but choose to spend it elsewhere. Please don't pretend that your children are why you don't do it.

The truth is that to write, you'd have to give up your other passion. Is that a choice you're willing to (or are supposed to) make? No one can make that call but you.

All of those things can be worthwhile endeavors. They all require time, energy, and, often, money. Yet whatever is your priority you find time for. (This list his skewed toward women, but I could come up with another list for men that's just as valid.)

I used to be an avid scrapbooker. You can tell pretty easily by looking at my scrapbooks when I signed my first contract.

A friend of mine was a fantastic seamstress. She let her sewing machine get dusty and instead and picked up her laptop. Yet she's a fantastic mom, often skipping critique group and writing events to be at her kids' games (they're freakishly talented in many sports, and therefore have seasons that overlap and last just short of eternity). Beyond attending games, I see her always putting her role as mother first. Yet she still finds a way to write. In fact, I hope to be as prolific as she is some day. She's multi-published and multi-award winning.

I could go on and on with other examples: friends who write in spite of chronic illness, family crises, full-time jobs, and a thousand other potential roadblocks. (Note I said potential.)

Part VI: If you're meant to be a writer but are making excuses, stop it and get writing already.

But if you prefer the dream, the idea of writing and publishing, far more than the rigors of the reality, something else is probably more up your alley: maybe it's some other form of writing, like those mentioned earlier. Or it could be something else entirely. Everyone has a passion, a talent, a mission. Find yours.

I once heard a novelist speak to a church group and answer the question, "How do you find time to write?" This guy has since quit his day job and is a very successful, full-time writer who supports his family with his fiction, but back then he still had a regular, 40-hour a week career that paid the bills.

He asked the audience how many people had watched 30 minutes of television the day before. Most hands went up. He asked how many had watched one hour. A few hands went down, but most stayed up. Two hours? Fewer hands stayed up, but quite a few remained. Three? Still a good number of hands in the air.

Then his point: "Instead of watching any TV last night, I wrote."

Zing.

At the writing retreat I recently went to, we had 20-minute sprints, contests where we wrote hard and fast to see how many words we could get in. My record was over 1300 words. That's about 6 pages, double spaced, in 20 minutes. Do that several days a week, and you've got a book in a few months.

Yes, my sprint pages need revision, but the point is, you don't need 8-hour blocks to write a novel. If you want it, grab it and find a way to do it. If you think you want it, but you don't really, figure out what you're here to do and do that.

But no more excuses, please.

WNW: Providing Education and a Future

Today's Word Nerd Wednesday is taking a somewhat more serious turn.

I have fun here on WNW, where we often discuss goofy language stuff or pet grammar peeves. But if you've followed me for very long, you know that my interest in language and words goes way beyond grammar.

I'm huge on bringing both adults and children into the 21st century through literacy and education. We're in place now where getting an education and knowing how to communicate (both read and write) are crucial to success.

Statistic after statistic shows that poverty is directly connected to education and literacy levels . . . especially the mother's. Increase the mom's education, and suddenly her children have a better shot at a happy, successful life.

That's why I'm joining bloggers during November to help raise funds for an LDS Philanthropies scholarship that helps single parents get degrees so they and their children can improve their lives.

From LDS Philantrophies (bolded section my emphasis):

During the month of November bloggers are uniting to help single parents like Megan. We can help bring hope with our goal to raise money for as many single parents’ scholarships as we can. At LDS Business College, each semester costs $1,800 or $3,600 a year, or $7,200 for a full two-year degree. There are 45 single parents currently in need. We can make a difference! Please choose to give and spread the word.

Why single parents?

• 28% of children now live with just one parent.

• 40% of children under 18 experience a parental breakup.

• 90% of single-parent families are headed by females.

• Single moms with children have the highest poverty rates.

• 60% of children living in mother-only families are impoverished.

• Single moms are more likely to be poor because of lower earning capacity.

• Single moms median income is only about 25% what a married couple make.

In recent years, LDSBC has placed 90% of its graduates.

***

Me again. To hear Megan's story, click the speaker icon at the top of the widget in the side bar. For more information on participating in the scholarship program or on raising awareness(including getting the widget for your blog), visit LDS Philanthropies.

Even five dollars can help. (Just think: if all the bloggers who post about the scholarship, and all their readers, each gave $5, that would add up to a lot!)

Use the widget in the left column of my sidebar, and please spread the word!

WNW: Changing Names Doesn't Change Attitude

I've talked many times about how English (and all languages) evolve. Today's Word Nerd Wednesday is taking a slightly different angle.

Many people believe that language is power, that by changing how we refer to something, we'll change attitudes. That's just not true at all.

An easy example is the word toilet.

The word used to mean the place where a person (usually a woman) would primp: do her hair, spritz perfume, add her jewelry.

But when we got indoor plumbing, people wanted to refer to our, well, business in a manner what would sound nice. So they called the place where we do something entirely different than primp by the same name, the toilet.

Instead of thinking about bodily functions in a pretty, primping sort of way, the new word, toilet, took on the connotations of what we do there. (In other words, it adopted the ick factor.)

Dang. Toilet didn't work. We needed a new term. How about bathroom?

Well, sure, we bathe there, too, but we all know what it really means. That term took on the connotation toilet already had.

Trying again. What about restroom?

Okay, first off, no one rests there, and we all know it. The term is a somewhat a more formal version of bathroom, but it certainly has the same general connotations as toilet. Same with water closet, powder room, and any other term you come up with.

You can change the term all you want, but until we as human beings stop thinking of that particular behavior as anything but a bit gross, any name we give it will take on that same meaning.

A similar thing happened with language during the Civil Rights era. Black had a negative connotation, probably thanks to the bigotry of the day. So activists started using the word colored.

The problem: a change in term didn't change anyone's existing prejudice.

Later we went on to African-American, back to black, possibly back to colored at some point, and today I'm not sure what the politically correct term is.

But the point: anyone who was already prejudiced didn't change their mind based on whatever black people were called. Bigots needed to learn about black people and clue in from experience and education that they're deserving of respect just like anyone else. That doesn't happen from a change in name.

I've watched the same thing happen with handicapped people. Activists seem to hate the term handicapped, or at least the baggage associated with it.

Their predictable response: Let's change the term and thereby change people's attitudes!

You can already predict what's happened, right? We've ended up with things like differently abled and handi-capable. But have any of us changed our attitudes based solely on those terms? I doubt it. If we've changed, it's because of other types of social education, like being exposed to people who use wheelchairs and learning that they're people with hopes, dreams, and feelings (and intelligence!) just like the rest of us.

Chances are, the name didn't do a dang thing. Worse, the new terms are taking on the baggage that handicapped always brought with it.

I believe that the way to create social change is not to change a name or a term. All that does is carry people's baggage from the old term to the new one.

Instead, progress can be made far more quickly by focusing efforts on education and exposure, and possibly even by embracing the name. An example from the past is the way Mormons embraced that nickname, which started out as derogatory. They called themselves Mormons and showed people what that meant . . . through educating them.

Fighting a name is a waste of everyone's energy.