Editeyes

I always pause when faced with a possessive construction that involves two people. Do you add the apostrophe “s” to both names or only to the latter one? Somewhere along the line I learned to put it on both names, but I was never confident about this usage.

Then the other day, I received an email message from my favorite and most trusted editor Anne in which she wrote this: “Andy and Connie’s address.” I quickly dashed off a reply asking her to tell me the rule for this double possession construction, and here is her answer:

If two people own something together (it belongs to them as a couple), then you only use the possessive for the latter one. If two people own equal shares of something separately, then both get the possessive; both also get the possessive if the items are separate.

Patricia is Andy and John’s sister.
Chris is Andrea’s and Skylar’s mother. (not the best example, maybe, but I’m trying to show that this construction comes in handy with step-families)
We went to Connie’s and Jack’s party (i.e. we went to Connie’s party and then we went to Jack’s party).

No more pauses on this one for me. Now I can make my mark (or not) with confidence. Or can I? Shouldn’t “party” be “parties” in the last example? Better dash off another email.

Tags: Punk, Punk, Punctuation by ph
1 Comment »

Last time, I wrote about the challenges of maintaining a committed writers group.  I promised that in the next post I would list the guidelines that have proven effective in my writers groups. Here they are:

1. We agree to get our pieces to one another at least two days in advance of meetings.

 

2. Our protocol for responding to pieces is as follows:

 

1. Readers come to group having read each piece in advance and prepared written commentary to offer the writer to supplement verbal critique.
2. Readers discuss each piece for a predetermined amount of time while the writer listens and takes notes after which the writer is invited to participate.
3. Readers discuss the piece saying the writer or the narrator or the writer’s name, but not using the pronoun you.
4. Responses begin with what is working in the piece, specific places where language is exciting or full of energy, images that are sparkling, writing that is fluid, etc. Sufficient time should be given to discussing the merits of the piece before turning to critique.
5. When pointing to places that don’t work well in a reader’s opinion, the reader is as specific as possible. We offer suggestions with the clear understanding that the writer ultimately decides what will work in her piece.
6. Writers listen carefully to the opinion of others, recognizing that this is simply one opinion in many and that others, including the writer, may view the work differently. Writers take what is useful and leave the rest.
7. Writers needn’t defend content, style, or word choice. Critique is simply meant to give one reader’s response. The impulse to defend comes from protectiveness around our work but can also be a signal that something deeper needs to be communicated on the page.

 

3. We put writing first. We are not an emotional support group. Our discussions come from a writerly perspective. We agree that if a conflict among members arises it will be managed with honest self-examination and one-to-one communication as the first option and a separate full group business meeting as a last resort.

 

4. A full group business meeting will be called separate from our regularly scheduled meetings to make major changes in our guidelines. Temporary or minor changes can be discussed at the close of each regular meeting.

 

5. We agree to keep our criticism fresh, focused, honest, and generous. We all wish to grow as writers.

 

6. We will have quarterly retreats that will particularly focus on exploring craft and technique as well as developing the level and perceptiveness of our critique.

Please let me know what you think of these guidelines or if you have additions, questions, or other considerations when it comes to developing a protocol for a writers group.

 

Tags: Community, Going Public by ph
No Comments »

I can’t say enough good things about my writers group. They are kind but astute critics. They are dependable both in putting writing first in their lives and in making our group meetings a priority. We celebrate one another’s successes, be it publication, finding just the right title for a piece, or winning a contest. We are generous with one another too, concerned about each other’s comfort at meetings or challenges related to getting to group. Like I said, “I love my writer’s group.”

Finding a committed group of writers was not an easy thing. During my first creative writing workshop in 1990,  I discovered the value of getting feedback and encouragment from fellow writers. For this reason, several of my class members decided to continue meeting after the class ended. However, that group lasted for only six months. That was the start of my experience with short-lived groups.

For the next five years, I worked doggedly to convene groups of writers–anywhere from 4-6. Each group would started out enthusiastically and gradually diminish until I was the only one left. The longest any of these groups met was 6 months. I was frustrated because I’d read about successful groups and wanted to be part of one. But I was getting gun-shy, thinking that either I didn’t know any writers with same the level of commitment to a group as I and/or that I was doing something wrong in the way I organized such groups.

After my fifth group faded into oblivion, I suspended the urge to start again and simply went solo for over a year. One day, I was talking with a friend about my wish for a group, and she mentioned another friend who was writing who might be interested. I thought about it for a week before finally calling this woman. She was game, and we decided to meet for coffee and talk about what we were looking for in a group. That coffee date was the start of our “group of 2.”  For 4 years, we met twice a month for an hour and half at 7am in that same coffee shop.

Then we decided to expand our edges, and we each invited one writer friend. Both accepted and that group meet for 2 years. We were a dynamic foursome, and it was during that time that I completed my first book as did 2 of the other members. Then sadly my original partner decided to move out of the area and another member had health issues, so we were down to 2.

Since it had worked before, the 2 remaining members each invited one writer to join us. That group never jelled as nicely as the first group and seemed to limp along for a year until 2 of the writers dropped out including the one from the great foursome. Summer was coming and the remaining writer and I decided to organize a summer group of mostly teacher- writers who liked to use summer to pursue their writing vocations. Big egos in that group caused the most contentious group I’ve ever been a part of and by the end of summer I was deeply disheartened.

It took some fast talking from the women who had helped organize that group to convince me to try again. But I’m glad I did. This time we started with a large group of 8 writers in September and by the following summer we were down to four. By fall, 1 of those had dropped out but 2 more joined. The five have worked together for a solid year, though at the beginning of this summer we lost a member to a cross country move.

I’m glad that I’ve consistently made the effort to keep a writers group going.  Having the support of other writers means a lot to me. Next post, I’ll offer our group guidelines for your consideration.  In the meantime, let me know what your experience has been with writers groups.

Tags: Community, Going Public by ph
No Comments »