angelaask wrote:

As you write, do use the spelling and grammar checking tools in your word-processing software; however, be aware that the suggestions they give are not always correct. Have a good dictionary on hand to verify your spelling changes. If a grammatical error is flagged, a good grammar handbook will come in handy.

Take a break between writing and proofreading, if time allows.

It is generally easier to proofread from a hard copy than from a computer screen.

Proofread in a neat, clean workspace that is as free of distractions as possible.

Read the work out loud. We read silently faster than we can speak the words. Slowing down and reading aloud helps you to spot and hear the errors more readily.

Look for unnecessary phrases, redundancy, and word repetition. Slice words that aren’t doing their fair share of the work.

When marking the document, use a colored pen (doesn’t have to be red!). Try using proofreader’s marks. Be clear and specific about corrections, do not simply circle the errors or write “Wrong!” next to something that needs to be fixed.

If possible, get more than one person to proofread your work. Each reader has different strengths and each will find different errors.

Break down your proofreading tasks. Check your facts and make sure your writing is accurate and consistent. Next, proof the document for grammatical and stylistic errors. Finally, check for spelling, punctuation, and format errors.

Ironically, some of the easiest places to miss glaring errors are in titles and headings. Remember, too, that it is more difficult to spot errors in text that is formatted in all caps. Proofread these items very carefully.

Check table of contents, index, captions, figures, and tables separately. Follow each entry in the table of contents and index to be sure it goes to the right place. Do the same for any internal cross-references.

Check for proper use of trademarks and copyrighted material, if used. Check citation format, if copyrighted materials have been cited.

When proofing for spelling errors, try reading the document backwards. Looking at each word outside the context of a sentence, you may spot those mistakes more easily.

After corrections have been made, be sure to proof the revised document. First check to see that all the corrections were made, then read over the document one more time to make sure you didn't miss something during the previous round of edits.

jbjackson wrote:

Thanks for plugging the Up for Discussion forum in this newsletter. We all really appreciate it, especially since I'm not too sure how helpful your own experience with us turned out to be. Hopefully, as we get more practice with this, the forum will become a unique resource for all different kinds of writer's needs. Thanks so much for the plug!!

DB Cooper wrote:

I really enjoyed the article about search engines but sometimes Google scholar is actually better than Pub-Med. I tried them.

Oh, yes - thanks - a relatively new player in the field, Google Scholar can be a very good resource. To give it a try, click http://scholar.google.com/schhp?hl=en&tab=ws&q=

dogfreek21 wrote:

Thank you so much for this newsletter! One of the nicest reviews (and honest, I'm afraid) I got, complained about my POV, and now, I might actually know what they were talking about!

bazilbob wrote:

Thanx for clearing up first, second and third person narratives for us, I kinda knew, but wasn't entirely sure about 2nd. It's really hard and only really works in short pieces I think, but it can be very interesting and effective, draws the reader in and all that.

SilverGryphon wrote:

Your example of 2nd person POV was very masterfully done... I have to applaud you! *cheers*

This information of POV's was extremely helpful... However, you didn't mention that sometimes headhopping is usful in a story, but to a limited extent. Instead of doing it spontaneiously several times within a chapter (i think this was what you meant) to do it varying from chapter to chapter... There are exeptions to every rule. For an example, see 'The Bartimaeous Trilogy', which goes from 1st person on Bartimaeous's part, to 3rd person limited in Nathanial and Kitty across several chapters. Overall it makes for a delightful read and is very masterfully handled.

But this was a great newletter and touched on a subject that you very rarely find...
SilverGryphon

The Ragpicker - 8 yo relic wrote:

When used effectively, there's nothing like the second person POV. Fight Club would never be the book it is if it didn't use second person.

Hotchic1 wrote:

Great news letter Jessie when I write my stories they help me in finding my grammar mistakes and run on sentences. Write On! I get alot of reviews that way.

jaya h wrote:

Very informative newsletter! I enjoyed reading it and thinking of participating in one of the contests.

Thanks,
Jaya H.

The Critic wrote:

Yes, just so you'll know that I'm reading your newsletter:

In the story example under second person, you wrote:

You grudgingly get out of bad.
“bad” should be "bed"

Lovin' it. Thank you.

Sincerely,
The Critic

Brians Next Novel Almost Done! wrote:

Thank you for this piece on style books. Indeed, some of those burly things can be incredibly dry, so it is nice to see a few books that are a bit more on the "teaching is fun" side of the spectrum.

Be sure to check out Brian’s "The Last Page (1)"  [13+].

Tigger thinks of Prancer wrote:

What an information-rich newsletter your brought to me - thanks!!