Bropriating, Hepeating, and Mansplaining

My wife, Janis, did a Ross Trudeau crossword puzzle* today (especially bloody for Halloween), and she got all but one word. The clue for the word reads like this: “Taking credit for a female colleague’s idea.” She already had the letters “priating” so “appropriating” came to mind, but it’s too long. She finally gave up (this by a woman who does crosswords in ink) and looked up the answer. The word? “bropriating.”

Neither of us had ever heard of it, having left the office/business world behind, but we did not find it surprising. Turns out it isn’t exactly new. It originated during the Obama administration when female aides got tired of their ideas being stolen by the males, and they began to take action to prevent “bropriating” through “amplification.” (Here’s a link to a story that explains this in greater detail:

Further research into the orgins of the word unveiled its first cousin: “hepeating.” The concept is similar: In a meeting, a woman suggests an idea and it’s ignored, then a guy says the same thing and — voila! — everyone loves it. This term surfaced in a 2017 tweet by astronomer Nicole Gugliucci, who said she heard it used by some friends. Presumably women friends. The tweet got more than 187,000 likes. (More on this at:

Thus, “bropriating” and “hepeating” leads us to a word that’s been around a bit longer: “mansplaining,” which is what a guy does when he’s caught red-faced, bropriating or hepeating.


* Rossword Puzzles.

Posted in Misc. | Tagged | Leave a comment

Perspicacious — nice compliment

This morning, I received this comment from one of the authors I have been working with (or should I say . . . with whom I have been working . . . ha!).

“Thank you for your prompt, perspicacious and very helpful work on my [nonfiction] manuscript. I think it’s much better now.”

I don’t recall being described as “perspicacious” before — although I have been labeled as “astute” — but I take it as high praise. I know, in a general sense, what the word means, but I looked it up anyway to distinguish it from similar terms. This is what Merriam-Webster says about it:

“Perspicacious is similar in meaning to shrewd and astute, but a sharp mind will discern subtle differences among them. All three mean acute in perception and sound in judgment, but shrewd stresses practical, hardheaded cleverness, whereas perspicacious implies unusual power to see through and comprehend what is puzzling or hidden. (You can see this shade of meaning in the root of perspicacious — the Latin word perspicere, meaning “to look through” or “to see clearly.”) Astute suggests both shrewdness and perspicacity, as well as diplomatic skill.”

Ah, now I get it. Perhaps I need to work on my “diplomatic skill” — I am honest (some might say “brutally “) with authors. Mind you, it’s constructive criticism, with suggestions and recommendations on how to improve their manuscripts, and never derisive [i.e., expressing or causing contemptuous ridicule or scorn].

Posted in Editing | Leave a comment

A call for interdependence.

The past few days, as the fourth of July—Independence Day in the U.S.A.—approached, my thoughts went to the term “interdependence.” We all talk of freedom and individual rights and independence at this time of year, and especially in this perilous time of a deadly and pervasive infectious disease that has struck not only our country, but every country on this planet.

While we have a right to freedom speech, we do not have a right to incite unlawful acts; nor do we have the right to endanger the lives others, such as driving while under the influence of alcohol or other substances that impair one’s ability to drive safely. I could go on and on about the rational and logical limits to our freedoms and independence, but the upshot remains that where one individual’s “right” crosses paths with another’s, in a civil society that calls for compromise, if not courtesy, politeness, empathy, or acts of kindness.

That concept triggered the thought of interdependence, and that while we may tout our personal independence, there are few, if any, truly independent people. In this modern, materialistic world of ours we all depend on others, to one degree or another, with regard to most facets of our daily lives. Even the iconoclastic loner living in a remote wilderness is likely to have a few manufactured tools, goods, and weapons procured from civilization, and therefore is not truly independent.

Like it or not, we depend on others—we need others—in order to fully enjoy the freedoms, the extensive individual rights, the relative safety and security, and the vast quantity and quality of material possessions this country offers. Like it or not, we are interdependent, and no more so than during this time of the COVID-19 pandemic, as 2.5 million of our fellow citizens have contracted the disease and 130,000 have died—with no end in sight. If physical distancing and wearing a mask in public, or private, helps stem the tide of this highly infectious disease, so be it.

So imagine my joyful surprise when I picked up the LA Times this morning and saw this headline: “A call for interdependence,” written by columnist Nita Lelyveld. It merits reading.

(The title in the digital version is different from the print version: Want to exercise your freedom? Join in to stem the spread of coronavirus)

Lelyveld writes: On this Independence Day, I’d rather focus on our extreme interdependence, on how our future on so many fronts depends on our acting as one to help stem a global pandemic. . . .

While perusing the paper, I also ran across this news article: Truck driver posts regrets about party a day before dying of coronavirus

After months of diligently isolating, truck driver Tommy Macias, 51, made one error that cost him his life. He went to a barbecue party with some friends. [And presumably they were not wearing masks.]

He didn’t know that someone who had tested positive for COVID-19, but showed no symptoms, also was there.

Macias’s path followed a familiar scenario: At first, Macias seemed to be recovering during the week after he suddenly fell ill, which gave his family hope. But by that Sunday morning, he had taken a turn for the worse.

He was hospitalized and after 10 hours put on a ventilator to try to raise his oxygen intake. He died that night.

More than 10 others who attended that barbecue party—who then went home and probably back to work the next day—have also tested positive for the coronavirus.

In a final message to his loved ones, Tommy Macias voiced his regret in a Facebook post: “Because of my stupidity I put my mom and sisters and my family’s health in jeopardy. Don’t be a … idiot like me.”

Happy In(ter)dependence Day.

Posted in Misc. | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Larry Edwards presents “Do’s & Don’ts of Memoir Writing” at San Diego Memoir Writers Association Event, Sept. 7

Larry Edwards

Freelance editor Larry Edwards of Polishing Your Prose will present “Do’s & Don’ts of Memoir Writing” at the San Diego Memoir Writers Association meeting on Saturday, Sept. 7, 2019.

The meeting begins at 2.30 p.m. at

     San Diego Writers, Ink
     2730 Historic Decatur Rd.
     Barracks 16, Suite 202 & 204
     San Diego, CA 92106

Drawing on his years of experience as an editor and author, Edwards will discuss “telling a story,” writing style, narrative voice, content, and structure, among other topics as it applies to memoir writing. He will also touch on ghostwriting, manuscript formatting, and publishing.

He is an award-winning investigative journalist, author, editor, and publisher, and the author of Dare I Call It Murder?: A Memoir of Violent Loss, which garnered top honors at the San Diego Book Awards for 2013 and was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. The book became a top seller on in both Memoir and True Crime categories.

“I enjoy editing memoirs,” Edwards says, “because they are so personal and heartfelt. Yet, that personal nature can also be a roadblock to developing a truly engaging story because the author, at times, cannot distinguish the proverbial forest from the trees; the author does not always see the most compelling aspects of her or his story.”

Among the many memoirs he has edited, Accidental Immigrants took top honors in the San Diego Book Awards for 2014.

As an editor and publisher, Murder Survivor’s Handbook: Real-Life Stories, Tips & Resources won a Gold Award in the 2015 Benjamin Franklin book awards competition sponsored by the Independent Book Publishers Association.

Edwards worked as a journalist and editor for local, national, and international publications for nearly three decades. He currently works as a freelance writer, editor, and publishing consultant. Outside of writing and editing, he plays the fiddle in old-time music and bluegrass bands, is a historical re-enactor of the American fur-trade era and, being married to Janis Cadwallader — a serious birder — he has become an avid bird photographer.

Learn more about Larry Edwards and Polishing Your Prose at

Posted in Editing, Publishing, Writing | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Decoration Day Honored U.S. Civil War Veterans; Later Became Memorial Day

I posted this four years ago, and it deserves posting again.

Polishing Your Prose

On May 5, 1868, Major General John A. Logan, the head of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of Union veterans, declared Decoration Day as a time for the nation to honor the U.S. Civil War dead. Logan declared that the day should be observed on May 30 and that the soldiers’ graves be decorated with flowers.

The veterans’ organization held the first observance that year at Arlington National Cemetery. Various Washington officials presided over the event, including General and Mrs. Ulysses S. Grant. By the end of the 19th century, communities throughout the country staged Decoration Day festivities.

Civil War veteran Oney F. Sweet — featured in What the Private Saw: The Civil War Letters & Diaries of Oney Foster Sweet — marched in many Decoration Day parades.

His son, Oney Fred Sweet, wrote a poem about the parades; the poem appeared in The National Tribune on…

View original post 594 more words

Posted in Misc. | Leave a comment

Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision — 10. Final Words

Tenth element in this series: Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision
(Please read the Introduction, if you haven’t already.)


Time and Distance

Do you give yourself time away from your work—do you give yourself distance—before rereading, revising, and rewriting?

 In terms of self-editing, the best thing you can do is take a break.

I don’t mean a day or two. I mean weeks—or even better, months—so when you go back to it, you have fresh eyes.

With my memoir—Dare I Call It Murder?—after working on it almost every day for two years, I got so frustrated that I quit. I set it aside, saying: “Screw it. This sucks, and I don’t know how to fix it.”

Two months later, after friends and family encouraged me not to give up, I dusted it off and reread it—with fresh eyes. I felt as if I were reading someone else’s book. I could be much more objective and critical—the way I am when I put on my green eyeshade and dive into a manuscript that just showed up in my inbox.

Time and distance—it is a critical component in the art of revision.

Then, after you take that break, you pick up a #2 pencil (with a new eraser), read your manuscript with fresh eyes (I recommend hard copy, not on the screen), and keep in mind these Key Elements of the Art of Revision—then be ready to kill your darlings.

Don’t rush it! Better to do it well than have regrets.


Like or not, Microsoft Word is the default word processor in the writing/publishing world. Most professional editors use Word. Therefore, learn how to use its features, especially Styles and Track Changes. If you prefer some other software, such as Pages, Google docs, or OpenOffice, more often than not you will have compatibility issues when working with an editor who uses Word, unless you are or you become technologically savvy.

In Closing . . .

  • Clarity, not confusion.
  • What’s the story reason?
  • Kill your darlings.
  • An editor has the same goal as you—to make your book even better than it is.

Recommended Reading for Writers:

Posted in Misc. | 1 Comment

Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision — 9. Kill Your Darlings

Ninth element in this series: Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision
(Please read the Introduction, if you haven’t already.)


“Kill your darlings” does not mean you have to kill off your favorite characters (although it may). This refers to the fact that writers fall in love with what they have written and cannot bear the thought of deleting it, even if those passages are not needed to tell the story.

Ask yourself, what’s the story reason for including this in the book?  Does it provide a plot point, an inciting incident? Does it reveal important information to the reader? Does it reveal character? Does it reveal place or purpose? If you have no good reason other than “I love it,” then kill it.

The most common instances I see are extraneous descriptions or character bios; e.g., the tan stucco building, or character backgrounds that read like obituaries; also, author asides: the author either explains what just happened or comments on what just happened, as I described in Author Intrusion.

Example: Joe punched a hole in the wall with his fist. He was very angry.

And my thought, as an editor, is: No shit. Then I kill that darling: He was very angry.

My typical responses to this are:

  • Self-evident; the reader is way ahead of you; delete “He was very angry. ” Or: Redundant; delete. Or: Repetitious; delete.
  • Show, don’t tell.
  • Reveal, don’t tell.

The author could have another character say: “Joe, why are you so angry? Did something happen?” Then Joe reveals what’s bothering him.

Another common instance is an author trying to tidy things up at the end of a chapter, as if it were a standalone short story. However, this all too often deflates or dilutes the suspense or tension of the final action or dialogue in that scene or chapter. My most common response to this is: Unnecessary; author intrusion; delete. Think “cliffhanger.”

Research: Some writers try to include most, if not all, of the research material they uncovered. Don’t. Rule of thumb: leave out 90 percent. Yes, you learned some interesting facts while researching an event or place or historical figure, but it should be relevant to the story; only include what’s necessary for moving the story forward.

Every book I see can be tightened up. An early draft of my memoir totaled 150,000 words. I cut it by more than a third to 95,000 words. I also rewrote the first chapter 36 times. As the saying goes: Writing is rewriting.

Jennifer Redmond, former editor-in-chief at Sunbelt Publications, told me that she, on average, cut 10 percent out of most of the books she edited.

I worked with two co-authors writing a narrative nonfiction account of a criminal investigation; their first draft totaled 225,000 words. Through a lot of painful cutting and rewriting (over a period of four years) we reduced that by more than half to 110,000 words.

Their problem: They included all of their research, much of which was redundant or irrelevant to their story; i.e., they had no story reason for including that information. Nor could they kill their darlings—so I did the killing for them.

I see the same issue in historical fiction or stories that have a technical subject matter. You probably don’t need to spend 20 pages describing how to render whale blubber.

Kill your darlings.

Tenth in the series: Final Words

Posted in Misc. | 2 Comments

Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision — 8. Information Dumps

Eighth element in this series: Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision
(Please read the Introduction, if you haven’t already.)


Reader feeder

This typically occurs in dialogue when one character tells another character things that other character already knows, or should know. The author inserts these details to “feed” information (exposition) to the reader. But it makes for unnatural, even unbelievable, dialogue between characters.

For example, Jill says:

“One set of prints here. Male as well. The lady who hired us described her friend, John Dodd, as five foot-ten and around a hundred eighty pounds. The depth of the print and length of the stride matches her description.” (40 words)

This is not how Jill would speak to her partner, Jack, especially since the lady has already been introduced. I changed it to:

“One set of prints. Male. Carol described her friend as five-foot-ten and around a hundred eighty pounds. The depth of the print and length of stride matches that.” (28 words = 30 percent fewer words)

The phrase the lady who hired us is reader feeder because Jack already knows this. Find another way to convey that information to the reader.

Fifteen pages later, Jill says:

“It’s time to go see the woman who hired us to look for Dodd and give her the bad news.” (20 words)

The phrase the woman who hired us to look for Dodd is reader feeder and repetitive. I changed it to:

“Time to go see Carol and give her the bad news.” (11 words = 45 percent reduction)

This is not only more realistic, it tightens it up and improves the pace.

Too much BS (back story)

Back story and character bios in inappropriate places (bringing the story to a halt), or without context for the reader, so it ends up having no meaning to the reader—e.g., someone asks for the time of day, and you tell her how a watch is made—and the reader skips it.

Back story and character bios that have little or no relevance to the story. I see a lot of manuscripts that go into great detail about a place or person that play minor roles in the story. Save it for the characters that matter.

Again, ask yourself, what’s the story reason? Is this the appropriate place in the story to put it? Does this information have to be introduced all at once or can it be dribbled in over a number of scenes or chapters, within a relevant context? I recommend the latter.

Author Intrusion

Author intrusion is my label for unnecessary or repetitious narrative that describes the action that follows, or explains a character’s motivation when the character’s action or words makes this clear to the reader. These are intrusive and slow the pace of the story.

Example: A character makes a sarcastic comment to another character, and the author writes: The day’s ball busting had begun. My comment to the author: Self-evident; delete. Or, put those words into a character’s mouth, not your narrative.

If you show, you don’t need to tell. If you reveal, you don’t need to tell. You can tighten up your narrative and improve the pace of the story by killing these darlings.

If you, as the author, writing in third person, want to be part of the story, then you need to make that clear from the outset. Otherwise, write it in first person.

The same applies to adverbs, those “-ly” words. Dump them, especially in dialogue attribution. E.g., “Be careful,” she said warningly. Or “I hate you,” she shouted angrily.

Adverbs are a lazy way out. . . . Metaphors are more fun. 
             —Carolyn Wheat

Using adverbs is a mortal sin.
                —Elmore Leonard

An exception would be if you are writing tongue in cheek and intentionally using “Tom Swifties,” which are a special type of pun.

Ninth in the series: Kill Your Darlings

Posted in Editing, Publishing, Writing | 2 Comments

Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision — 7. Plot

Seventh element in this series: Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision
(Please read the Introduction, if you haven’t already.)


This, too, may seem self-evident, but I assure you, for some authors it is not: A plot should be logical, even in the wildest fantasy or sci-fi novel. Is the conflict contrived, unbelievable? Beware of plot holes: something missing from the story line that leaves the reader confused or, even worse, shaking her head in disbelief and laying the book aside. You want your readers laughing with you, not at you.

For example: Four characters are stranded in the post-apocalyptic Arizona desert and struggle to survive while being chased by bad guys intent on killing them; then, just when they are about to escape, without any suspicion or foreshadowing, one character betrays them. It feels contrived and implausible.

Example: Midway through the story, the primary POV shifts from the protagonist to a private investigator and a group of cartoonish cops, reading is if it were two different stories.

Rules to write by:

  • If you write genre fiction, use the “formula” as a skeleton, not a full-body suit.
  • The Hero’s Journey is tried and true; study it, then mold your own story, with a twist.
  • Avoid contrived scenarios that merely drag out the story without contributing to the story’s theme, message, or ultimate objective.
  • Keep the focus and POV on your primary characters.
  • Avoid deus ex machina endings (implausible or unbelievable).

Logistics: Watch for places where a character does things that don’t make sense or seem implausible, or the characters are repositioned without a transition.

For example:

  • A character is in Coronado, which is flanked by San Diego Bay, but the author writes: He left the car and sought solace in the rocking arms of Mission Bay.
  • A character picks up a gun in his left hand, and two paragraphs later he picks up a second gun with his left hand, and he intends to use the gun.
  • Two detectives get out of a car, but in the previous paragraph they were in the police station. This might work in a movie, where the viewer has visual cues, but not in a book.
  • It’s nighttime and dark, but the characters can see details as if it were full daylight.
  • The cell phone won’t work in a remote area, but 100 pages later, it does work.
  • A character in a post-apocalyptic hospital cuts all the electrical power to the building. Two pages later, she turns on lights and uses electrical equipment.

In science fiction and paranormal, you can create a new world, but the actions and situations still need to be plausible within the boundaries of that world.

Eighth in the series: Information Dumps

Posted in Misc. | 2 Comments

Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision — 6. Characters

Sixth element in this series: Kill Your Darlings: The Art of Revision
(Please read the Introduction, if you haven’t already.)


Create three-dimensional characters; avoid stereotypes and cartoon characters.

I know this may seem self-evident, but all too often I see the latter—characters that are caricatures, rather than portrayed as believable individuals; this is especially true when it comes to cops and robbers; don’t turn it into Loony Tunes or the Keystone cops, or Father Brown, unless that is your intent from page 1—as a spoof, or satire, or humor.

Have your characters reveal who they are through their words and deeds. Show and reveal, don’t tell.

How many primary characters do I need/should I have? A literary agent told me: There are two or three important characters to a story—all the rest are furniture. That may be oversimplified, but keep that in mind.

How many secondary or minor characters do I need/should I have, even if they don’t get a POV? What is the story reason for including a specific character? If you have no justifiable story reason, take that character out. At the very least, do not give that character a POV.

Example: A number of secondary characters are introduced at the beginning, along with lengthy backgrounds, then are never heard from again. Meanwhile, characters with much larger roles get short shrift. If you do this, you are doing a disservice to your readers, and they may set your book aside.

The amount of words you devote to a character should be directly proportional to the role that character plays. The smaller the role, the fewer the words.

Seventh in the series: Plot

Posted in Misc. | 2 Comments