Chock it up to Bad Writers and Worse Editors

I am working on my novel and have gotten stuck at 10,000 words. Matters of plot have always perplexed me, but they are much more troublesome in this lengthy work. Saturday, I indulged myself by buying, at a real book store, The Plot Thickens: 8 Ways to Bring Fiction to Life, by Noah Lukeman, a New York Literary Agent.

By page xvi (the book begins halfway down xv), I was ready to return it. Lukeman writes, "...on the contrary, the best stories are organic to their characters, to their layers of suspense and conflict. Contrary to what many popular books would like you to believe, there is no formula to assure a great or "classic" plot. There are no steps, paths, no things you must do, and no things you cannot do. This is not a book of rules and mandates. I would be wary of any such book. On the contrary, this book grapples, philosophically and practically, with age-old principles of story. If you glance at the table of contents, you will not find catchy, gimmicky topics; on the contrary, it deliberately covers familiar ground--characterization, suspense, conflict...."

I had to read the top of that page three times. I was certain I had read some sentences twice. Could an editor really miss that repetition? (Fumblerule: "If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repeition can be avoided by rereading and editing.")

Then, just three short paragraphs later, Lukeman writes, "As such, they are comprised of roughly 90 percent questions and 10 percent discussions." Comprised of? Are you kidding me? (This book had not one but two copy editors. You're fired!)

I considered returning the book to Barnes & Noble (not Barnes & Nobles, please note), but I worried that maybe I'd be spiting myself out of learning important things from the author. Besides, I accidentally splashed some tub water on it.

Unfortunately, illiteracy is making its rounds in writing publications. I was marveling at how wonderfully chock full (several Baltimore Sun writers have thought the phrase was chalk full!) of meaty tidbits was the latest issue of The Writer. Then I got to Kelly James-Enger's piece, "Break out of your box," a Bottom Line column. In it, she writes, "That forced her to consider her experience and expertise, and hone in on where she wants to go long term." Hone in on?

Today's writers are bad enough, but if today's editors are too benighted to do their jobs, we will be knee deep in the plural apostrophe by 2010--that is if we are still using apostrophes.