Using an Editorial Calendar (or: making sure readers have something to read!)

Before I used an editorial calendar, my blogging habits were pretty hit or miss. Some weeks you'd have content coming out of my ears, and some weeks, total radio silence. That's not helpful on a couple fronts--for you, the reader, I hope that you want regular content because you like to read what I write. (If you don't, don't tell me. ;-)) Second, writing, like anything else, requires regular practice and time devoted to it. If I only write when I feel like it, then I'm probably not really dedicated to the craft of writing. (You could say this about anything, really--prayer, gardening, sports, yoga, etc. If you only do it when you feel like it, it's probably going to be a sporadic practice.)

When I was doing my social media overhaul, Cristina had the brilliant suggestion of an editorial calendar, and I think it's changed my writing for the better. It's helpful in several ways:

• I can track outside writing projects (like my Real Housekeeping work) and make sure I don't miss deadlines.
• I can see, at a glance, what's coming up for the next few weeks, and schedule posts appropriately--if I'm going on vacation, I can still have content ready to go, if I want.
• I have to dedicate time to writing at least a few times a week, so I can have these posts ready to go.
• It helps me prevent feast or famine blogging--I can spread ideas out over a number of days, so there's not a glut of pieces on day and then nothing for days after.

I use trello, and I really like the format, because it's easy to use, clean, and very user-friendly.

So here's my current editorial calendar:

The left-most column is where I keep a running tally of ideas. These are either scheduled--as in, I think I have a place for them on the calendar--or not (just yet). Next is researching: this is for posts that might take longer (such as posts where I'm talking about theology) and need to look up necessary documents--hence, research.

Middle column is writing, and this is where things go into the hopper, if you will. I try to have two weeks' worth of material going at any one time. You can see, in fact, that this piece is at the bottom of the writing list, meaning it's in the on-deck circle, to steal from baseball. (I took the photo the day I wrote this.)

The colors mean different things: the blue means it's a post for this site, whereas the purple means it's going to the blog (which you follow, right?) Any other colors are indicative of the category of writing, which is really just for me.

After writing is editing and graphics. That means I make the pretty pictures that top these articles, and give all the pieces a read-through to scan for errors.

When all that is done, the card moves into the "completed" column--yay! I generally keep things here for a week, so I can get an overview of what went up where over the past week. Then the cards are archived.

Another great trello feature is the calendar page:

This is actually one of my favorite features, because I can see what's going up when in a big spread, and I can re-arrange cards at will. This is great for my future planning, especially for when I'm going on vacation, or I want to see things at a glance. The only problem I have here is that when a card is archived, it's also removed from this page, and that irritates me, but, such is life!

I also have a trello board for my big writing projects, but that's set up differently. Maybe I'll show you that one some other time.

So not only does my board provide organizational nirvana, but it also provides accountability. The content isn't going to write itself! Usually early in the week I do the calendar sorting and resorting, to figure out what's going up when, and then I work on blog posts throughout the week, along with my other writing.

Things that don't get scheduled are things like Yarn Alongs and Seven Quick Takes on the blog, because those are running features that don't need quite as much planning as from-scratch blogging does. I do keep certain features as cards, though, so I don't forget, like the biweekly writing updates--I'm also going to do those for the Jane Austen Re-Read. 

I know that the idea of editorial calendars is used in a lot of different industries--I know that IT guys use a version of this (not trello), but something like this to track their software development. Have you used an editorial calendar in your work? Would you like to?

Catholicism in the Culture: Sin, Crime, and the Duggars

Earlier this week, I read this article in the Washington Post about Josh Duggar's inappropriate (and quite frankly, gross) actions against several of his sisters and another family friend. That alone isn't worth blogging about, though. What is worth writing about are are similarities and difference between sin and crime--something that the author of this piece doesn't seem to understand. The author seems to think that "repentance" is equal to getting off scot-free, and that there isn't any sort of price to be paid for committing sin, whereas with a crime, there is a cost--jail, usually, or a fine of some sort.

When you treat this as a sin instead of a crime, you let everyone down...The behavior alleged was a crime, not a sin.

Actually, it's both. If I commit murder, I have sinned and committed a crime. Same with theft, abuse, using illegal drugs, etc. There are some things that are sins but aren't crimes, like adultery. You can't go to jail for sleeping with your co-worker's wife. No one's going to lock me up for not observing the sabbath or for taking God's name in vain (at least in the United States).

Let's look at a few terms, here, because the author didn't, and that's a big problem.

First off, what is sin? Here's how the Catechism defines it:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation

There are also different types of sin. 

We see, in this definition of sin, that no sin only hurts one person. Sin is an offense against God. It is opposed to grace. Sin removes grace from your soul, and places you farther from God.

Now, what is crime? According to Merriam-Webster, crime is:

: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government

: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general

: an act that is foolish or wrong

So both sin and crime are about doing things that are wrong, whether by God's law, the law of the state/country/county, or by Natural Moral Law.  Essentially, Natural Moral Law states that even if you never met a Christian, read the Bible, or ever heard of Jesus Christ, there are some things that humans know are intuitively wrong. As Catholicism for Dummies puts it:

Moral law is natural because it’s known by reason — not written in stone or on paper, like the Commandments or the Bible. It’s moral because it applies only to moral acts — actions of human beings that involve a free act of the will. (It doesn’t apply to animals, because they don’t have the use of reason.)

What Josh Duggar did (and he confessed to doing it, so this isn't alleged behavior) is both a sin and a crime. He committed a sin by violating one of God's commandments--sexual acts outside of marriage are wrong. (While the Duggars have some pretty extreme courtship measures, the general message of "no sexual activity until you're married" is a tenant of Catholicism, as well. But full-frontal hugs are allowed, and I never dated with my siblings as a chaperone, etc. The Duggars embrace a pretty hard-core version of purity, which the article discusses.) So that's sin. However, it's also illegal to perform sexual activities on others without their consent, so that's the crime portion of the situation. Both require confession and punishment/penance, but they go about it differently.

If the Duggars were Catholic, they would have strongly suggested that Josh confess this sin (you can't compel a confession. The penitent has to come to it of his own free will and with a proper spirit of contrition), and he would have received a penance.  After the penance was completed, Josh would have been fully absolved from the sin, thus returning to a state of grace and a state of friendship with God. The Catechism says (my emphases)

1468 "The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God's grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship."73 Reconciliation with God is thus the purpose and effect of this sacrament. For those who receive the sacrament of Penance with contrite heart and religious disposition, reconciliation "is usually followed by peace and serenity of conscience with strong spiritual consolation."74 Indeed the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true "spiritual resurrection," restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God.75

1469 This sacrament reconciles us with the Church. Sin damages or even breaks fraternal communion. The sacrament of Penance repairs or restores it. In this sense it does not simply heal the one restored to ecclesial communion, but has also a revitalizing effect on the life of the Church which suffered from the sin of one of her members.76 Re-established or strengthened in the communion of saints, the sinner is made stronger by the exchange of spiritual goods among all the living members of the Body of Christ, whether still on pilgrimage or already in the heavenly homeland:77

It must be recalled that . . . this reconciliation with God leads, as it were, to other reconciliations, which repair the other breaches caused by sin. The forgiven penitent is reconciled with himself in his inmost being, where he regains his innermost truth. He is reconciled with his brethren whom he has in some way offended and wounded. He is reconciled with the Church. He is reconciled with all creation.78

(The entire section on confession is worth a read, if you're interested, or this post)

So, not only would Josh's sins have been forgiven after confession, but he also would've received grace to strengthen him against committing sin again. (as I tell my first graders--GRACE IS AWESOME.)

Now, that being said--confession heals the person's relationship with God. When criminal activity occurs, the Church believes that the process of law and due process has to happen for the common good of society. For example, if a murderer comes and confesses his sin, the priest will strongly urge that person to confess to the authorities, as well. It's part and parcel of justice, which is a virtue. If you steal, you not only confess it--you have to pay back what you stole.

So, yes, Josh's parents would've had to turn him in to the authorities. What happens after the crime has been admitted is a different thing in different localities, and thus outside the realm of this discussion.

However, the thing to remember is that sin hurts everyone. When you sin, you don't just confess and get off scot free. There has to be penance, there has to be contrition and yes, you have to do your penance. The author of this piece is wrong when she suggests that sin and crime are different things, and that one is more or less serious than the other. Sin and crime are both offenses against other people, and both must be dealt with accordingly, whether sacramentally or judicially.

After the First Draft, Now what?: Revising vs. Editing

So you've got the first draft. Yay! Now comes time to let out your inner editor. This can be hard, because the inner editor can be a beast, and think that everything you wrote is crap. So I recommend--and so do other writers, like Natalie Goldberg in Writing Down the Bones--that you take time away from your piece for a little while. Sometimes it's a week, sometimes it's a year, but that time away allows you to refocus your vision and recalibrate your inner editor. When you come back to the piece, you'll have fresh eyes, and this enables you to see both the good and the bad in what you wrote. When I was recently going through The Undesirables, there were places that were great--and places that were just crap. I deleted the crap and attempted to write new and better things.

This brings us to an important distinction between editing and revising. Revise means (among other things) "to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update." Edit means "to revise or correct, as a manuscript."

Essentially, revising comes before editing. When I used to "edit" papers in college for other people, what I did was revise and edit. The first reading was usually for revisions. I made sure that the paper flowed, the argument presented was made, and that everything moved in a sequential, logical fashion. If an argument was weak, I noted that, or if there was too much repetition, I noted that. Sometimes I would circle entire sections in red pen and note that they should be moved around--either forward or farther on--in the text.

When I revise novels, I delete sections I don't like, I add things that need further exposition, and I can re-imagine the timeline, if I have to. Revising is more about the grand shape of things. Editing is about the nit-picky details--spelling, punctuation, grammar, things like that. So if I've revised a paper, the second pass is usually for editing purposes, unless the person wanted me to read it again to make sure the revised copy worked.

I really like revising and editing. To me it's the process that turns the coal into a diamond, if you will. Now, there does have to be the one good sentence in there to begin with. But if it is there, then you simply have to build on it in revision. I find the first draft the hardest part in my own writing, because I haven't gotten everything down yet. The ending is still ambiguous, and I might just have one scene in my head--how can I create an entire novel out of one scene? The writing gremlins are usually pretty present in my first drafting experiences. It's probably the effect of the blank page, or the blank canvas. But when I'm revising, I have fresh eyes and I'm ready to tackle the manuscript head on again.

Writing Updates May 25, 2015

Notes from the writing room:

• This week I'm finally adding the new (and hopefully last) section to the memoir. I've nicknamed this part the "Dominican section", since it deals with me joining a Dominican parish, discerning a vocation to be a cloistered nun, and things that happened after that. (No spoilers here, guys.)
• I'm writing up my D.C. trip on the blog tomorrow, which, coincidentally, involves more Dominicans. (Subscribe to the blog if you don't already, please?) It was a picture-perfect weekend, weather wise, which was so nice, since the last trip I made to D.C. involved snow and cold.
• I'm also writing my next Real Housekeeping column this week, which involves how to stock your pantry and create easy meals from your food stash.
• On Wednesday in this space will be a piece on revising vs. editing: no, they are not the same thing!

The First Draft--the Messy Scribbles

So you've finally decided you're ready to start the first draft.

And you put pen to paper and....nothing.

I know some people think they need to know everything that's going to happen in the novel before they start writing, and you really don't need to. It helps, sure. But it's not necessary. I've started pieces with just one scene in my mind and then gone from there. (Gift of Snow started this way.)

For a first draft, I find things like NaNoWriMo to be really helpful. You're stuck with a word goal and the objective is to get everything on paper. You can't stop because you've got the time crunch to meet the goal of 50,000 words, so you write through writer's block and hopefully come out the other side with a story that has a beginning, middle, and an end. Personally, I need that sort of external accountability to get my first drafts done, and I only stop if I am really stuck--totally, creatively dry and at a dead end, which is what happened to my piece for NaNo last year. I just had no idea how to move the story beyond its embryonic stages.

If you don't like the word goal idea, you can also tell yourself you'll write for 30 minutes a day, or an hour a day--whatever. The point of a first draft is to get the basic sketch--the messy scribbles--of the story down. This also applies to writing nonfiction. Things like essays or speeches can be done this way, and I've done that before. You start with what you know is going in the piece. Then you can write things like "MORE HERE" (which I do all the time), or "WORDS" (if you're being cheeky) as placeholders.

No one turns out a perfect piece of written work in a first draft. No one. Not Jane, not Dickens, not Ernest Hemingway. No one. So shut up your inner editor and just write. No one cares if it's trash, because no one but you is ever going to see it. This is where you can think up whatever you want. When you go back and edit, that's when you can critique and slash out entire chapters if you want. That's the purpose of editing. But the rough draft is like a Pollock painting. It's paint splashes on the canvas of the page. Reduce your expectations, sit down, and write.

It's Alive! Creating a Vibrant Novel Part III: Dialogue

Dialogue is my favorite thing to write. Putting words in people's mouth is always a fun thing to do, especially when it's part of the job. Characters need dialogue in order to really exist. You can dig out the caves, you can do all your pre-writing research, but your characters, eventually, will have to talk to each other.

Having a good ear for dialogue is a bit of an unearned talent. Some writers have it, and some don't. There was an entire period of novel writing when dialogue was pretty spare. Henry James is a great example of this. You have pages and pages of text, without any dialogue, and to be honest, this sort of writing drives me crazy. I don't need pages of internal monologue. I need dialogue. Detail is helpful, yes; but there is a place where it becomes burdensome (see Moby-Dick....this is the main reason why I so dislike Melville).

Knowing your characters will tell you a lot about how they talk. If they're lawyers, they're going to talk different than Eliza Doolittle. An Earl is going to speak differently than a shopkeeper, and someone older is going to use larger words, and more sophisticated sentences, than a two-year old.

Here's an example from The Undesirables, where we have several characters of different ages interacting:

I found Jack in the kitchen, spreading batter into a cake pan. “Guinness Cake, for Kate,” he said.

“Her favorite.”

“We’re going out for dinner?”

“Yup.” The strands of Aladdin, and the girls’ singing, came into the kitchen. “Sweet. I’m off duty.” Jack placed the pan in the oven and tossed the mitts on the counter. “Where to?”

“We need to decide.”

“CHEESE,” The girls cried. LeAnne and Margaret were of one mind--they wanted the place that served grilled cheese down the street.

“Something a bit fancier, my ladies,” their dad said, picking each one up under the arms. The girls squealed and the threesome fell on the couch.

“Wendy’s!” They squealed in concert.

“Even fancier than that,” I said, tickling Margaret.

“I don’t know that it gets much fancier than Wendy’s,” Emme said as she tossed her keys on the counter.

“In their world, probably not,” Jack said as we let the girls go back to the movie. The Rug was playing checkers with Robin Williams’ Genie.

I actually love writing in kids' voices, so this scene was fun for me to do. But it's an example of adults interacting with kids, and kids being kids.

Dialogue is a place where stealing is a great idea. Charles Schultz said that if you didn't have a funny dog you didn't know how funny a dog could be, and it's the same way with dialogue.

If you're writing in an accent, it can be hard to catch that accent, so definitely do research beforehand. Don't throw in words or expressions that wouldn't fit that particular culture/social realm.

Jane Austen, of course, is a master of dialogue. There's a reason we find her and Shakespeare so quotable. It's because they knew how to write in a way that captured our ears and our minds. Stilted dialogue can kill a scene really quickly, and it's something I'm always obsessing over.

A really good example of stilted dialogue? The Star Wars movies, especially the prequels. I like them as much as anyone else, but George Lucas' gift really is not writing dialogue. It's just not. Even the best actors can't save bad dialogue.  They can try, but ultimately it's probably always going to sound stilted.

Do you have favorite writers who excel in dialogue? Do you ever have problems writing it?

It's Alive! Creating a Vibrant Novel Part II: The Characters

Last week, we talked about how important research is to a novel. Today, we're going to talk about the people that populate your stories--the characters.

There are a plethora of approaches involving characters. Virginia Woolf talked about digging a cave behind hers:

“I dig out beautiful caves behind my characters; I think that gives exactly what I want; humanity, humor, depth. The idea is that the caves shall connect, & each comes to daylight at the present moment.”

 Diana Gabaldon writes about characterization at length on her website. Some authors prefer to know everything about their characters, from the time they were born to their favorite childhood breakfast, while some wing it as they go along. Some characters have things borrowed from people I know, and some are created out of whole cloth (like Ariel, a minor character in The Undesirables--I just worked on a scene with her yesterday, so she's fresh in my mind. And yes, her name is Ariel for a reason.)

Generally, I know my main characters well. I write down details about them--eye color, hair color, height, general body shape and composition. I know how they like to dress and what they do for fun, and I can picture them as I'm writing. Secondary characters tend to spring up because the main characters need them to populate their world. For example, in Undesirables, Kate (the main character) has a best friend, Paige. David (Kate's husband, and the other protagonist), has a best friend, Eric. While I might not know as much about these guys as I do about Kate and David, I still need to know how Eric and Paige will react in situations with Kate and David. How do they talk? What is their relationship with my main characters? What is their physicality--how they enter a room, how they sit, their mannerisms.

In Pilate's Wife, for example, I knew there were things that Pontius and Claudia wouldn't do. They wouldn't slouch or be slovenly people. They wouldn't talk with their mouths full. They have a certain sense of breeding and carriage. I also had to be careful of their dialogue. I couldn't put twenty-first century idioms into first century mouths.

But the main characters have "caves" behind them: I know when they were born, who their parents are, their siblings. I often sketch out family trees for these guys, and have birthdays for their siblings and parents. I know where their parents live and where the characters grew up. I know their best and worst school subjects. To me, that's all very important,  even if I will never use this information. I still have to know it.

The last piece of creating a vibrant novel is dialogue, and for this, I'll have to devote another post.

Who are some of your favorite fictional characters? If you write fiction, how do you create your characters?

Writing Updates--May 11, 2015

The latest updates from the office:

• First, I'd like to state that, as much as I love the new baby princess's name, I named my royal character Charlotte years before she was born (The Gift of Snow). So when the novel comes out, don't be thinking I stole her name, guys. ;-)
• Blog: The blog has its own tab here (look up--it's the furthest right), but if you want blogging posts when they're published, please go over there and subscribe. Here's what I wrote about last week: How to handle life's curveballs; knitting and reading. Two weeks ago, I had a post about books you need to read before you die, so if you're looking for some summer reading, I've taken care of it for you!
• Some of you have been asking about excerpts of the novels. I'm in the process of working on finding good sections and I will post those under the "excerpt" pages, above (they're currently empty). I'll update you when there is something there!
• I'm doing major revisions to The Undesirables. When I first wrote it, my objective was basically to get a beginning, a middle, and an end in 50,000 words for NaNo. To do that, I wrote quickly and skimmed over some pretty large plot developments. Now I'm going back and filling all of those empty spaces in, and I'm having a ball.
• As a gift for subscribing to the page, I've sent y'all a copy of Pilate's Wife. If you did not get it--or are a Wordpress Subscriber, in which case you didn't get an email because I don't have your email--please let me know so I can send you a copy. I want to make sure everyone who wants to read it can!

Pilate's Wife--now available!

Hi everyone!

As promised, Pilate's Wife went out to all subscribers today as a thank you gift! I hope that you enjoy reading it!

However, if you are a WordPress follower, I can't email the story to you. So if you want a copy, please use the contact form on the about me page, and I will send you the story! I want to make sure you get your gift!

I'm "excited and scared" that this story is out there in the world, and I hope that you all enjoy it.