Creating the Positively Perfect Title For Your Writing

by Lindsay Price

Titles are important and it's careless to think otherwise. The title is the doorway into whatever world you've spent time and effort to create. If you or your writing are not a known quantity, an audience will decide whether or not to pick up your novel based on the title. An audience will decide whether or not to see your play or movie based on the title. Titles can draw an audience in or turn them quickly away. Titles can make you a lot of money, or a little. That's a lot of pressure to place on a few words that took considerable less time to write than the work itself!

The art of the title is tricky. It's a tightrope. Titles have to convey something about the particular work. Titles have to entice an audience and make them want to know more. Titles have to be interesting, specific and efficient. But if they're too specific and too clever that can confuse an audience. A good title will put you on the right path toward finding an audience for your writing. How do you create the perfect title for your writing?

First or Last?

There are just as many how-to lists that will urge you to come up with the title at the start of the writing process as there are for you to wait till the very end. The truth is 'when' doesn't matter. If you come up with something right away, that's great. Write it down and once you've finished the particular project, use the title test below to see if it's still suitable. If nothing comes to mind right away, do not worry. Focus on the task at hand and when you're done writing, then worry about the title.

The Most Important Words.

The best starting point for any title is the work itself. Go through your writing and highlight individual significant words. Words that mean something to the story, to the characters, to the theme. Individual words are better than going after sentences or paragraphs: you're always looking to write a leanefficient title. Write out the words in a point form list. Are there any that go together? Any synonyms that might work? Is there alliteration? What is the most important word?

The Most Important Images.

After you search through the text for the most important words, write a list of images that come to mind when you read your work. Images are a powerful tool for titles: aim to create an image in the minds of the audience. If the audience can 'see' your work through an image in the title, it creates a connection between them and you. What are the most important images in your writing? What pictures come to mind?

Quotes Can Be Key.

Still stuck? Start looking up quotes inspired by the themes in your work. Famous quotes, inspirational quotes, quotes from literature. Lines of poetry are useful because more often than not they're written as images. Shakespeare is also another imagistic writer. What famous Shakespeare quotes can be connected to the theme of your work?

The Title Test.

You have a couple of titles you're kicking around but you're not sure which to go with. Give the titles to your family, friends, fellow writers,colleagues , anyone and everyone, and have them answer the questions below. It would be better if these outside eyes haven't read the work before hand; you just want to know the impact of the title.

• Based on the title, what's this (novel, short story, play, movie) about?
• Who is the main character?
• What's the first image that pops into your mind?
• What's the first emotion that pops into your mind?
• What question does the title make you ask?
• Do you want to know more about this work? On a scale of 1-10 how badly do you want to know more?

You'll want to give the title test to at least five people. This way you can see which questions garner similar answers, and which widely vary. And if every person talking the test would not want to know more, strongly consider changing that title!

Lindsay Price is the resident playwright for Theatrefolk, an independent publisher of playscripts for schools and student performers. http://www.theatrefolk.com/blog

Common Mistakes With Conjunctions

by Manjusha Nambiar


In most languages of European origin, clauses are joined together by conjunctions in similar ways. However, students who speak non-European languages may have difficulty in using English conjunctions correctly.

One conjunction for two clauses

One conjunction is enough to join two clauses - we do not have to use two.

Incorrect: Although she is poor but she is honest.

Correct: Although she is poor she is honest.

Correct: She is poor but she is honest.

Incorrect: Because she was too angry to speak, so Alice said nothing.

Correct: Because she was too angry to speak, Alice said nothing.

Correct: Alice was too angry to speak, so she said nothing.

The conjunctions so and yet can be used together with and.

She doesn't have great looks, and yet she has enormous charm.

Relative pronouns and conjunctions

Relative pronouns are also connecting words. They join clauses like conjunctions. But note that a relative pronoun acts like the subject or object of the verb that comes after it. So we do not use another subject or object.

I have got a friend. He serves in the army.

I have got a friend who serves in the army. (NOT I have got a friend who he serves in the army.)

You were talking about a woman. She is my boss.

The woman that you were talking about is my boss. (NOT The woman that you were talking about her is my boss.)

The man that she married was an old friend of mine. (NOT The man that she married him was an old friend of mine.)

Leaving words out

Words for repeated ideas can be left out in the second of two coordinate clauses, but not normally in a subordinate clause.

He was worried and didn't know what to do.

He was worried because he didn't know what to do. (NOT He was worried because didn't know what to do.)

Punctuation

When a subordinate clause begins a sentence, it is often separated by a comma even if it is short.

If you are passing, come in and see us.

Come in and see us if you are passing.

That, where and when

That is often used instead of which or who in subordinate clauses. But note that we cannot use that instead of when or where.

The house where I live is very small. (BUT NOT The house that I live is very small.)

But note that that...in can mean the same as where.

The house that I live in is very small.

Manjusha Nambiar is the founder and editor of Grammar English.Org. Her blog gives free English Grammar lessons, quizzes and grammar worksheets.

How to Write Citations For a Book - Formatting

by Glen Ford

Merriam-Webster, on its website, defines a citation as "an act of quoting; especially: the citing of a previously settled case at law" or "an excerpt, quotation".

But to a writer a citation is the description, the identification of the origin of that quotation or excerpt. And to be a good citation it needs to contain certain information and be in a certain format.

There are in fact a number of different formats used for quotations. As a result it is always important for the writer to confirm the format being used by the periodical being submitted to. Having said that, the most commonly used formats are those specified in the Chicago Manual of Style. This manual is the basis of many of the styles used by others. Typically, a single version of the formats is selected and consistency is the key to a well formatted citation.

There are two forms of citation. The standalone citation is the most common. However, the inline citation is often used when many citations are found in the text. This type always requires a standalone citation in a separate list. We'll be discussing only the standalone citation in this article.

A good citation consists of the following information:

i. Name of the Author(s)

ii. Title of Article or Chapter

iii. Title of Magazine, Periodical or Book

iv. Volume or other identifier

v. Pages

vi. Place of Publication

vii. Publisher

viii. Date of Publication

ix. Other information that may be needed.

The name of the author is typically shown immediately following any number used to link the citation and the excerpt. It is normally displayed using the standard font for the area it is being shown in. For example, if used in a footnote, it will typically be shown in a smaller than normal font size. The name can be either presented as is normal in English, (given then family name) for example George Smith, or in a filing order (Smith, George) but should be consistently presented. If there are two authors, the second is always presented in normal order (George Smith) regardless of the order of the first name. If four or more authors the contraction et al. is frequently used as in George Smith et al.. However, if the filing order is used it is more common to find all authors names stated. The author's name is always followed by a comma.

The title is normally shown immediately following the author. If this is a chapter or an article the first name is typically printed using the same font as the name with quotations. The name of the book or periodical follows immediately after but in italics. Frequently this is preceded by the word "in". The volume is considered to be part of the title but follows the title.

The place of publication and publisher follows with the two separated by a semi-colon. This is always presented in the normal font and size.

For most, formats, the date immediately follows the publisher. Typically, only the year is used unless the article is from a popular magazine or newspaper. If the normal name order is used then a round bracket is used to mark the end. However, a simple comma is used in all other versions. It should also be noted that in one of the filing order formats, the date is placed between the author's name and the title.

Finally, any other information such as a website is presented.

The entire citation is completed by a period.

Do you want to learn how to write a book in 24 hours? Take my brand new free course here: http://www.learningcreators.com

Do you want to read more free information like this? Go to my blog: http://www.learningcreators.com/blog/ Glen Ford is an accomplished consultant, trainer and writer. He has far too many years experience as a trainer and facilitator to willingly admit.

Manipulative Words of Equal Meaning

by Norton Nowlin

Many words mean the same thing and may be used synonymously in context to make ideas and concepts clear in the process of standard writing. Some synonyms, however, may be used euphemistically to manipulate a reaction of the reader or listener to the context of a statement. Take the word "lie" for instance. The dictionary definition of the word lie is, "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive." In the year 2003, the definitional use of the word "lie" became ambiguous when applied to the statements made by President George W. Bush and Vice-President Richard Cheney regarding the imminent danger posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to the United States.

We now know that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction in the months leading up to the Iraqi invasion, nor did the country pose a grave danger to American security. According to the Downing Street Memo, which has been systematically downplayed by the media and ignored by Congress, there is undeniable proof of collusion and conspiracy by the Blair and Bush administrations, months prior to the Iraqi invasion, to deliberately deceive the American and British people into supporting the pending war. Nevertheless, the use of the word "lie" by the media, to apply to the conduct of the Bush Administration, was somehow not deemed proper.

They instead used the word "prevaricate," which means "to speak falsely, misleadingly, or so as to avoid the truth; deliberately misstate; equivocate; lie." Though the two words appear to be identical in definition, prevaricate doesn't carry the same blunt ring of accusation conveyed by using the word "lie." But is there any real difference? If I said that Peter took the money from an old man without permission, with the intention of keeping it, I might also correctly say that Peter stole the money. Moreover, if I said that Peter took the money and then denied doing it, I could also equivalently say that Peter lied about taking the money. What if I said, instead, that Peter took the money and then prevaricated about doing it? What would be the difference between my two statements? Would the use of the word "prevaricate" change the circumstances or mitigate the act of Peter denying that he stole the money? I think not.

A double standard has always been widely used when considering the conduct of kings, presidents, and prime ministers as opposed to the ordinary people of a nation-state. And the misuse of words and colloquial expressions has commonly been the means whereby the double standard has been applied. This is because kings, emperors, and other monarchs were historically considered sources of law, so they were also rendered as sacrosanct and considered incapable by the people of committing crimes.

If, for example, a divine-right king or emperor had provided the means for his close associates to evade interrogation during an investigation into crimes against the state, would the ruler have been culpable of obstruction of justice? In an historical reference, perhaps not. If the ruler claimed sovereign immunity to be able to commit acts, ordinarily considered crimes, with total impunity, which many kings did, the ruler had an out. Then how about an elected president or prime minister in a contemporary system of laws where everyone in the state are equally charged to obey the law? Equal protection under the law and equal liability for violating the law sound good when legislated as general principles. But by saying that presidents, prime ministers, and ordinary citizens are equal before the law, strict application and enforcement of guiding constitutional principles are ultimately necessary as proof that all people are judged equally in a nation of laws.

So has strict application and enforcement of criminal law been the case in the United States with regard to our Presidents, Vice-Presidents, U.S. Representatives, and U.S. Senators, and all other civil officers in accordance with Article 1, Section 3 and Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution? Of the "infamous" sixteen federal civil officers impeached since 1789, only one senator, William Blount, was formally investigated in 1799 for high crimes, but was not convicted because, of all things, the Senate declared that it did not have the jurisdiction to try one of their own, which was constitutionally incorrect. The two Presidents on the list, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, were impeached but acquitted of their charges. Of the nine federal judges impeached, six of them were tried, convicted, and removed from office. Three were acquitted. The one Supreme Court justice impeached, Samuel Chase, was acquitted in 1805. No Vice-President has ever been impeached.

Does the foregoing disciplinary record say anything about double standards occurring in the federal criminal justice system? Is it possible that if each aforementioned impeachment acquittal was closely examined in retrospect by an honest county prosecutor, in strict accordance with federal law, would political skullduggery and Machiavellian compromise be found as expedient bases for the adjudged innocence? One prominent senator majority leader once publicly said that trying Presidents and senators for petty criminal offenses is a waste of the Congress' precious time.

The sanitized Congressional Record didn't reflect any opposition to this senator's statement on the Senate floor, so I suppose there were ninety-nine other senators who agreed with him. Perhaps if Richard Nixon had been tried by the Senate for the list of crimes with which he was charged, he would have also been acquitted. Perhaps not. But we do know that Gerald Ford pardoned him before he could be indicted by the Justice Department after resigning from the Presidency.

How about the Presidents, besides Nixon, who got away with committing high crimes while in office definitely like James K. Polk, Warren G. Harding, Franklin Roosevelt, and, possibly, Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush. What did Polk do? He lied to Congress about who started the fight with Mexico in 1848 in order to get a declaration of war against Mexico for the sake of Manifest Destiny. It was Gen. Zachary Taylor who actually started the Mexican War by having one of his soldiers shoot and kill (murder?) a Mexican cavalryman from across the Rio Grande River. Over two-thousand people, both Mexican and American, were killed in that unjust war.

Those Americans who have studied history know about the Teapot Dome Scandal and the acclaimed ignorance of President Warren G. Harding as to the money laundering that occurred between Harding's Secretary of the Interior, Albert B. Fall, and an oil operator, Henry F. Sinclair. Several people got rich in the illegal exchange of money, but Harding claimed he didn't know anything about what was going on. Fall was the only federal officer tried and convicted for the high crime of conspiracy and grand theft. Perhaps, in addition to being considered a failure as a President, Harding should have been impeached and tried by the Senate for presiding over the Teapot Dome Scandal and not doing anything about it.

According to meticulous historical research conducted by Dr. Charles Tansill, Distinguished Professor of Diplomatic History at Georgetown University who wrote "Back Door to War: Roosevelt Foreign Policy, 1933-1941," John Toland, distinguished writer, historian, and author of "Infamy," George Morgenstern, a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of Chicago who served as a captain in the U.S. Marine Corps and wrote the book, "Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War," published in 1947, Charles A. Beard, noted historian and author of "President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War, 1941: A Study in appearances and Realities," and Frederick R. Sanborn, historical writer and author of "Design for War: A Study of Secret Politics, 1937-1941," Franklin D. Roosevelt covertly planned for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor and knew, at least 48 hours in advance, that the Japanese Fleet were going to devastate the vulnerable U.S. Naval Fleet. Because of the many secret documents and records kept from the purview of the Blue Ribbon Pearl Harbor Commission by U.S. Army Intelligence operatives, the commission was not able to ferret out the facts and the disturbing truth about Pearl Harbor and the American entry in World War II.

It wasn't until the late 1940's that documents were released by Harry Truman which showed that FDR conducted secret negotiations with Winston Churchill, from 1939 to late 1940, assuring the British prime minister that America would enter the war against Hitler. In knowing that Franklin Delano Roosevelt had knowledge sufficient to warn the Pearl Harbor Naval Command well in advance of the impending Japanese attack, but, instead, ordered his War Department staff to allow the surprise attack to occur, there is no alternative but to call Roosevelt a war criminal who deceived the Congress and the American people. If Congress had known about Roosevelt's secret negotiations with Churchill and his covert underhanded foreign policy with Japan, there is no doubt that the President would have been impeached for high crimes. Being a cripple and the purported American economic savior do not, in any way, mitigate FDR's cold calculated strategy to manipulate a neutral nation into world war.

How may less incriminating words be used to euphemize the unnecessary deaths of over 3,000 American GI's at Pearl Harbor? Isn't that what the Nazi leaders attempted to do in their defense at the Nuremberg Trials to justify the murder of millions of innocent people? The Iran-Contra Scandal involving Ronald Reagon and George H. Bush was also a play on words. Oliver North deliberately lied to Congress and became a popular folk hero from doing it. In response to allegations, Reagon shrugged his shoulders and simply said, "I don't remember what happened," and he was exonerated of all blame. Vice-President George H. Bush, former director of the CIA, testified before Congress that he was out of the loop while the sale of arms for money to support an illegal CIA war operation in El Salvador and Honduras was going on. And no one questioned his veracity. Strangely, he was believed and the investigation into Iran-Contra was halted.

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to read between the lines and discover that contemporary American history reveals some startling facts about corrupt political behavior. Illegal agreements between federal officers to commit acts which are against the law and of the land and the interests of the people are called criminal conspiracies. In a nation of laws, criminal government conspiracies cannot be endorsed, tolerated, or ignored. Similarly, words of equal meaning cannot be used to lessen the severity of criminal acts committed by supposedly honorable public servants. When this happens, the darkest of evil may triumph under the guise of pseudonyms and aliases.

Norton R. Nowlin holds M.A. and B.A. degrees from the University of Texas at Tyler, an advanced paralegal certification, with honors, from Edmonds Community College, in Lynnwood, Washington, and one year of law school from Thomas Jefferson School of Law, in San Diego, California. In addition to the foregoing academic attainments, Mr. Nowlin has earned 70 post-graduate semester hours in economics, history, sociology, and business from Pepperdine and National Universities. In 1985, Mr. Nowlin successfully completed the 72nd San Diego County Sheriff's Academy, at Southwestern College in Chula Vista, California, as a San Diego County Deputy Sheriff. Mr. Nowlin is presently a paralegal specialist for the Board of Veteran's Appeals in the Office of Veteran's Affairs, in Washington, D.C., and the father of the three grown children. He is married to the physicist, mathematician, and professional tutor, Diane C. Nowlin. Mr. Nowlin resides with his wife and two very intelligent cats in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Learning Syllable Stress and Word Emphasis in English

by Ryan Kent-Temple

Word and syllable emphasis is more important than many people think. There are a lot of languages that use this emphasis in their everyday words. However, when you are trying to improve your English, this is an issue that can not be overlooked.

Word emphasis or word stress is a way of pronouncing an English word when spoken by a native speaker. The emphasis in a word, if pronounced incorrectly, can actually be mis-interpreted as another word. Quite possibly, someone might not be able to understand you at all. We're going to take a look at some examples and ways that you might be able to determine how and where to put your emphasis on certain syllables.
First, I want to explain to you what  syllable is and how you can determine how many syllables are in a word. A syllable, simply put, is a part of a word consisting of a vowel with consonants surrounding it, usually prior to the vowel. For example, the word SPOKEN. There are two syllables in this word - SPO and KEN.

A syllable is a natural break in a word. Try saying the word "Spoken" just like it is above. Say it a couple times in that manner, then say the word normally. You should be able to feel the natural break that I am speaking of. Here is a list of words separated by syllables. Repeat each one a few times in its broken form, then say the word naturally. After you finish, I'll continue speaking on the word emphasis or stress. Here is a trick for learning the syllables in other words: Clap for every vowel you say in a word.

(clap)  (clap)

GRAMM - AR...............GRAMM - AR...............GRAMM - AR................GRAMM - AR          Grammar

(clap) (clap)
IM - PROVE...............IM - PROVE................IM - PROVE...................IM - PROVE         Improve

(clap) (clap)
ENG - LISH................ENG - LISH..................ENG - LISH..................ENG - LISH           English

(clap) (clap) (clap)(clap)
DIC - TION - AR -  Y..................DIC - TION - AR -  Y..................DIC - TION - AR -  Y  
Dictionary

Word Emphasis or Word Stress is determined using the syllables as a basis. Word Emphasis is not something that is taught, but can definitely be learned using a proactive method of learning English. Like I have said many times before, listening is the key to this.

When you listen to spoken English, you will naturally be hearing the emphasis on words. This is learned subconsciously. Which is why you must listen to English as much as you can. I don't suggest trying to listen to the emphasis intentionally. You probably will not be able to hear it or understand when you do hear it. But the point of my article here is to explain what word emphasis or word stress is and how, when practicing pronunciation, you can make sure you are understood in your spoken English.

When pronouncing an English word, we use what is called Word Emphasis or stress. There was a movie that pointed out how the word emphasis can be confusing.

The person says "ASS es the window" but the word is assESS. The word ass in English is considered a bad word. So you can see that when the word emphasis is used incorrectly, you may alienate your listeners.
When you see the capitalized letters here, that is where you put the emphasis or stress on the syllable. (stay tuned in to World English Club because this will be easier to understand once I have added audio) When you put stress on the syllable, that means that you should emphasize that specific syllable. Emphasis is done in these three ways: Longer in duration, higher in pitch, and louder in volume. Try saying the word emphasis in these three ways.

EMphasis
emPHAsis
emphaSIS

First of all, do you notice that the capital letters in each set of words are the syllables? That is because the syllables are the basics for the word stress or word emphasis. Next, you should have noticed that each time you said a different word, it gave the word a different feeling.

Learning and listening to English and the syllable stress on words will help you learn how to speak more smoothly and fluently. This is a lesson often overlooked by teachers and learners of the English language.  So continue to listen to English and start slowly with this topic. Soon you will improve your spoken English to a point where you will sound like a native speaker of the language.

By Ryan Kent-Temple at WorldEnglishClub.com
Ryan Kent-Temple is a webmaster helping people worldwide to 'Improve my English" online. He is also a moderator on the World English Club Forums which is available for everybody that desires improvement. If you want to find out more about this please visit http://www.WorldEnglishClub.com to Learn English Online, which is a leading site on the topic of how to learn and improve your English online by listening to English spoken word.

When Do I Use "I" And "ME"?

by Heather R. Todd

It is interesting that many people around the world - whether their first language is English or not - still battle to know when to use "I" and when to use "Me" in a sentence. These two are very different types of words, yet they are often assigned to do the same task. When this is done the grammar of the sentence is incorrect and the sentence may sound clumsy or nonsensical. As writers / editors / academics or just ordinary users of the English language, it is therefore very important to understand the difference between "I" and "Me".

So, when do I use "I" and "Me"?

To answer that question, we need to take one step back. What type of word is "I" and what type of word is "Me"?

When you use "I", you are using the singular first person subject pronoun, e.g. You and I are going out tonight, I need some books, I take tablets for my condition etc. "I" is therefore the person involved in doing the action.

"Me", on the other hand, is object pronoun. This means that whatever action the verb is describing, it is BEING DONE TO "me", e.g. Take me home, Those things belong to me, She wants to talk to you and me.

When you have to decide whether or not to use either "I" or "Me", there is a simple test to follow. Take the sentence and see how "I" or "Me" fits into it e.g:

• She wants to talk to (Me / I) - She wants to talk to I (Wrong)

She wants to talk to me (Right)

• This house belongs to you and (Me / I) - This house belongs to you and I (wrong)

This house belongs to you and me (right)

• John and (Me / I) are going away - John and I are going away (Right)

John and me are going away (wrong)

When this method doesn't work, ask yourself the following question? Who is part of the action - I or Me?

John and I kick the ball - Here "I" is the one doing the action - the subject and therefore this sentence is correct.

They are looking at you and me - "Me" in the context is the one the action is being done to - the object and therefore this sentence is also correct.

As soon as you use a subject pronoun in the place of an object pronoun you are in dangerous waters. It will make your sentence seen "off" and clumsy, but also confuse your reader. The main questions are therefore:

1. Who is doing the action?

2. Who is the object of the action / who is the action being done to?

It becomes easier to distinguish as you practice with these and other, more complex, sentences. Test each sentence and ask the two main questions and they will give you guidance on then to you "I" and when to use "Me".

Lastly, it is important to remember that the words "or" and "and" have nothing to do with determining the use of "I" and "Me". They are merely there to join either the subject (e.g. John) with the object (me) or the other subject (I), e.g:

1. The threw stones and John and me

2. John and I had a pleasant walk

3. It was either John or me who washed the dishes

4. Tonight you or I are going to bath first

At the end of the day it just takes a little concentration to be able to answer the question: When do I use "I" and "Me"?

Ms. Todd is an award-winning, full-time professional editor, published writer and marketing consultant whose passion is to help others create a letter-perfect presentation in their writing. Her extensive experience in coaching and management has allowed her to independently consult for numerous international editing services and websites.

Ms. Todd is an independent contractor who provides advisory and consulting services worldwide to numerous corporations, a small sampling of such businesses include:
www.firstediting.com