The Lyon's Tale

List Time

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 06 Sep 2010 13:46:00 +0000

Therefore, it must be a Monday. Or a holiday. Or both.

With my colleagues over at Precision Editing Group, I'm speaking at The League of Utah Writers Roundup. The five of us are teaching an all-day workshop on writing, plotting, and editing on Friday, September 17. The other instructors are H. B. (Heather) Moore, Josi Kilpack, Julie Wright, and Lu Ann Staheli. It's gonna be awesome.
I'm also teaching several classes at the Writers Conference sponsored by the American Fork Arts Council. They'll have a bookstore at the conference. Chocolate Never Faileth should be there for sale! Woot! See details and find out how to register HERE.
Speaking of chocolate, we're a month away from the cookbook hitting shelves!!! (Yippee!!!)
You can even pre-order Chocolate Never Faileth from Deseret Book now!
Did you hear about that chocolate cookbook that's coming out soon? :-D
And that a companion DVD will also be sold? On it, you can see me talking too fast and having fun with chocolate and my buddy Sarah M. Eden.
Recently discovered a cool new product for people in LDS leadership positions: planners specifically targeted to help presidency members keep things organized and running smoothly. (Cool idea, no?) Right now, the company is giving away the Primary planner for FREE to anyone willing to try it out and give feedback before they launch their 2011 line. To get yours, check out LDS Planners by ID Clare.
#2 finished Mockingjay last night. I'm having fun discussing it with her ("Did you guess who Katniss would end up with? What did you think about X? Did you like the end?" As much as I hate my kids growing up, days like this are real perks: I love discussing ideas and books and all kinds of things with them. (It's like they're becoming real people or something . . .)
I recently booked #4's birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese's. She keeps hugging me in thanks, saying, "It's going to be perfect!" Her effusive gratitude may be the only thing keeping me from retching at the idea of entering that place again.
Happy Labor Day!

Top 5 Writers I Admire & Why

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 03 Sep 2010 18:26:00 +0000

Continuing my Top 5 series I started HERE (based loosely on WD's Top 10 in the current issue):

Top 5 Writers I Admire, and Why

1) Barbara Kingsolver

She is a true word smith, an artist. Her characters are deep and layered. Her plots are complex. And her language . . . dang, there are times reading The Poisonwood Bible where I reread paragraphs just to experience the beauty again, to roll the words around in my head. After finishing it, I put the book down half elated, half depressed because it was so good . . . and I'd never be that good.

But she's given me a level to shoot for. Even if I never make it, at least I'm shooting high and will get higher than I would have otherwise.

I admire writers who care about the craft and not just about getting published. Bestsellers sometimes sit on their laurels and let the craft slide a bit, knowing that their name will sell copies no matter what's inside the covers. Writers like Kingsolver don't do that.

2) Jodi Piccoult

I haven't read all her books, but every one I have read has done two things: 1) moved me and 2) made me think. Neither is easy to accomplish, but she excels at both. Like Kingsolver, but in a different way, her voice and words are beautiful.

I also love how she finds seemingly random topics to write about and researches them. It's the epitome of writer curiosity (and justifies my fascination with weird research topics).

3) Charles Dickens

My senior course as an English major was on him, so I spent an entire semester digging into his works, including some of his lesser-known ones (like Dombey and Son and Our Mutual Friend). I love watching how he changed as a writer over the course of his career. I love his vivid characters. How he manages to make big social and moral statements without preaching. Instead, he makes the reader feel in the injustice or the hate.

4) Jane Austen

Brilliant humorist who could poke fun at the specific period of and society she lived in while creating timeless characters and stories. The nerdy English major in me also loves how she deliberately poked fun at the two literary periods she straddled. (One of these days I'll blog about that. And some future day, I will visit her home and see her writing desk!)

5) L. M. Montgomery

Obviously. My love of her work began at the age of thirteen. My interest in her as a person grew as her journals were compiled, annotated, and published over the course of many years. My admiration, compassion, and, yes, even pity, for her developed as I read them. She was very flawed, very human. But she was also exceedingly talented and faced big challenges. Arguably, she's had the greatest influence on me as a writer than anyone else.

Who are some of the writers you admire most? Why?

WNW: A Rant: Could NOT Care Less

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:00:00 +0000

Hearing (or reading) I could care less is one of my eye-twitching peeves, because it states the exact opposite of what the person means.

I could care less means that the speaker/writer could conceivably care less than they do at this moment.

So . . . they DO care. At least a little. Because they COULD care less.

So it's possible for them to care less than they do right now.

Yeah, not even ALMOST what they mean.

Try again:

What they mean is that they care so little that there is no way for them to care any less than they already do. There is no caring here. At all. None. Zip.

Ergo, they could NOT or couldn't care less.

John Cleese says it better. He's also fun to watch while ranting about it:

Cut to the Chase

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 19:44:00 +0000

Our house has a pretty miserable excuse for a tooth fairy.

Like one of the last times #4, thrilled over her latest lost tooth, put it under her pillow. I fully meant to engage the tooth fairy on her job before I went to bed. I really did. But I was tired. And I forgot.

In the morning, #4 came to me with a sad little furrow on her brow. "The tooth fairy didn't come."

#3, who is older and wiser and knows a bit about the ways of the world, helped distract #4 while I ran around the house for change and sneaked it into her room.

Turns out the tooth fairy just pushed the money into an awkward corner deep under her pillow so she didn't see it.

Phew.

Or something.

Yesterday, #3 lost one of her last teeth. An hour or so later, I walked into my office to find a 5X7 piece of red cardstock on my desk and a note from her on it:

Can I have a buck?

Plus a smiley face . . . and her tooth.

Smart gal. Might as well cut to the chase, get your cash, and not risk Mom forgetting to whip the tooth fairy into action.

Or something.

Top 5 Essentials to a Writer's Life

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:16:00 +0000

Totally stealing this idea from the current (Sept '10) Writer's Digest. It's their "Big 10" issue, where every article and department has a theme of 10.

One section has ten best-selling writers, each given a question with their top 10 answers. I'm going to answer some of those myself, only keep the answers to five instead of ten. (I'm no Jodi Piccoult.)

Top 5 Essentials to a Writer's Life

1) The Right Tools

This definitely includes a computer, because you simply cannot function in the modern publishing industry without one. That is, unless you're Ray Bradbury (who still insists on using a typewriter). But he's Ray Bradbury.

Some writers prefer drafting in longhand, so their tools include a notebook and pen or pencil. I can't do that, in large part because my handwriting is atrocious. One of my best tools ever is my Alphasmart Neo. I've done more drafting on that puppy than almost anywhere else, and it's made drafting possible in places a laptop or other device wouldn't be convenient.

I'd include books under this category. A writer must read. A writer must research. Books are the lifeblood of a good writer.

2) Brainless Time

This is time when my brain can wander around and be creative, thinking ahead to maybe what scene will come next, how to solve this plot problem, what this character is really like. If I use my brainless time wisely, I'll be ready to crank out 1,000 words next time I'm at the keyboard.

Brainless time is critical for anyone who isn't a full-time writer. (In other words, those of us not lucky enough to have big blocks of time to write. Or, most of us.)

3) A Solid Internet Connection

This can be both a blessing and a curse: if I'm not careful, I can "just" check e-mail or "just" read one blog, and next thing I know, two hours are shot, with nothing written. That said, e-mail is how I communicate with my editor, how I submit articles, how I communicate with my readers, how I, oh, blog. It's how I stay up-to-date on the industry and trends. It's a must.

4) Rewards

These can be small, for daily goals (I get a piece of chocolate if I finish this scene/chapter/reach my word count) or big (I get a massage when I finish drafting this book). Or somewhere in between. Really, it's scary how well bribery works on your inner writer. It's such a baby.

5) Writer Friends

If I didn't have friends who are as weird and loopy as I am, friends who get me and the way I think, who have been there and understand both the highs and lows of writing and publishing, I'd completely lose my mind. The act of writing is solitary; I desperately need links to writer friends to breathe life back in to me.

What are your essentials?

WNW: Rules? Who Says?

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:44:00 +0000

Several people have asked me recently about the rules of grammar and usage. Who makes them? What determines what a rule is? When and why and can we break them?

To answer that, first, we have to back up a bit.

Language evolves; we all know that. Take a look at the opening line of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the original, and your eyes will glaze over. (That is English? What the . . . )

My dad has the first paragraph memorized, and when he recites it, it sounds stinkin' cool . . . but nothing like English.

My History of the English Language class was taught, as I've mentioned before, not by a linguist as it should have been, but by a well-meaning but ignorant literature professor who had no clue what the material meant. (Fortunately, I could go to Dad to figure out what the HECK she was teaching.)

But the workbook was helpful. It gave us exercises to show how the language had gradually changed in very predictable ways (if this vowel came after this consonant, it changed into this one). We'd apply the changes to Old English sentences and get Middle English ones. Then we'd get a new set of rules, apply them and, assuming we'd done the previous set correctly, we'd end up with Modern English.

It was way cool, especially to see how the changes weren't random, but very systematic.

We did similar things with sentences in a current dialect: BEV, or Black English Vernacular. Such "street" talk may sound random and just wrong, but even it is governed by its own rules (whether the speakers know it or not).

That was a lesson in a simple linguistic concept:

No dialect is inherently better or worse than another. They all have quirks and rules and structure. There is nothing in and of a standard dialect that makes it better than another . . .

Except for the fact that those who are educated have picked the standard as the dialect of the educated. They've selected it as the "correct" dialect, for lack of a better term.

Therefore, to be taken seriously in school, jobs, and other settings, a person must know the standard dialect and know its rules.

If you break the rules of the standard dialect in a situation where the standard is called for, you risk losing credibility and looking uneducated.

But break the rules of the standard by speaking your home-town dialect with family and friends, and that's totally fine. That dialect is what's expected of you in that environment.

Most of us have several of these "registers" (sort of like mini dialects) that we use in different situations. For example, I'd tell the same story to a gal pal very differently than I would to a police officer or my parents or one of my children. In each situation, I'd slip into a different register, using different vocabulary, sentences lengths, etc.

Okay, so back to the standard dialect and THE RULES:

The rules change gradually over time. Note the over time part.

A true change can take literally decades before it's accepted as a new standard.

So who accepts it as the new standard? Essentially, if the majority of educated, standard-dialect speakers view the change as an acceptable usage, it's considered a new rule.

Forty or so years ago, parents constantly corrected children asking, "Can I go to the bathroom?" with, "May I go to the bathroom?"

But the word can has since taken on a definition beyond ability. It also implies permission. Today, you'll occasionally run into someone old-school who insists on the old definition, but kids today will grow up with the new one.

Recently we watched an old movie that had a moment using can in the old sense, with an adult correcting the child, and my kids were genuinely confused as to what the problem was. (And these are well-read, smart kids, if I say so myself.) The rule has simply changed. Can I go is perfectly acceptable now.

Another rule that's on its way out but has a few die-hard people holding on is whom (and its cousin, whomever). There's a funny scene on The Office about when to use whomever, and it's a great example of how the general (educated!) public has almost entirely lost the meaning of whom. (Pam, the secretary, knows the rule. Michael, the manager, doesn't. Then again, I wouldn't call Michael educated . . .)

Today, whom is so rarely used that in my own writing, I avoid any sentence structure that would call for it, because it would draw attention to itself. Can you imagine Kim from Band of Sisters asking "To whom does this straw belong?" Um, no.

Other books, including the new Mockingjay, use who in places where the old rule required whom, which again shows how things are changing and how we're getting pretty darn close to having who being acceptable in every situation. (But not in everyone's book, quite yet. I'd give it another ten years.)

All of this is why, in casual conversation and on blog posts, I don't worry about broken rules and the like. Those aren't situations (or registers) that require the rules, such as they are, to be kept.

But in professional situations, such as in articles and novels and the like, I tend to lean on the side of being conservative, to be sure that my colleagues, readers, and reviewers are aware that yes, I am well-versed in the standard dialect and know its rules.

And this is precisely why I freaked out when a copy editor added a lay/lie error to one of my books. I caught it at the last minute (phew!). And yes, I know 99% of readers likely either wouldn't notice or care. But I do. And I know that there are readers who do care.

I also know that the distinction between lay/lie is dying, but, to quote Monty Python, it isn't quite dead yet.

So it's a good idea to learn the rules, including what's gradually changing and how close the changes are to being considered standard. Then use that knowledge in speech and writing when the register is appropriate.

Hanging out with friends, I could well say, "Me and my sister went to the store," but if I'm talking to a prospective employer, I'd rephrase it as, "My sister and I went to the store."

Because I know the rule and the expectations surrounding the standard.

Lots of rules are bent all the time, and you can definitely get on those bandwagons, but if you're hoping to be taken seriously in a professional writing capacity, you do need to know the "real" rules of the standard and know how to apply them.

But then you can have fun breaking them in dialogue, because your characters can speak in whatever register and dialect they want.

NOT an Anne Freak

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:48:00 +0000

I'll be back with my regular schedule soon. For today, here's a favorite post of mine from waaaay back, from March 12, 2007.

NOT an Anne Freak

I know this may come as a shock to many people. To many of my close friends, in fact.

But I am not an Anne of Green Gables freak.

Sure, I have every single one of the Anne books. They're all dog-eared and nearly memorized. I own all the movies except for the last one, which is a vile thing that should never have been made. (Any self-respecting fan knows what I'm talking about, and I could go on a rampage about the timeline, the characters, the technology, and the sheer adulteration of all things Montgomery, but I'll spare you.)

I was introduced to Anne in the eighth grade. It was the year when L.M. Montgomery's books were being republished after a long time of being out of print, and I scooped them up as quickly as they were being reprinted (and as quickly as my allowance and babysitting money let me). I remember the excitement of buying Rilla of Ingleside at the Farrer Middle School book fair.

My closest friends were doing the same, and we were all living the Anne life. We took long walks through nature and watched sunsets and ate cookies and had tea parties the way we imagined Anne and Diana might have. We started (okay, I started) a creative writing club based on Anne's.

But there was a big difference in how the rest of them viewed our activities. While they imagined themselves as being Anne, I imagined myself as her creator.

Forget Anne; I was Lucy Maud Montgomery!

Oh, I liked Anne. I still do. But I wanted to be the writer who made her up. I wanted to create a character and stories. I wanted the paper and pencil in my hands (or the keys of the typewriter under my fingers).

To this day, I have an entire shelf in my office that carries my LMM books. And it has a lot more than Anne; it has all of her books that I began collecting in eighth grade. At some point (when I really, really trust them) I'll let my daughters borrow them.

In addition to Anne, there's Pat and Emily and Marigold and Kilmeny and The Story Girl and Jane and Valancy and The Tangled Web and a slew of short stories. There's an autobiography. There's five volumes of journals. There's a CD of photographs and information about LMM's life. There's a first edition Windy Poplars. There's a volume that includes poetry and other writings that pre-date Anne.

If I'm being perfectly truthful, Anne doesn't even make the top three of my favorite LMM heroines. [2010 note: Those would be Rilla, Emily, and Valancy.]

To me, Anne is only a slice of who Maud really was. (No, she didn't go by Lucy. She hated that name.) For that matter, she only wrote eight books about Anne because the public demanded it. Even she got tired of Anne. Ever wonder why she started writing about Anne's KIDS?

I love learning about who she really was, what her life was like. How it differed from her books. (VERY MUCH.)

Some day I'd love to go to Canada and visit places that are special to her.

And no, it wouldn't necessarily be the Green Gables house, although that might be fun. I'd prefer the manses where she spent her married life and did the majority of her writing, and that might mean not visiting Prince Edward Island at all. Instead I'd go to Leaskdale and Norval, both not too far from Toronto, on the mainland. I'd visit her final house, which she aptly named Journey's End.

If I ever do go to PEI, I'll be sure to go to Park Corner and check out the little nail by the stairs that she used to measure herself on each time she visited her cousins. Those are the little human elements that make her real to me.

LMM has had such an impact on me that I've noticed phrases, characters, and even plot lines in my own work that hearken to hers--unintentionally. My computer is even named after her. (Maud, of course, not Lucy.)

As a nod, I try to read one of her books each year.

[2010 Note: Up next is Rilla of Ingleside, to me, the best of the Anne series.]

Listocity

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 01:27:00 +0000

It's the end of summer, which, for a couple of weeks, has meant being very busy.

These weeks have included things like spending several days at various events for the LDS Booksellers Convention, where I got to handle the one existing copy of Chocolate Never Faileth (with strong instructions that I MUST return it . . . very hard to do!).

Also had a family camp-out with Grandpa during which we played silly games, fished, and had a great time (yay for my parents being HOME!). Then came a Lyon family reunion (yay for having ALL the Lyon siblings in the same state!) and getting ready for school (NOOOOOO! Please, no more money!).

Then there was random chaos of various levels, such as all the laundry from the trips, the AC breaking, and other loveliness.

Hence, I've had spotty Internet access at best and very little time.

And, hence, a 2-week bloggy absence.

I'm back, at least for today. And yes, it's Wednesday, but it's not Word Nerd Wednesday. My apologies. :)

Today, a list:

Yesterday was my day over at the AML blog. I remembered late into the afternoon, but the post did go up on my assigned day, the 17th, so it totally counts, even if I was sleep-deprived and rambled on about three or four different topics. Read it HERE.
One event during the LDS Booksellers Convention was author "speed-dating." Writers were paired together, giving 3-minute pitches of our books to 16 different tables filled with book buyers (store owners and the like). The best part: I was paired with Mary Jolley, author of The Green Diet. Mary began with scientific and scriptural evidence supporting the health benefits of eating a plant-based diet free of refined sugars and other bad stuff. Three minutes later, it was my turn: YO, CHOCOLATE, anyone? (As we left one table, an elderly gentleman patted the cookbook and said, "I'm on your side." I was surprised at how many people seemed genuinely interested in both books. Paradox, anyone?)
It could have been worse; we were paired by last name. Which means I got this close to being paired with Michael McClean. How can you possibly follow him around for 16 tables, maintain your confidence in presenting, or make a dent when he's speaking to table after table of rabid fans? I think I would have hyperventilated. (Side note: Later that week, he was inducted into the LDSBA hall of fame. Really cool moment. Totally deserved.)
Instead of book buyers, one of the tables had a camera, and we gave our spiels to it. You can see me yapping at the camera HERE. Seeing the clip afterward, I wanted to smack myself. Why I kept looking to my left is beyond me, but hey, at least I'm not talking at the speed of sound, the clip shows the cookbook itself, and I give a basic idea of what it's all about. It was filmed in the same room as the rest of the tables, with something like 150 other people talking nearby, during a loud rainstorm. Ergo, there's a lot of background noise. Consider it ambiance.
The companion DVD for the cookbook is about to be filmed. And here's a really fun bit of news: my good friend Sarah M. Eden gets to be my co-host! If we can keep ourselves from getting too slap-happy silly during filming, it should be a great DVD. We'll see how many recipes we can pack in 60 minutes. Several of the recipes that'll be on the DVD don't have photos in the book, so this is people's chance to see some of them. Should be fun!
Speaking of Sarah, our publisher is looking for reader help in selecting the title of her next novel. Participate in the survey by clicking HERE.
For now, that is all. Except that I need dessert and an ice cream sandwich is calling my name.

WNW: It Bugs Me Anymore

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 14:05:00 +0000

Some time ago, Erin asked whether any words were particular peeves of mine.

I could easily list of a bunch of broken rules that are peeves (many I've discussed here at Word Nerd Wednesday), but while I knew I had word peeves, I couldn't think of any offhand.

Then I heard one misuse over and over. That's it, I decided. Time to post that one. It's just one word, but a word that is constantly misused and has therefore become a hated one for me:

ANYMORE

I know, random, right?

But it's used incorrectly so often that it's like nails on a chalkboard to me. (The title of this post is yelling at me to change it.)

When anymore is correctly used, we refer to a way something once was, and then state it in the negative: It's not that way ANYMORE. Things have changed.

For example:

When I got my driver's license, gas was about a dollar a gallon. You can't buy gas that cheaply anymore.

I learned to type in high school, but with the advancement of technology, that's not early enough anymore. Kids needs to learn keyboarding skills in grade school.

THOSE ARE CORRECT USAGES.

What drives me absolutely bonkers is when people use anymore to mean nowadays. It's like they're skipping over the how it used to be part and landing on the anymore part.

Skip all you want.

Just don't use that word if you aren't using it in the negative sense.

WRONG examples:

Anymore, gas is so expensive.

Kids need to learn to type younger and younger anymore.

Shudder. Just writing those out makes me want to hurl something against a wall. Do you see why the post title is wrong? I hope?

When someone uses anymore incorrectly, they're thinking back on how something has changed, sure, but they aren't mentioning the current situation in the negative. There is no clear reference to the past. There is no anymore.

Easy tip:

Use anymore if you're using both sides of a direct comparison ("Things used to be like this, but they have changed and aren't like that anymore"), or if you're referring simply referring to a fact that HAS CHANGED and do so IN THE NEGATIVE ("They aren't as friendly anymore").

Use nowadays if you're just jumping ahead and discussing how things are now without a direct or implied comparison of how things have changed: "My kids do the lawn mowing nowadays." Note that we can guess that things used to be different, but there's no negative saying so. (Hence, no anymore.)

Here's the correct usage of both in two situations:

I don't mow the lawn anymore.
My kids mow it nowadays.

This radio station plays the weirdest stuff nowadays.
I prefer classic rock, but this station doesn't play it anymore.

Make sense?

My nerves thank you in advance.

Giveaway Winners & The Winning Story

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 13:58:00 +0000

Announcing the winners of my 4-year Blog-Anniversary Extravaganza!

Thanks to everyone who participated; it was a lot of fun. It'll be fun exciting to see what the next four years hold.

First, one bit of fun news:

With the release of my cookbook, Chocolate Never Faileth, in October, a companion DVD will also be for sale. Picture me doing a 1-hour chocolate cooking show! How cool is that going to be?

I'm in the process of talking with the director, deciding on which recipes to demo, and all that fun stuff. I've never done something quite like this before, but I think it'll be a ball.

(Biggest challenge: constantly telling myself to . . . talk . . . slowly . . .)

And now: The Winners!

NOTE: All winners must e-mail me their mailing addresses so prizes can actually GET to them. If I don't hear from you w/in a week, your prize will be forfeited.

3 COMMENTING and spreading the word winners:

THE CANADIAN CHOCOLATE PACK from Kim goes to Sarah M. Eden for her blog post telling readers about the contest.

All the Stars in Heaven, by Michele Paige Holmes: In a true twist of Karmic fate, Random.org picked Kim (who donated the chocolate prize) to win a prize of her own!

Alma the Younger, by H. B. Moore goes to Norah S for her comment.

3 TRIVIA Game Winners:

(Tip: Next time, enter this part of the contest. Your chances of winning were REALLY good, and I made the questions easy to figure out. Just sayin')

Spiral-bound Notebook & Pen (with the quotes, "Unlock your mind; read," and, "Don't bug me; I'm writing." This prize goes to Elizabeth Morgan.

The Mouse Pad (Quote from Groucho Marx: Outside a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too hard to read.) goes to a friend I haven't seen in years (and one of the original members of my critique group TEN years ago!), Sherri.

T-shirt with the quote: "A house without books is like a room without windows" goes to Melanie J.

And lastly, the story winner.

Yes, that's the winner, singular, because only ONE person sent in a story. (See what I mean about entering in more than one area? You could have won a prize if you'd just sent in a story!)

The winner is TJ Bronley, a great supporter of local writers and a really fun guy (read this post on his blog for a great laugh, including the comment trail. Oh, and this one, too.) I'm also partial to his sweet wife, so I'm glad he entered and won some goodies for her.

Since I had planned on three winners for stories, but we have only one, I figured it was only fair to give TJ TWO prizes. (I even had another sponsor offer yet another awesome prize, but knew we wouldn't have the entries to justify it. Come on, people! Maybe next time?)

TJ said anything he won would likely be a gift for his wife, and that's fantastic, since here's what he gets:

A copy of Stephanie Humphrey's debut romance, Finding Rose, published by Walnut Springs.
A custom piece of jewelry from Bangles, Beads, N' Bobbles.

The story rules were to keep it to 250 words and either begin or end with the following sentence: In hindsight, it wasn't such a good idea.

Behold, TJ's winning story:

Better Left Unsaid

I saw her from far away. She was easy to spot across the room. Casually walking toward her, I interacted with as many people as I could. Delaying the impending discomfort was a procrastinator's lifeline. Her brother stopped me about ten feet from her by grabbing my arm.

“Dude, are you gonna talk to her?”

“Yeah,” I replied.

“Are you sure it’s a good idea?” There was almost a warning glance in his eye. “Everyone will be watching you.”

Of course it wasn’t. “Yes, it’s gotta happen,” I replied.

“Whatever. Just don’t come crying to me.”

I pulled my arm away and continued my saunter.

“Hey, Tim,” she said as I approached.

“Hey, Casey.” It was now or never. “You have toilet paper sticking out your pants.”

She looked down, a horrified look on her face.

“Everyone’s noticed. I finally saw you.”

“I went to the bathroom a half hour ago! People have been staring at my butt that long.”

“I guess so,” I replied.

SLAP!

She stormed off while I placed my hand on my throbbing cheek.

In hindsight, it wasn’t such a good idea.

WNW: Where'd It Come From? Back-formation

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:56:00 +0000

One of my favorite quirks of English is how versatile it is in creating new words, and often without us even realizing it.

A common way of creating new words is essentially tweaking a current word in a process called back-formation.

With back-formation, the new word usually looks like it is the original one and that the other word or words came from it.

That idea make sense grammatically, because we tend to just slide into creating back-formations. The new word is typically shorter, because often a typical prefix or suffix was removed to create the word.

The first I heard of this concept was with the word EDIT. It wasn't the original word.

But wait: isn't that's what an EDITOR does?

Well, yes. That's what we call it today. But the person (EDITOR) was given the name, and what they do was later called editing.

English uses -OR and -ER endings to mean "one who" (a teacher teaches, a sweeper sweeps), so it's easy to take a noun that happens to have a similar ending and apply the rule we're used to.

Therefore an editor must . . . edit! EDIT is a back-formation of EDITOR.

Other examples that were surprising for me to stumble on:

Taking off the -ion suffix:

resurrect from resurrection.
aviate from aviation
conversate from conversation
evaluate from evaluation
absorb from absorption

Removing the -er, -ar, -or suffix to create a verb (as with edit/editor):

beg from beggar
buttle from butler
burgle from burglar
curate from curator
commentate from commentator
swindle from swindler
tweeze from tweezers

Removing the -y suffix:

choreograph from choreography
haze from hazy
injure from injury
jell from jelly
sulk from sulky

Taking off a prefix like un-:

kempt from unkempt

One from a nursery rhyme:

pea from pease (Remember the old rhyme: "Pease porridge hot. Pease porridge cold." Pease was singular.)

And my two favorites:

mentee from mentor
enthuse from enthusiasm

Sometimes we use back-formations as jokes, like how (see Wikipedia) comedian Bill Bryson reportedly suggested that we should call someone who has tidy hair "sheveled" (as opposed to disheveled).

And in an episode of the sitcom Scrubs (a show I found brilliantly written from a Word Nerd standpoint), Turk tells Dr. Cox, "I don't disdain you! It's quite the opposite–I dain you."

FINAL REMINDER: Enter the anniversary giveaway! Spread the word for more entries. Try your hand and the easy-peasy trivia questions. And/or write a little anecdote. Winners will be announced FRIDAY.

Distance for Davis

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 22:18:00 +0000

If you're in northern Utah in just over a week (Friday, Aug 6 and Saturday, Aug 7), be sure to check out all the events surrounding the fund raiser for Davis Cox, a young man about the age of my own son who is suffering from a severe case of aplastic anemia . . . a very dangerous illness.

There will be lots of fun, from a 5K (okay, to ME running isn't so fun) to motorcycle stunts, hot air balloon rides, entertainment, and more.

Below is information from the press release about it.

Visit Davis's website (link below) for more information about him and the fundraiser:

Davis County Community Hosts Fundraiser for Local Teen with Aplastic Anemia

“Distance for Davis Cox” Fundraiser Includes

Utah Blaze and Miller Motor Sports Park

Rare Disease Affects Three in One Million U.S. Residents Each Year

WHAT: “Distance for Davis” Fundraiser for 14-year-old aplastic anemia patient, Davis Cox.

Event includes a Utah Blaze Football Clinic, Nitro Circus Movie Premier, motorcycle stunts by DJ Osborn, a silent auction and raffle, a 5K Fun Run, hot air balloon rides, a blood drive, food, games and entertainment.

WHO:

Utah Blaze, DJ Osborn, local companies, friends, family and classmates rally to raise money and support local teen Davis Cox.

WHEN: Aug. 6 from 7 p.m. -11 p.m.

Aug. 7 from 7 a.m. to 4 p.m.

WHERE: Davis High School, Kaysville, Utah

WHY:

In March 2010, Davis, a 14-year-old Kaysville Junior High School Student, contracted a random virus that damaged his bone marrow, which resulted in severe aplastic anemia. Once, a healthy football and baseball player, Davis now experiences life-threatening symptoms ranging from retinal bleeding, two-hour nose and gum bleeds, fevers, severe bacterial infections, and a depleted immune system.

MORE ABOUT APLASIC ANEMIA:

Affecting only three in one million Americans each year, aplastic anemia is a disease of the bone marrow, where the marrow stops making enough red blood cells, white blood cells and platelets for the body. People like Davis, with severe or very severe aplastic anemia, are at risk for life-threatening infections or bleeding. Treatment includes bone marrow or cord blood transplant and immunosuppressive therapy.

If you can't attend, you can always donate at the "Distance for Davis" website: www.daviscoxfundraiser.com.

Reminder: Entries for the story part of my blog-anniversary giveaway are due TOMORROW, Wednesday, July 28th. All giveaway winners will be announced this Friday, July 30th.

Cunningham Flat Daddy

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 23:03:00 +0000

We're getting close to having enough to pay for The Lyon's Tale's FOURTH Flat Daddy for a military family going through a deployment. Woohooo!

(Not familiar with the Flat Daddy program? Visit THIS PAGE of my website or go to the Flat Daddy site.)

I'm THRILLED with the response from my readers who have donated. (You know who you are; thank you, thank you, thank you!!!) Every little bit helps.

The fourth Flat Daddy will go to the Cunningham Family. A little about them:

Mom and Dad Cunningham met at a single adult conference in July 1996. They were married five weeks later.

During the early years of their marriage, Daddy C was in college, and even with a growing family (of four boys!), he managed to graduate with honors with (YES!) a Bachelor's in English Literature and Writing.

His final semester, he joined the Army and left for basic training July of 2000. The following February, the family headed for their first duty station: Fort Bliss, TX.

The following years are a blur for them with two deployments, diapers, pre-schools, IEP meetings, OCS, and PCSs. (Acronyms that don't mean much for us civilians!) Daddy felt he was missing the boys growing up, so he decided to end his active duty Army career and find a civilian job. During that time, they got a surprise: their one and only daughter, born six years after their youngest son.

He maintained his military connection, though, and is now attached with the Montana National Guard. He's deploying to Iraq in a matter of weeks. (Hence the need for a Flat Daddy quick!)

This will be Daddy C's third deployment.

In Mommy C's words:

We are so proud of him and his desire to serve! He's such a good example to our kids, and to the kids in his Primary class. Because of his great love for the Gospel and the fine example he has set in our home, even though he will be leaving, we will not be without the priesthood: Our two oldest boys hold the priesthood and love to serve. I see their happiness and willingness to fulfill their responsibilities and know it's because their dad is the same way! :) The younger two boys are anxiously waiting for their time to serve in the priesthood too!

To donate to my Flat Daddy fund (and get the Cunninghams their Flat Daddy by the time Dad leaves!) use the DONATE button on my sidebar. We're getting close, so if we end up with extra funds (I hope!), they'll roll over to the next Flat Daddy Family.

Reminder: Enter my blog-anniversary giveaway for a chance to win prizes! The story entries are due on Wednesday (tick, tock!). The NINE winners from all three ways of entering will be announced Friday.

How Do I Draft & Revise?

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:18:00 +0000

I've had several people ask variations on this question, so I figured it was time to answer it.

Every writer is different, and I don't pretend to hold all magical writerly wisdom in my hands. But because every writer is different, I think we can all learn from one another, see what works for one person, and try it out for ourselves.

My drafting and revision method (such as it is) has evolved over the years quite a bit. Here's roughly how it stands today:

I rarely draft chronologically, at least at first. I usually start a novel midway. This is largely because I have a first-chapter curse (wish I were kidding). If I try to start at chapter one, scene one, that section will be inevitably be doomed for the trash can.

It's also because my ideas for books don't START at scene one. I usually get a cool idea for a specific scene that happens in the middle. So I start writing there, back up, jump forward, and somehow link it all together. At some point I do settle into mostly chronological writing, but I always allow myself to jump ahead again if I feel the need.

I'm not a strict outliner, but I'm not a "seat of your pantser," either. I fall somewhere in between. I have to know where I'm starting (although not what the first scene will be), where the story will end up, and several major landmarks along the way.

That's how I can hop ahead: I write out one of those major landmarks early on.

But I can't outline with too much precision, because that takes the fun out of discovering exactly what my characters will say and do. I do generally know that my characters will go from A to B to C, but I'm often surprised at exactly how they get there. (If that makes sense. Writers rarely do.)

I've learned that writing scenes I'm already "on fire" about tends to be best; if I wait until I get there chronologically, some of the fire is gone. Sure, by the time I've written everything that comes before that part, I often have to rewrite bits to make the whole fit together, and there's always bridging from one section to the already written parts, but it works for me.

While in drafting mode, I generally spend a lot of time thinking. When the kids were really little, this was the only way to survive as a writer: to think ahead to what I'd be drafting next, so when I had 45 minutes, I could race to the keyboard and pound out the next part.

I still think ahead even though the kids are older. This kind of creative thinking can be done while I'm falling asleep at night, folding laundry, taking a shower, driving, or whatever else doesn't use much brain power. I call them "brainless moments," where I can be doing one activity that doesn't take much attention or focus while my creative side can wander around and do its thing.

That way, when I'm ready to draft, I can really get to work instead of staring at the screen, fingers over the keys, but getting nothing accomplished. This is especially important for when I do writing marathons, when I set aside several hours or a special day just for writing. If I have a solid list of scenes to come, I won't lose valuable time trying to figure out what comes next.

Usually, but not always, when I first sit down, I'll go over the last part I wrote, making tweaks and fixes on it. That helps get me back into the groove of the story world, which makes continuing the story easier. It also makes answering the question, "How many drafts do you do?" pretty hard to answer. (Some scenes get rewritten a dozen times, others three or four.)

If I feel stuck, or somehow disconnected to the story world, I'll open up some research related to it. That used to mean historical books about temples and whatnot. For Band of Sisters, it was often rereading military wife interviews. With my YA folktale, it's reading a section aloud from The Kalevala.

I tend to write sparingly in my first drafts, so when I go back to look at a scene for the second (or whatever-eth) time, I flesh-out the details: setting, emotions, action, and so forth.

After revising a scene a couple of times, I print it out and take it to critique group. Ideally. There are times I have to crank out something to read, and they, um, get to see it hot off the press in all its ugliness.

When my awesome group is done praising/shredding/otherwise fixing the scene, I take it home. In theory, I make the needed revisions right away.

In reality, I often have a several-inch stack of critique pages before I buckle down for serious revision. I look at everyone's feedback and compare it, since sometimes they don't agree among themselves. I take about 90% of their suggestions. They're that good. But I don't take every single suggestion; it is my story, after all, and a lot of things are subjective. (I don't expect my fellow group members to take 100% of my feedback either.)

When I'm done drafting a book, I'll go through the whole thing from start to finish, looking for anything more that needs fixing or polishing that I haven't hit yet.

Up to this point, I've been working on the manuscript piecemeal, seeing it microscopically, if you will. The full read is the first time I see the book as a whole, where I experience the story arc all at once.

So I look at it macro-scopically, to see the big picture: Does this chapter flow into the next? Does this scene transition well here? Is the pacing good throughout? Does the motivation wash in that scene? Does the conflict carry over from here to there? Do the character arcs work? And so on.

Generally there's not time to take an entire manuscript to critique group a scene or chapter at a time before I want/need to submit it, so when it's fully drafted and revised, I ask for anyone in my group who has time to read over the whole thing. I hope to get at least two readers, and even with their busy schedules, they're pretty darn awesome and always come through for me.

We swap these kinds of favors, so I don't feel too bad asking; I know that I'll be returning the favor by reading someone else's entire manuscript soon.

When I get their edits back, I go through one final revision before submission.

Yeah, except that "final" is a misnomer, because even after acceptance, there's more revision with the help of my editor before we enter the line-edit stage.

That's the "typical" process, but really, there isn't a typical one. Every book has been different.

Remember to enter my blog anniversary giveaway. Nine prizes are up for grabs.

TIP: Right now you have a GREAT chance at winning SIX of them . . . check out the second and third ways of entering.

4-Year Extravaganza!!!

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:18:00 +0000

Yippee! Today marks FOUR YEARS since my very first post here at The Lyon' s Tale, wherein I celebrated my writerly weirdness.

IT'S PARTY TIME!!!

(PRIZES BELOW!)

But first . . .

A lot much has happened in four years. A smattering:

Four of my seven novels were published.
I got two teenagers. (And an ulcer. Connected? You decide.)
I got my own gorgeous office with built-in bookcases made by my husband.
I won Utah's Best of State medal for fiction.
The Whitney Awards were created. My suggestion for naming the award was picked. ("Whitney" in honor of apostle Orson F. Whitney, who envisioned an amazing future for LDS literature).
I was a Whitney finalist, then a member of the committee, and this year got to present a Lifetime Achievement Award to Gerald Lund.
(Speaking of which, be sure to nominate your favorite books by LDS writers . . . and that includes national books. A title needs five nominations to be official. Get nominating!)
The Teen Writers Conference was born, which I've been part of since its inception.
I broke my nose.
I used elements from that experience in my next two books.
Two daughters hurt their wrists w/in about 48 hours of one another: one sprained, the other broken. With their red hair, I was immediately identified by the Urgent Care NP. "Weren't you just here with another daughter with a similar injury?"(I am a fit mother. I SWEAR.)
Husband and I took a trip to visit my parents in my other homeland, Finland, where they were presiding over the temple. You can read all about the trip HERE.
I was asked to write a COOKBOOK, of all things. Lesson: You never know where writing opportunities will come from. Keep doors open. (And watch shelves in October!)
I joined Facebook (with both a personal page and an author page).
I joined Twitter (@Lyonstale).
At the ~~pestering~~ request of many, many people, I created my grammar book.
Most recently, I got my very first book available for readers once again, currently on the Kindle. (Can I hear a woot, woot?!)

Now for the celebration, in THREE parts (each part will have MULTIPLE winners!):

1) A random drawing for prizes.

2) An easy trivia contest. (I give obvious hints, so there's no excuse to NOT find the answers.)

3) A mini writing contest.

THE PRIZES, THE PRIZES!!!

1) CHOCOLATE!

Kim is generously donating a delicious Canadian chocolate pack to one winner. (That alone is worth entering, no? Oh, yeah.)

2) Eyes Like Mine

A signed copy of Julie Wright's latest novel, a recent Whitney Award finalist.

3) All the Stars in Heaven

A signed copy of Michele Paige Holmes's latest, also a Whitney finalist this year. (Her previous book won the Whitney for Best Romance. She has yet to publish a book that isn't at least a

finalist.)

4) Alma the Younger

A signed copy of the newest release by 2-time Whitney winner H. B. Moore.

5) A Spiral-bound Notebook and a Pen

The notebook has a totally cool cover (a blueish/grayish door with a brass doorknob and lock). Quote on the front says: Unlock your mind: read. Winner also gets a pen to go with the notebook. It has cute polka dots and the words: Don't bug me; I'm writing.

6) A Mouse Pad

Features a stack of books and the famous Groucho Marx quote: "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read."

7) A T-shirt

White, with a row of cute houses on it and a quote below them: "A house without books is like a room without windows."

8) A custom piece of jewelry from Bangles, Beads, N' Bobbles.

Visit their Facebook pag e or Etsy shop to get an idea of the fun stuff to choose from. Since the winner's prize will be created custom-made, they'll have to plan on about 2 weeks so Sandra, the brain behind the magic, can make the piece and ship it.

9) Finding Rose

A signed copy of Stephanie Humphrey's debut romance novel from Walnut Springs.

Enter THREE ways:

1) Comment, then spread the word, if you want to. (THREE RANDOM WINNERS.)

One comment will enter you. Get additional entries by spreading the word. (You know the drill: tweet it, blog about it, put it in your FB status, yada yada. Then let me know what you've done, and you'll get extra entries for each item. Blog posts linking back to this one are worth two entries, all the other fun stuff is worth one extra each.)

2) Answer the five trivia questions below. (THREE RANDOM WINNERS.)

Send your answers to ANNETTE at ANNETTELYON dot COM. DO NOT put your answers in the comments. I promise, they're EASY:

Five Trivia Questions (all answers can be found here on my blog):
1) What month of the year did I begin Word Nerd Wednesday? (Hint: Look for the "Word Nerdiversary" post.)
2) When (month and year) was Lost Without You first published? (Hint: Look at a recent post.)
3) What was the title of the first book I began to write (but never finished)? (Hint: The VERY FIRST post with from the Writing Journey series. They're labeled.)
4) What cosmetic do I almost never leave the house without? (Hint: #76.)
5) List the other SIX members of my critique group There are seven of us, but don't list me. (Hint: Sidebar)

AGAIN: DO NOT put the answers into the comments. E-mail them to me.

3) Enter my mini writing contest. THREE winners will be awarded from the entries, which will be judged by a super-secret but totally awesome panel.

The rules: write a short-short story of 250 words or fewer (word count will be enforced), with either the opening or closing sentence being:

In hindsight, it wasn't such a good idea.

Send your story (fiction or non-fiction) via e-mail: ANNETTE at ANNETTELYON dot com with the story IN THE BODY OF THE MESSAGE. (No attachments. Maximum of two stories per person.)

Winning stories will be posted here, so by entering, you're granting The Lyon's Tale that right.

DEADLINE for stories: Wednesday, July 28.

(That's a week from the date of this post.)

TO SUM UP:

-THREE PRIZES for comments and spreading the love.

-THREE PRIZES for those who correctly answer ridiculously easy trivia questions.

-THREE PRIZES for mini story winners.

That's NINE awesome prizes you have a shot at winning!

Winners will be announced Friday, July 30.

Ready, set, go!

50 Years Since "Mockingbird"

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:59:00 +0000

This month marks the 50th anniversary of the publication of Harper Lee's classic novel, To Kill a Mockingbird.

I was first introduced to the book my sophomore year of high school. I really enjoyed it, I'm sure in large part to a great English teacher (Hi, Miss Drummond!) who helped us students "get" that the story is so much more than what the first page proclaims it to be.

As teenagers (and kids who hadn't experienced racism firsthand, for the most part) we saw Scout's world through Scout's lens. She opens the story by saying that here are the events of one summer that led to her brother Jem breaking his arm.

And yes, that's true. Everything in the book pretty much leads up to the night Jem breaks his arm. But who did it, the underlying motivations for why, and how Jem ended up having only a broken arm instead of losing his life entirely . . . that's what the book is about.

Through Scout's interactions with the townspeople, her father (Atticus Finch, one of my all-time favorite characters), and Boo Radley, We learn about stereotypes, racism, goodness, justice, mercy, strength, weakness, courage.

We learn about doing the right thing even when you know the result won't be happy.

We learn to not judge others . . . especially when you have no idea how that other person may be your guardian angel after all.

It's a powerful book that has impacted millions of lives.

It's also the only book Harper Lee ever wrote. Many have guessed as to why she never published again. Any interviews she grants (a very rare occurrence, indeed) are on the condition that the interviewer does not mention "the book."

Count me as one person who has read and reread the book, a reader who loves Scout's innocence and fire with her school teacher. I'm one of millions who vividly recall Atticus pulling the trigger to save the neighborhood from a rabid dog (and shocking his children at the fact that he's a sharp-shooter who never shoots), of Atticus sitting beneath a single light bulb next to a cell that housed an innocent black man, in an effort to protect him from a potential white mob. Of Boo saving the lives of the children he'd come to love.

If you haven't read To Kill a Mockingbird, do. I recommend the movie as well. Gregory Peck captures Atticus perfectly. A very young Robert Duvall shows up briefly at the end as Boo. Harper Lee let them use her father's own pocket watch in the opening credits. And word has it that even she was pleased with the film adaptation. High praise.

Harper Lee is still alive, although she's getting on in years. Here is one great article about the history of the book, her reclusive life, some possible reasons for staying out of the limelight and not writing anymore, and about the anniversary of the publication.

An estimated 40 million readers have been impacted by Mockingbird. Here's looking forward to another 40 million in the years ahead.

Note #1: This weekend was my turn over at the AML Blog.

Note #2: WEDNESDAY is my 4-year bloggy-versary. There will be PRIZES! If you or someone you know wants to sponsor a prize to advertise your business, let me know right away.

Note #3: Remember that you can download a free sample from the new and rewritten version of Lost Without You . . . and that you don't need a Kindle to read it.

Note #4: Those with Sony Readers, Nooks, and other e-reader devices: Can you get Kindle software? I know the iPhone, iPad, Blackberry, and PC can. I'm trying to figure out of I need the book available on other platforms. Any insight would be welcome!

WNW: Words, Words, Words

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:27:00 +0000

I came across two different pieces of fun online this week. (The first I stumbled on via Maya Reynold's blog, and the other one, Melanie J sent my way, knowing I'd love it.)

I couldn't pick between the two, and since they both deal with vocabulary and words in general, I'm using both today.

THE FIRST

I learned a new word this week: Mountweazel.

A Mountweazel is a word or entry in a book (like a dictionary or encyclopedia) that is deliberately fake, allowing the creators to track copyright violators who copy their work. If someone uses their book and the fake entry shows up, it's pretty obvious that it's a) not original and 2) they got their information from a specific source.

The term came from one such entry, in the 1975 New Columbia Encyclopedia (NCE), an entry about a non-existent woman named Lillian Virginia Mountweazel.

Her supposed bio read:

Lillian Virginia Mountweazel (1942-1973). Her biography claims she was a fountain designer and photographer, best known for her collection of photos of rural American mailboxes, "Flags Up!" She was born in Bangs, Ohio, and died in an explosion while on assignment for "Combustibles" magazine.

In 2005, The New Yorker took the name and used it to describe the concept. You can find that article HERE.

That article is fascinating in its own right. An unnamed investigator took the job on himself to figure out where the Mountweazel was in the New Oxford Dictionary. A leak claimed that the made-up word began with E. He went through all the Es and whittled them down to six viable candidates then took those words to a group of pros.

While the lexicographers weren't in agreement, the majority did pick the fake:

esquivalience—n. the willful avoidance of one’s official responsibilities . . . late 19th cent.: perhaps from rom French esquiver, “dodge, slink away.”

Read the full article to see how they figured it out.

The second fun bit is a long poem with a bunch of crazy vocabulary words.

"The Chaos," a poem by G. Nolst Trenite (Charivarius) has homophones as well as the opposite: words next to one another that are spelled similarly but pronounced totally different.

From the fourth line: "corpse, corps, horse, and worse"

It gets really crazy. Read it aloud and see if you can do it 100% correctly. I've got pretty decent-sized vocabulary, but I didn't quite make it. Two words I didn't know at all, and a couple I looked up quickly to see if I was pronouncing them right.

One word I can thank Dr. Oaks for teaching me:

VICTUALS is not, like many (and I used to) think pronounced like "VIC-TOO-ALLS."

It's "VITTLES."

Check out the whole poem HERE. It's a riot.

Reading it reminded me of those spelling protesters. They'd have a field day.

It's Baaaack!

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 21:09:00 +0000

Happy, happy day, one that's been about two years in the making (something I didn't realize until I checked some old e-mails), but it's finally here!

Lost Without You, which has been out of print for several years, is back, baby! Digitally, that is. E-readers can now download it from Amazon and read it on the Kindle or any device that supports Kindle software (they have apps for PC, iPhone, Blackberry, iPad, and more).

If there's a need for it, I'll pull some strings with my technology department (read: husband who loves me) to get it onto other platforms.

You'll find a badge on my sidebar to buy it from and another link on my website. Or search Amazon for it (be sure to search for the KINDLE edition, because the Kindle version isn't listed on the print edition's page).

In the process of getting the book ready, I decided to go back and do some editing on it. I hadn't looked the book at all in years. (I don't read my books after they're published; I can't do it.)

I found myself noticing repetitive wording, awkward sentences, and even a random point of view shift or two. And then I started having fun . . .

Oooh, having Pat say another line here would be funny. So I added dialogue. I changed parts that leaned toward telling and made them more showing. I caught a couple of inconsistencies (thanks to Lara, I fixed the part where Greg's dimple switches cheeks).

It was fun to see sections that are somewhat outdated (Brooke listens to cassette tapes in her car and ABBA isn't a commonly known music group because Mama Mia hadn't come out yet). But I didn't change the plot. For that matter, it was awesome to find out that I still liked the story after all these years, while at the same time being able to see that I've grown as a writer and know how to make it better.

The final version turned out to be some 9,000 words longer than the original. Ahem. So the "edit" morphed into an expansion/rewrite. I think the extra words improved the whole, and I'm thrilled with the final result.

The timing wasn't intentional, but I find it rather cool:

Exactly eight years to the month after the original release of Lost Without You in July of 2002, the e-reader version is here. (HERE!)

(You can even download a FREE sample.)

WNW: I Cling to JIBE!

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 19:56:00 +0000

So saith Melanie J in a recent e-mail (and many others who have asked me about this one, as well as friends who try to correct one another).

Here's the issue: which is correct, JIBE or JIVE?

As in:

It doesn't JIBE with that.

It doesn't JIVE with that.

Hmm?

I've heard rather heated, adamant arguments both directions. When the question was posed to me some time ago, I wasn't sure. They both sounded right, and I could argue either.

So I turned to my handy-dandy research sources.

One of my faves, Brian's Common Errors in English doesn't even list it.

So I turned to my trusty OED.

That's where I learned that contrary to popular belief, neither is incorrect, and they both mean "to fit in," "make sense of," or "be in harmony with."

JIBE is the older of the two, making its appearance in print around 1813.

JIVE, the much younger word sibling (showing up in 1943 with this meaning), is just as legitimate, if newer.

(Those who favor JIBE will be happy to know that some dictionaries don't include this definition under JIVE.)

My guess is that JIBE shifted to JIVE as result of what people thought they were hearing.

The B sound in JIBE is easily softened and almost non-existent when you say "it doesn't jibe" quickly. If JIBE doesn't have another word after it, the B almost disappears entirely.

Then with the creation of swing music, people would JIVE, and that word was far more common that JIBE (which originally was a SAILING term back in the 1600s). Without getting all technical, both sounds are made at the front of the mouth; it's easy to see how one could morph into the other.

That's how, in my word nerd but non-professional opinion, I think JIVE took on the meaning of JIBE.

And today we use both. (You'll find JIBE/JIVE on page 68 of my grammar book, but not in so much detail.)

If you must, you can certainly cling to JIBE.

Just try not to twitch when others use JIVE, because it's correct too.

Gearing up: FOUR YEARS

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 15:18:00 +0000

I'm just over two weeks away from my (holy cow!) four year blogging anniversary. My very first post went up on July 21, 2006.

Whoa!

It doesn't feel that long. Granted, for those first two years, I didn't know much about blogging. Much of that time was spent floundering around, figuring out this new medium of technology and communication. In fact, it was an article in Writer's Digest discussing blogs that convinced me to give it a shot. (The biggest selling point: Even a techno-idiot like me could get one up and running in under 10 minutes.)

Four years later, I can hardly imagine my life without blogging.

I've made many dear friends, some of whom I'm met in real life and others I haven't met but still hold dear. I've learned a ton about myself. About blogging. I've learned how to find other blogs. I've laughed and cried reading others' posts. I feel like a better person in some ways. Wildest of all, I've spoken at a blogging conference. (I'm still basking in the glow of that one.)

According to Feedburner, my little corner of the blogosphere has over 300 subscribers. It has nearly 200 Google Followers. (I remember thinking it would be so cool to reach 100 and break the two-digit barrier!) I don't have a huge blog (I'm no CJane), but I love where mine has gone and is heading, and I appreciate everyone who drops by and takes time to read my ramblings.

Thanks to you all!

To celebrate, I plan to have some kind of fun giveaway/contesty thingy.

("Thingy." Yeah, that's about as specific as I have it so far. As the concept crystallizes, I'll give out more details.)

In the meantime, if you or someone you know would like to sponsor a prize for my 4-year bloggy-versary, please drop me a line! I'd love to have a bunch of fun goodies to give away and for the whole thing (whatever it ends up being) to be a boatload of fun.

I might even break out my knitting needles to make something for one winner. Hmmm . . .

Finally, I've mentioned this on Facebook and Twitter, but might as well do so here, too, because I'm kinda excited about it.

For literally years, I've thought about what it would take to be featured in Utah Valley Magazine, especially after seeing other (much bigger) writers like Brandon Mull get in there. Recently Jeanette Bennett, editor and owner of Utah Valley Magazine asked little 'ol me for an interview. I was kinda pleased. (Read: jumping up and down excited.) We had a great 45-minute chat at her office, and the interview came out in the July/Aug 2010 issue.

While I'm certainly not cover material like Brandon Mull, I did get a 2-page spread, which surprised and tickled me to no end. I'm tempted to frame it and hang on my office wall. ('Cause I'm a geek like that.)

My neighbor Heather Adams took the picture of me. We had a great photo shoot earlier this year for a new bio photo for Band of Sisters, and they used one of the pictures from that shoot. Heather's an awesome photographer, and I love how great she made me look!

You can see the issue online HERE. (I'm on pp 58-59, or on the lower left menu, click on "Ladies Gaga" and turn a page or two.) What's wild is that a friend of mine from my youth theater days is also in the very same issue: Mindy Young, on page 28. We met the summer before our senior years in Lehi's youth production of Joseph. (Mindy played one serious come-hither Potiphar's wife!)

Okay, back to the original point:

In less than two weeks, on July 21: 4-YEAR BLOGGIVERSARY CELEBRATION!
Ideas, sponsors, requests: Send 'em on in!

WNW: Spelling Protesters. Really.

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 18:21:00 +0000

I'll be the first to admit that English is a conglomeration of funky ways to spell things. That's largely because so many languages have contributed to English. We have "rules" . . . and then a thousand exceptions to each one. It's almost a surprise that any of us ever learn to read.

Let's take a quick look at a language where spelling is a piece of cake: In Finnish, spelling is the ONE easy thing. The language has an insane number of cases, all of which I had to learn at one point in grammar class.

Bragging rights: I outscored my friend Marjo on one such test, and she was annoyed because I wasn't even a Finn . . . but I'd studied. Don't ask me to do it now. Totally couldn't.

But spelling? Piece of cake. It's nice that there's something not mind-numbingly difficult about Finnish.

See, everything is phonetic. If you learn what sound each letter makes, you can read anything in Finnish. (Caveat: a few letters make difficult sounds. Point still stands.)

Hence, my little sister, who was eight when we arrived in Finland, could read aloud in class flawlessly . . . without a clue as to what any of it meant.

English, however . . . yeah, well, there's a reason spelling bees exist in the States.

And it turns out that some people don't like English having odd rules. More, they don't get that language is a living thing and that you cannot force change onto it.

(That should totally be a Word Nerd post of its own. Taking mental notes . . . although I kind of talked about it in this post.)

As a result of our funky English non-rules, we have spelling bee protesters. Seriously.

This Yahoo! article describes how protesters came to a national spelling bee in D. C. (some even dressed in BLACK AND YELLOW. Bees, get it? Haha.) to protest that English should change its spelling.

Their posters sported the following:

Enuf is enuf. Enough is too much.

Cute.

They claim that "heifer" (as in the cow) should be written as "hefer."

When I saw that, my brain went back to my childhood days of watching The Electric Company (totally dating myself) where I learned that double consonants make the vowel short, while single consonants make the vowel long.

To show the concept, they had this great skit with SUPPER MAN, who needed a P taken off his name so he could be a true super hero, a SUPER MAN. They showed the same rule applying with dinner/diner and other word pairs, adding and subtracting consonants.

(Obviously, the rule has stuck with me more than three decades later, so the show did something right. Yay for educational television! Kids, go watch more TV!)

Based on that simple idea, if we're changing the cow's name and trying to use standard, easy-to-remember rules, shouldn't the spelling protesters have suggested HEFFER?

Because yo, protesters, how do you propose we get long vowels? What if we wanted hiefer to be pronounced as HEE-fer? How would you spell that?

Then you get the Spelling Society of London, founded in 1908. I'm with them on promoting literacy and getting word out about the crazy rules, but a quick look at their site didn't clarify whether they're trying to change things. (If so, good luck, folks. 100 years hasn't done much for ya.)

Now, just for laughs (but also something that will just encourage spelling protesters, alas), something that shows just how crazy English can be.

Here is a proposed spelling of the word FISH (naturally, courtesy Dr. Oaks and his awesome teachingness):

GHOTI

How could that be, you ask?

Take these words:

ENOUGH

WOMEN

EMOTION

GH in ENOUGH creates the F sound.

The O in WOMEN is often pronounced like a short I. (Really, no one really says women with a short O. Say it aloud. No O, right? It's closer to a short I, although some dialects could argue an "oo" as in BOOK sound.)

And finally, we get SH from the TI in EMOTION.

Put them together, and those spelling protesters could argue that, based on the "rules," GHOTI is a reasonable way of spelling FISH.

Spelling has always been my weakest area of language, but I'm not about to bend to black-and-yellow costumed protesters.

English is also a beautiful language with a rich history. And like I said before, it's alive. Hence, by extrapolation, it's, oh, not dead. Therefore, you can't prescribe this or that to suddenly change it.

Whine all you want, but speakers will still speak and write the language like they have for years. Changes will happen, but they take time, and you can't insist on what they'll be.

English will continue evolve on its own, just as it has for centuries.

I just hope that texting language doesn't win out in the end. 'Cause that would be gr8.

Ashleigh's Soldier & Flat Daddy

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:17:00 +0000

My generous readers got Ashleigh's Flat Daddy paid for before I put up her spotlight.

(That is because first, because I have the best readers EVER, and second, because I spaced telling you all about who she is until now.)

Here is Ashleigh with her sweetheart soldier, who is currently deployed:

Come July, Ashleigh's husband will have been a medic in the Army for six years. He plans to make it a career, as he loves the Army and loves serving his country. They were married in December 2008 and had their first baby, and sweet little boy, just a couple of weeks ago while Daddy was gone.

Ashleigh's husband also has a six-year-old daughter, Taylie, who lives in Washington with her mom.

During the deployment, Ashleigh and their baby boy live with her in-laws, including two nephews. The boys often ask where their uncle is; he's very involved with family when at home, so they miss him terribly. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Flat Daddy will be good for their nephews as well as for their baby.

Ashleigh is going to school as an English major (yay, English majors!) and plans to teach either at the high school or college level.

Speaking of her husband, Ashleigh says, "I think he is one of the kindest people I've ever met. He is a great, supportive and loving husband."

As the progress bars show, Ashleigh's Flat Daddy is already paid for, something I'm exceedingly grateful for, because now their baby will know what Daddy looks like when he gets home.

We already have another Flat Daddy family in the works . . . and $10 already donated to them! I'll let you know about them soon.

Thanks again to everyone who has been so generous!

This Is Why I Write

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:25:00 +0000

The feedback I've had from Band of Sisters has been very much what I hoped it would be rather than what I feared it might be. Actually, the response has exceeded my expectations. I went in pretty scared.

After all, I was writing about deployment: a huge topic, one that's timely, sensitive, and one that so many people not only know about but have been through firsthand. And I'm brazen enough to attempt to capture that experience when I've never been through it?

Yet that's what I set out to do.

On one hand, that's kind of what fiction writers do every time they sit down. Beginning writers' work often tends to be largely autobiographical, but eventually, if you've written long enough, you move past that and invest in stories and characters several steps removed from yourself.

My first book was a mixture of the two: I included bits and pieces of things I knew personally (I went on lots of Uintah hikes as a teen. I was hit in the head with a rock at recess and needed stitches. I performed in Into the Woods. All of those show up in the book in various ways.)

But I also addressed things totally foreign to me, such as what it would be like to marry a man already sealed to another woman. That element is a huge part of the book, and I had to emotionally go there to figure out how Brooke would handle it and how Greg would approach the idea of marrying again.

After Lost Without You came out, my aunt, who is a second wife herself, went to my mother and asked, "How did she know what it feels like?"

Yes! I got it right! The only response I had for that was, "I guess I imagined well?" That's the kind of reader feedback that makes you want to do a dance in the end zone.

As I wrote Band of Sisters, I talked with many military wives who had been through or were currently dealing with deployment. Two of them I've known for many, many years. I'd also watched firsthand as one of them went through a deployment (and thoroughly picked her brain).

In spite of my work, I feared it wouldn't land well. Maybe I'd offend because I didn't do justice to the pain or the reality or fully express my respect for the military.

One concern I had is the fact that there is no "typical" deployment, so any woman who'd been through it could say, "That's not how it was." More, what my characters experience as National Guard wives who live in regular neighborhoods is totally different from what a woman would experience if she lived on a military base during a deployment.

What would a military base wife think reading it? Would she think I got all the details wrong? I could see someone rolling their eyes and going, "There IS no Army base in Utah. Duh." But there are hundreds of Army families here. Utah soldiers have died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. A street near us was recently renamed after one of those fallen soldiers. He did fight with the U.S. Army, even if there's no Army base here. (But Camp Williams is here!) I couldn't very well put that kind of disclaimer on the book, so I held my breath and hoped those deeper into the military would give me the benefit of the doubt.

I chose to write about Guard wives for a couple of reasons: first, because those were the kinds of women I had the most contact with, and my research would be more accurate using their information. But also because, frankly, it's tougher to not be on a base during a deployment. The Guard tries hard to support families in a variety of ways, but when push comes to shove, they simply can't scratch the surface of the support and benefits other families get by default from living on base.

When you're in a regular old neighborhood, likely with no other military anyone nearby, no one gets it. Even a simple conversation about what's going on with your soldier turns into a pain the neck rather than a comfort because you have explain acronyms or this particular element of the military. You can't just get a worry off your chest with a simple sentence or two.

I worried and worried and worried. I went into the project without much knowledge, so I relied heavily on several military wives for information and then, armed with that information, I tried to imagine how each of my five (very different) characters would react given their ages, circumstances, personalities, etc.

With all military details, I relied on my primary resources, down to what ranks the husbands would realistically have and why. Even though I didn't randomly make stuff up, I still mentally bit my nails to the quick waiting for people's reactions. To my huge relief, the response has been overwhelmingly positive.

I recently got an e-mail from a two-time Vietnam vet who read the book and sent all his veteran friends the same message he forwarded to me, a long letter about how during the times of his deployments, he "knew" what his wife and children were going through while he was away, but he didn't "understand" until he read my book. He proceeded to tell these vets that they should all, Mormon or not, read the book so that they, too, could understand.

Another military wife, whose husband had recently returned from Iraq, downloaded the first three chapters from my website and then e-mailed me. She first admitted she never reads LDS fiction but decided to read those chapters then went on to say that even though she's a tough cookie, I wrenched a few tears out of her (something she hated to admit) because, in her words, I "nailed it."

A couple of times a week I get similar e-mails, many from women about to enter a deployment, others from women who have already been through it, and even from non-military readers who are grateful they've learned a bit what it's like and can better support a military family they know.

And then there are the other letters. The ones that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the military aspect of the book. Letters that say things like, "Wow. I realized that I'm a Nora. I saw so much of myself in her, and I learned I need to change."

Below is a snippet of an e-mail from a military wife:

I just wanted to let you know how well you portrayed what it's like. I really did relate to each woman in one way or another. The emotions in your book were very accurate and very real. The loneliness, anger, fright, feeling like you are going crazy over and over again. All of it. In fact, by the time I was done reading, I was sure that the only way you were able to portray it so well was because you had been through it yourself. I was quite shocked when I read your bio at the end and it talked about your research for the book. You did a VERY good job in your research. This is a book that I think every person in America needs to read. People just don't understand what it like. And a sign that says "you just don't get it" is so accurate. People try to relate to you and of course they try to to empathize with you, but when put in that situation, it really just makes you feel worse. . . . I have had so many feelings regarding our mobilization and it really was hard. I truly believe that I wouldn't have been able to get through it with out the gospel in our lives.

She went on to describe having a conversation with her son about whether Daddy would die (something NO mother should ever have to do) and other struggles she experienced. She wants her husband to read the book so he has a better idea of what she went through. She closed her note with the hope that I'd write a sequel or two.

When I finished reading her words, I had tears streaming down my cheeks. This went way beyond dancing in the end zone.

And I thought, THIS is why I write.

WNW: Words HS Grads Should Know: #1-10

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:23:00 +0000

Several years ago on the LDStorymakers e-mail list, we had a weekly vocabulary word challenge. It consisted of words that aren't necessarily used all the time, but that we should know. The idea was to challenge those on the list to use the week's word somewhere in their writing and then report back.

It was great fun, if short-lived. Not everyone got involved, but I personally got a huge kick out of later seeing a good ten of challenge words show up in Tristi Pinkston's Season of Sacrifice, knowing exactly when she'd penned those scenes and why she'd picked those words.

This was while I wrote Spires of Stone and why you'll find in it quash, auspicious, and a few other challenge words that I've forgotten.

Here's the Word Nerd Wednesday version.

Back in 2007, Houghton Mifflin put out a list of 100 words they thought every high school graduate should know.

I thought it would be fun to look at those words here . . . and maybe challenge my readers to use one of them sometime in conversation or in their writing over the next week. Or not. Or do. Whichever. I'll probably post the other 90 words piecemeal on other WNWs.

For me, some words on the list make perfect sense; they're basic cultural literacy. Others? Hmm, not so much. Some are too obscure (why should a HS grad need to know "plasma" over, oh, several hundred other words?), while others are ridiculously obvious.

Below are the first 10 on the alphabetical list.

Can you use them all properly in a sentence?

ABJURE

The first of many rather negative words on the list.

ABROGATE

Another.

ABSTEMIOUS

Sheesh. This one makes me want chocolate. I will NOT abstain!

ACUMEN

A more positive one. I like this one. I claim acumen.

ANTEBELLUM

I learned this one in 11th grade English from Mrs. Oldroyd.

AUSPICIOUS

Hah! Check it! I wonder if this list was why "auspicious" was a challenge word for us and why I used it in SOS.

BELIE

NOT pronounced "belly," as one high school friend of mine used to think.

BELLICOSE

My teens. Yep, they are. What do you mean, I'm being melodramatic?

BOWDLERIZE

I just like to say this one aloud.

CHICANERY

This one is just oozing with plot possibilities.

Book Signings: The Truth

annette@annettelyon.com (Annette Lyon) — Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:00:00 +0000

Oh, my laws. I laughed so hard when I saw this video, I just had to share it.

My kids see me go to book signings. My youngest was born right after my first book came out (and 3 days after my last book signing for it), so she literally has not known a mother who doesn't do these things.

But somehow, even though they live with me, they don't grasp what a book signing IS. They envision something along the lines of Stephanie Meyer or J. K. Rowling, with crowds of adoring readers desperate to buy your book and get your signature.

My son once even wished me luck . . . that my hand wouldn't get too tired from signing all those books.

(Not much chance of that, bud. But thanks for the thought.)

Book signings are exhausting. You're "ON" for two hours (or however long) straight, trying to be energetic and chipper and helpful. And all the while, you feel a bit like a used car salesman trying to convince customers (who are trying to avoid your table as if you have leprosy) to buy your book.

Not all signings are that bad. I've had some nice ones. But the video below shows what most are like, and it gives me giggles every time I watch it.