Let me know what you think; drop a line to ImYourEditor@hotmail.com

Now let’s see how this goes . . .

The quote comes from Tara Brabazon, a professor of eighteen years at the University of Brighton. While not slamming Google or Wikipedia, she does draw attention to a trend of individuals taking everything they read at face value, without questioning or performing additional research to justify accuracy or authenticity. She also addresses the additional concern that easy access to information has dulled our senses of curiosity; but that’s another story for another day.

So, how does this trend relate to the primary season? Well, just in the past few days, I’ve received forwarded e-mails and spam that are total fabrications and intentional lies that question the background and integrity of specific candidates—and the messages are perfect examples of the problems with poor research. Their content is created and circulated to mislead readers and fuel the rumor mills that surround candidates. One of the e-mails went so far as to cite Snopes.com (an urban legends and rumor mill investigation Web site) in support of its claim; however, if a reader had taken the time to check even that one reference, he or she would have discovered that Snopes says the exact opposite. Further investigation would have revealed the true facts at other Web sites. But, why bother to do that extra work? The information is on the Internet, so it must be true, right? In that case, let’s forward it to another round of readers!

Moving on, then, how does the trend relate to the business of editing? Well, because authors are growing increasingly lethargic in checking their facts, as evidenced above. Granted, it is the job of an editor to fact-check and verify information; but if a story line is rooted in bad research, I can’t do much to help. It’s back to the drawing board for you.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I am a staunch supporter of Wikipedia. And, I probably use DogPile and the Internet to research more than the average person. But, over the years, I’ve grown accustomed to questioning practically any source of information. Even in the print world, an author has the right to insert his or her own interpretation of the facts, and any process allows the possibility of a mistake being introduced—so any information has the potential to be "tainted" or wrong and should be verified in additional sources. (Yes, even Britannica online or the Oxford resources!)

Which brings us back to Professor Brabazon’s suggestion that no source or resource should be taken at face value. The lesson is to reference Wikipedia and google (or Dogpile) Web sites to your heart’s content; but, verify the facts and make sure you’ve done your homework before you cite anything as gospel truth.

Thank you; the soapbox is closed for the day!

First of all, the design and SEO company that I hired shortly after New Years Day finished with the third-generation of my primary Web site, www.the-freelance-editor.com. They are still working on the revised search engine optimization part of the site, but I took several days in May and June to replace the older headers and tags that the designers removed. The old ones had been doing a pretty good job, anyway, and they matched the existing text (the revisions will likely require some rewriting of text on the site—a project I don’t have time for in the foreseeable future). Please take a few minutes to visit and let me know how you like the new look.

While working on that site in May and June, I was offered a banner advertisement on the American Association of Museums (AAM) Web site. The offer was too good to refuse, so I worked for another several days rebuilding the old museum division site so the ad would have something attractive to link to. If you want to view the ad, visit the AAM site and click on "Museum Marketplace" then do a search (the bargain rate was for the third tier down), say for "editorial services," and then refresh the site until my ad comes up. When you click on the ad, you should link to www.anEditorForMuseums.com. I’m rather fond of the result—both the ad and the Web site!

Also in June, I began serving as group leader for the local Orlando Area Writers Group of the Florida Writers Association. That transition involved setting up a new e-mailing system with a WordPress blog and FeedBlitz, as well as the need for me to meet local writers and prospects for speakers. You may not think that sounds like too much work, but most of my clients and contacts are scattered elsewhere in the United States and around the globe! I haven’t ever concentrated on soliciting local jobs.

In early July, I was notified that the pictorial history of Orlando (for which I signed on as ghostwriter but ended up as author and local project manager) had finally been published. Orlando Then and Now was released by Thunder Bay Books at the end of July, resulting in a few book signing sessions and several e-mails from current and former residents—pretty good publicity. (Though I don’t get any royalties, so don’t rush out to buy it!)

Finally, for much of July and August, I’ve been working on opening a new division of the-freelance-editor as well as an entirely new company—which I’m not at liberty to announce yet.

So, you see, I haven’t just disappeared, even if this blog site did a convincing job of relaying that message. All I can say is that I’ll try to do better . . . at least by September.

The Carnegie Medal, which is celebrating its seventieth anniversary this year, is awarded to recognize the UK’s best writing for children and young adult readers. While the award provides no cash prize, the Carnegie Award is the most sought-after honor for authors published in the UK. Titles are nominated at large by professional librarians throughout the UK; the finalist is then determined by a panel of librarians from both public and school libraries. This year’s short list consists of six titles:

• The Road of the Dead by Kevin Brooks
• A Swift Pure Cry by Siobhan Dowd
• The Road of Bones by Anne Fine
• Beast by Ally Kennen
• Just In Case by Meg Rosoff
• My Swordhand is Singing by Marcus Sedgwick

The Kate Greenaway Medal is also celebrating a milestone this year: its fiftieth anniversary. The Kate Greenaway Medal is awarded for "outstanding illustration in a children’s book." Winners also receive a cash prize presented as the Colin Mears Award. This year’s short list also contains six titles:

• The Elephantom by Ross Collins
• Orange Pear Apple Bear by Emily Gravett
• The Adventures of the Dish and the Spoon by Mini Grey
• Scoop! An Exclusive by Monty Molenski by John Kelly and Cathy Tincknell
• Augustus and His Smile by Catherine Rayner
• The Emperor of Absurdia by Chris Riddell

In honor of the two anniversaries this year, two special contests are being held: one to choose the "Carnegie of Carnegies" and another to select the "Greenaway of Greenaways." In each case, ten titles have been chosen from among all previous winners—the so-called best UK books of modern times! The public is encouraged to reread their favorites and vote from those lists by noon on June 14. Results will be announced the next week at the main ceremonies.

I’ve always liked silver better, anyway . . .

Well . . . no, I answered, stalling to collect some thoughts. What about words that are published online, I asked, words that are posted on the Internet, which we see on a monitor?

I had stalled as long as I could, and he didn’t see that point, anyway. So I started from a different angle. I pointed out that the original “photocopiers” were highly skilled calligraphers who, basically, put words on paper. They would have been writers, according to the youngster’s definition. But, I continued, many of them could not read what they were writing—they were artists, trained to copy what they saw. Should we really call them writers?

His puzzled look encouraged me to continue. Writing is learned; it is not a skill we are born with, I said. We struggle to learn . . . to form letters . . . to combine those letters into words . . . to make those words into sentences—sentences that convey a message. I wrote these words on the board: writing learned not skill born with. Is that writing? I asked.

The puzzled look was now joined by a wrinkled brow and a confused stare. I confessed that I did consider the words to be writing because the words did convey a message, they did have meaning—I could deduce what the writer was trying to say.

A thought leaked from the silent student: “But, it doesn’t make sense!”

True, I admitted—it is not good writing. In that case, I directed his original question back to him: What is writing?

“Words that we can see that make sense,” was the answer I got. I agreed, then repeated his thought with embellishment and emphasis: So, I would say that writing is publishing meaningful words in a meaningful way.

Which leads into what we are going to be studying, I began to conclude. Good, meaningful writing, by my definition, requires learning the elements of basic writing, which I spoke of earlier, plus grammar plus structure (or rhetoric) plus style. Fortunately for both of us, those were studies for another day . . .