Writing 101: Then and Than

It's just one little letter, but it gets confused all the time. Change the a in than, and you've created then -- and then, you've got grammar problems. Knowing the difference between then and than is essential to good writing, because the two are as different as night and day. The trouble is, you can't change day to night with a single letter...but a wrong then can totally destroy all your good writing work.

Then

Most of the time, then is an adverb or a noun. It means at that time or even next, which are two pretty unrelated sentiments. This is why the word is confusing. I might say Well, that was back then and clearly I'm referring to some past time, and things have now changed. But it's also correct if I say We dated for awhile, then I learned he was a jerk, which would still have the same meaning if I type next instead of then -- in this case, it's used to refer to the future past (truly the worst tense in the whole of the written word).

But sometimes, then is an adjective, a descriptive word. When used in this fashion, then means being or existing. Written as an adjective, then is commonly paired with a dash. Here's an example: He started a business back in the 90s. Bill Clinton, the then-president, had what he considered a favorable tax policy. See what I mean? I'm using then to describe something about Clinton, so it's an adjective. Another example: Davy, her then-boyfriend, glared angrily at Steve, a known flirt.

Then is also used idiomatically. You can use it to mean on the other hand. Example: Then again, I'd just as soon have pizza for dinner instead of tacos. When used with the word there, it's a common expression: She pulled out a spoon, ready to start tasting her choices then and there. It just means right in that moment. 

When then first appeared around 900 AD, it was spelled thanne. Maybe that's where all this then/than confusion comes from in the first place.

Than

Than, on the other hand, is a conjunction. This just means it's a linking word, and most commonly used to link adjectives and adverbs to each other. Than means otherwise; it's used to introduce an alternative. I'd rather have pizza than tacos. This one is prettier than the other one. I like that carpeting better than Jody's.

Like then, than first appeared in the English language around 900 AD as a variant of then...but today, the two are distinctly separate.

Telling Them Apart

Until the 18th century, then and than were actually interchangeable. That's no longer the case. If you put a then where a than ought to be, you're going to confuse readers and look like you don't know what you're doing. How are you supposed to tell them apart? There are a few ways to go about it.

Remember that then essentially means next. If I want to write about grammar, then I better research it first! You're describing something that happens next. Then is conditional; it can't really stand alone. If I type Then I'm going to walk without a proper frame of reference, you have no idea what's going on. Then needs something else to happen first, then it can introduce option 2 or the next event.

Than, on the other hand, appears only when something is being compared to something else. I liked this movie better than Avatar. Two things are being mentioned and contrasted or compared, that's the function of than.

The two words are spelled almost exactly alike, and when spoken aloud they sound quite similar. Once, they were essentially the same word. It's very, very easy to confuse then and than. The easiest way to double-check yourself is to use a synonym. Then is a synonym for therefore. Replace all your thens with therefores. If sentences stop making sense, see if they look any better with the word than instead.

Writing 101: Is Gotten Good Grammar?

The word gotten just sounds wrong to me sometimes, yet it always comes out of me naturally. I noticed it earlier when I was writing an email to someone; I typed out that I had gotten something, then quickly backspaced and put in the more majestic received instead. Then I realized, I don't actually know if gotten is good grammar or not. It sounds like slang and somehow seems wrong when I see it on my screen, but it still has its place in the English language. In fact, I've quite recently learned all about it. 

Have Got

Gotten is a past tense form of the verb to get. Get just means have, hold, receive. It can also be used to mean to experience ("I got sick"). The past tense form of get is got; the past participle of got is gotten. A past participle is a word that's used with had, have or has. 

Therefore, it's perfectly acceptable to use gotten if it's being used with its companion word. I have gotten sick before. ...Unless, of course, you're in Britain. 

They stopped using gotten when Queen Victoria was still ruling England, and that was a long time ago (pre-Civil War). But people in the States never did stop using it, so it's still proper English if you're on that side of the world.

That said, I still don't like the word. Gotten can just about always be replaced with prettier words like obtained or acquired, which look much lovelier on the page. In dialogue, however, gotten may sound more natural to your inner reading voice. If gotten seems to make the text flow just the right way, type it on in there -- because yes, it's proper English and when used the right way it's perfectly good grammar.

Get Shocked by Justice

"There are so many twist and turns that you really can’t be sure what will happen next." 

"A page turner and keeps you guessing all the way through to the very end."

A very lively review of Justice (Deck of Lies, #1) was posted at Book Pusher recently, and I want you to read it! Make sure you check out the 3 Reasons to Read while you're there.

Writing 101: Irregular Verbs

Most of the rules of English are pretty clear. When you want to make something plural, you add s or es. When you want to put something in the past, you add an ed. But when you want to write perfectly, you'll take time out to pay attention to your irregular verbs. These words defy all logic, and they know no rules...so you pretty much have to know exactly what to do for each one of them.

Irregular Writing and Reading

Irregular verbs are a big problem. Normal verbs are pretty easy to deal with in fiction writing -- instead of typing that Shelley walks away, you type Shelley walked away to transform your book into past tense. But some verbs refuse to play by the rules. Shelley can't awake in the past; she awoke instead. Many irregular verbs operate like whole new words; writers have to change a letter within the word instead of adding a suffix. Begin and begun, blow and blew, and forget and forgot are all examples of this type of irregular verb.

Makes things confusing, right? Lots of irregular verbs are confusing. Some even have an -en ending instead of the traditional -ed. If you beat eggs yesterday to make a cake, they were beaten. And other irregular verbs want to have their own special letter for reasons undetermined. If something caught on fire last week and was subsequently reduced to ash, it was burnt. Other irregular verbs actually need a letter taken away to be put into the past tense. You can lead a horse to water, but if you did last June then the horse was led to the watering hole.

But the worst irregular verbs, by far, are the ones that don't change at all. Everyone's aware that to be is irregular, because its past tense is was. You've heard the word was, and words like forgot, enough times to know how to use them. Other words aren't used so much. For example, have you ever heard the past tense of the word split? 

Was that wood pile splitted or splitten, or maybe splot? The answer is none of the above. Split can exist in any time period you like. Judy split those logs Tuesday. Simon is going to split logs tomorrow. I split logs all the time.

Cost, cut, hit, hurt, let, put, read, shed, shut, spread and thrust are all unchanging -- no suffix is brave enough to join with them. In any tense, these words just don't change. You can't spreaded the mortar for the bricks or letted John borrow the car.

The biggest problem with irregular verbs is that they're not static. Once upon a time, writers used the word holp as the past tense of help, but nowadays we just use helped. Sneaked is traditionally the past tense of to sneak, but over the years it's somehow turned into an irregular verb to become snuck. 

So how are writers supposed to deal with irregular verbs? If something in your language just doesn't look right, it could be because you've attached the wrong ending to the right word. Check this irregular verbs list if you just can't figure it out. You can also look for specific earmarks of irregular verbs. Commonly, they're one-syllable, actionable words. Cut, beat, bend, burn, buy, choose, fight, freeze, go, keep, split -- these are all quick, short words that make a call to action...and they're all irregular.

Irregular verbs do change, however, and regular verbs change to become irregular. If you're unsure about how you're using your verbs in a particular sentence or passage, read it out loud. Listen to your own voice. If it doesn't sound like it makes any sense or it sounds silly, you're probably wrong. Try making changes, such as deleting the suffix, and repeat it aloud again. Every writer has an "ear" for reading books, so hear yourself saying the words and you'll make much better writing decisions.

Writing 101: How to Ask for Reviews

In the past, I've blogged about how indie authors can get reviews. I even blogged about tips for writing reviews. But what indie authors really need to know is how to properly ask for reviews, in order to use their time more efficiently and avoid making enemies out of book bloggers. 

Review Requests

I've advocated, more than once, that indie authors send out review requests. Self-published books need a lot of marketing, and book review blogs are a great way to get it. The good news is, there's a ton of them out there. The bad news is...there's a ton of them out there. Knowing how to send out review requests is every bit as important as the sending itself. Learn how to ask the right way, and you'll get a lot more positive responses. 

• Twitter. Twitter is a convenient and easy method of communication, and plenty of book reviewers are on it. But no reviewer posts book reviews on Twitter. They have a blog somewhere, so do not contact them through Twitter. In the majority of cases, book reviewers have a blog they've worked very hard on, with a review policy page. Send a tweet or a direct message through Twitter instead of going through the proper channels, and I'll never blame any reviewer for choosing to ignore you.  
• Searching. Even finding book reviewers is difficult. First, you've got to stop looking for book reviewers. You'll be in search engine hell the rest of your natural life if you just do a generic book blog search online. Instead, search for lists of book review blogs. Adding that simple word to your searches will make it much easier to find book review blogs. Bookmark all the lists you find and start going through them every day. Usually, I'll go through one letter of the alphabet a day on my book review lists.
• Look. When you're going through big lists of book review blogs, you're going to get into a certain rhythm. Mostly, you'll be focused on finding the review policy and contact information for each blog. But before you start accessing different pages, stop and look. Always, always check the top post on the blog. You may find that the blogger hasn't posted anything new in over a year, a pretty strong indication that they're no longer taking book review requests. You've got to decide on a cutoff date. I won't write to a reviewer if they haven't posted in the past month, but other review-seekers might be a bit more lenient. 
• Addressing. When you write an email to a blogger requesting a review, take the time to look around on the blog for their name so you can address your letter accordingly. Most often, you'll find this in the "About" second or the Google profile box (on Blogger blogs). If a blogger is especially tricky, you may need to look at the headings and footers of their blog posts. Often, you'll find "posted by" in the footer, and this will include a name.
• Policies. Take the time to find the review policy. Many, many book blogs have this neatly labeled so you can find it easily. Sometimes, the review policy is included on a general "policies" page. Other times, it won't jump out at you so easily. Look for the About section and Contact sections of the blog, if present, because the review policy information may be located here. Some bloggers include very brief review policy information in their bio boxes, so look here as well. If you can't find a review policy no matter what you do, assume this blogger isn't taking requests. 
• Read. After you go through the effort of finding the policy, make sure to read it. Some reviewers dismiss self-published authors entirely; just exit out of that blog and move on. Other reviewers may not read books within your genre. So look the policy over, make sure you fit into it, and then send your request. 
• Time. It sounds like a lot of stuff to do, but once you know what to look for and you're aware of what you need to find you should be able to check a blog for compatibility within 1 minute. Once you know you meet the policy, the blog isn't too old and you know who the reviewer is, send your review request.
• Ask. The review request is a letter where, basically, you're just asking someone to read and review your book. Write it in casual language and don't be afraid to let your natural voice come through; if the blogger can't connect with you they certainly won't connect with your book. Tell them you're requesting a review, explain the genre of your book and how/where it's available, and why you chose this blogger. Always, always, include at least one personal line -- "I'd like you to review my book because I like the way you emphasize on the characters in your reviews," for example. Include the title, Amazon link and blurb for your book at least. In more elaborate requests, you might also include ISBN information, a book trailer and a picture of the cover.

Whoever said "it never hurts to ask" didn't know what book bloggers are like. Don't send out very generic review requests addressed to no one, and don't contact reviewers inappropriately. Asking for reviews on social media or in the comments section is really just an annoyance. If you ask the wrong way, you're already doing a terrible job of selling yourself and your book. If you ask the right way, in a respectful and friendly fashion, you're already spreading good feelings about your book. You may still receive a negative response, because book reviewers can't possibly respond favorably to every request, but they can't all say no. That's why you've got to send your requests every day. When you run out of book blog lists, do a search for new lists and start all over again.

Start the Search for Truth

I'm giving away Justice, the first book in the Deck of Lies series, at Reading 24x7.

Now's your chance to start the search for the truth free. And if you don't want to wait out the giveaway, you can find Justice at Amazon, B&N, Smashwords and Kobo.

Non-Writers Self-Publish, Too

 I dedicate a lot of my blog posts to writers in particular, but even those who aren't writers self-publish books just like any indie author. Books don't always have to contain a bunch of original text and a complicated storyline to be marketable. 

Other Types of Books

Not everyone's cut out to be a storyteller, but they may still have something to share. Believe it or not, non-writers make up a rich and vast portion of the self-publishing ebook market. 

• Picture books.

Though perhaps much less glamorous on my black-and-white Kindle, picture books do make pretty good ebooks. In fact, indies who want to turn beautiful photos into a great picture book have whole lot more formatting work to do than the average fiction author. It's very difficult to pull off, but some brave illustrators, photographers and artists have managed to figure it out. 

• Cookbooks. 

Essentially, cookbooks are a collection of recipes -- and writing one isn't at all like writing a book. Recipes are really instructions, and cookbooks are instruction manuals. Very popular instruction manuals, in fact, and cookbooks are great on ereaders because it's just so convenient. Some chefs may include some brief introductory text and maybe a note here or there, but in the main cookbooks aren't written by writers and authors. There isn't a whole lot of text in them, and it helps a great deal if you include pictures of the food.

• Compilations.

When done legally, books of quotes, jokes and other compilations can be very entertaining. I reviewed an indie book containing tons of funny quotations several months ago and loved it. Short snippets of text gathered from the universe don't have to be original; they just have to be organized. Choose the text you quote well, and learn how to do it without getting into any legal trouble.

• Diaries.

You may not be a writer, but you might know someone who is or was. Diaries make for great reading material, and in many cases the person releasing the book is not the original author of the work. Maybe your great-grandmother's diary has been favorite reading among the family for years. Why not self-publish it, and see if the rest of the world likes it, too? The Diary of Anne Frank was, after all, exactly that.

The same tricks that indie authors have to learn apply to non-writers who self-publish as well. You still have to promote yourself and your work, chase down reviewers and participate in forums designed for indie authors. Being an indie author doesn't necessarily mean being a fiction writer and teller of stories, though they do seem to make up the biggest chunk of the market. Whether you're a writer of original stories or not, participate in the self-publishing community and become a part of it -- because you already are.

Books on Film: The Bell Jar

Lots of readers make the argument that books, which are so rich and full, cannot possibly fit into a movie that offers only a few hours of entertainment at best. There is perhaps one book that makes this argument more eloquently than any other: The Bell Jar. The trouble is, someone did try to turn it into a movie...and all the book fans just hated it.

The Book

The only book Sylvia Plath ever wrote, The Bell Jar was published very close to the time of her suicide in 1963. From what we know about Plath's short life, most critics speculate that she was writing about many of the personal experiences she had during the summer of 1953.

That's the setting of the book. It's hot in New York City, and Esther Greenwood is a young writer full of dreams. The story opens as Esther is thinking about the execution of the Rosenbergs, convicted communists. She's in the big city for the first time, seemingly with the world at her feet...and she's terrified. She's one of several girls who have won the joy of working at a women's magazine (loosely based on Mademoiselle, for which Plath did intern). 

There's Doreen, who always has a quick quip. And there's Betsy, nicknamed "Pollyanna Cowgirl," a bubbly sorority girl. And there are others, but Esther hasn't really made any close friendships during her internship as an editor. She's uncomfortable at the final banquet and her mind is scattered -- filled with thoughts of home and thoughts of the Rosenbergs. 

She's hoping for something wonderful to happen during the internship...but the only thing that happens is the execution. She returns home to Massachusetts instead, feeling defeated. Esther is a writer, so she decides to start writing a book. 

But what will she write about? Esther has spent her life being a student, not actually living, so she ends up staring at blank pages for hours and hours. What will she do instead of writing? She's a woman, it's the 1950s, and Esther has absolutely no idea. She has no interest in being married, which is what women are expected to do, and traditional "womanly" careers (like being a stenographer) don't really appeal to her. 

She is sinking ever-deeper into mind-numbing depression, and her mother begins to notice. She forces Esther to begin seeing Dr. Gordon, whom Esther immediately dislikes. He prescribes electroconvulsive therapy, also known as electric shock. It makes her think, of course, of the Rosenbergs being electrified to death.

Things get worse. Esther begins to obsess about suicide, and even makes some fledgling attempts toward this end. Finally her attempts get more serious, and she swallows a bottle of sleeping pills after leaving a good-bye note. She's discovered under her own house, survives, and is sent to a mental hospital. This is where she meets Dr. Nolan. At the hospital, Esther receives therapy and more shock treatments.

At the end of the book, Esther is preparing herself to walk into the interview room of the hospital where it will be decided if she may return back home.

This book is about suicide, but it's about a whole lot more. Esther is too smart for her own good, too filled with dreams and too eager to prove herself. She puts so much pressure on herself, the weight of it begins to crush her. I can identify with that, and I think many authors can also identify with it. Esther is also a product of her times, and trapped by her gender. What she wants feels impossible in 1953: sex without children, men without marriage, career without boundaries.

It's not possible to talk about The Bell Jar without talking about Sylvia Plath. It was her only book and by all accounts it was semi-autobiographical. We know, now, that Plath finally succumbed to the madness she found in the bell jar -- that stifling, trapped feeling where thoughts and emotions swirl around and around in your head without end. 

It's a well-loved book, but lots of readers agree that it's just not filmable. Filmmakers, naturally, are inclined to disagree. 

The Film

 Many readers have a great love for The Bell Jar, but very few have love for the 1979 film. It is, to date, the only feature-length film adaptation of the book...but there is reason to hope that may change.

And you should, because by all accounts the film is fairly terrible if you try to compare it against the book. As a novel, The Bell Jar is largely considered to be an epic narrative of teen angst. Marilyn Hassett, who played Esther Greenwood in the '79 flick, was 32. This immediately throws off the film.

 She's not the biggest name, and I am not a fan of 70s-era movies, so I've never seen any of her other work. She may, in fact, be a brilliant actress. She is not so convincing as Esther. In the film, Esther isn't depressed -- she's more manic than anything, and there's even some suggestion that she might be schizophrenic. No one seems to have a real clear grasp on Esther's mental trouble, least of all the lead actress. She goes from high to low like it's nothing, and might be giddy one second and furious in the next. In the book, Esther is very quietly suffering and doing her very best to remain self-contained (that's why she's in a bell jar, after all).

What Got Adapted?

The film adds quite a bit of dialogue and several scenes that don't occur in the book. Throughout the film, a voice-over quotes some of Sylvia Plath's most famous poetry, an addition that many readers have found offensive and, at best, distracting. The character of Joan, whom Esther meets in the hospital, tries to convince Esther to strike up a suicide pact. This doesn't happen in the book.

Casual reviewers and critics have all panned the film, but some credit has to go to the cast and the crew for attempting to adapt the book in the first place. Plum Pictures has been laboring for years to do the same. They announced a Bell Jar project in 2008 with Julia Stiles starring as Esther and Rose McGowan as her outgoing friend Doreen. We're still waiting.