Everything in my reading-and-audio-book-listening life was fine until I learned that adverbs had become tools of the devil. While I religiously avoid using adverbs now, I listen to many audiobooks during the week. Many are supposed to be fine literature. But, like the finned autos of the 1950s, these stellar works com garishly outfitted with adverbs.
I do not know why I allowed myself to listen to Donna Tartt's The Secret History, other than it was flowing words while I pulled weeds. But every adverb hit like a concrete block. My not-so-favorite turned out to be "ruminatively."
​

So it's decided: I'm on my very last editor. But some things do go a little against the grain.

The thought exists out there that too much description of emotion prevents the reader from identifying with the character. The reader's personality might react differently to the circumstances presented by the plot occurrences. If something scary happens, one person might be terrified and another only fascinated to see what happens next.
Is it good or bad to emphasize the fear reaction during dangerous situations? Once someone told me that his wife was very good in an emergency room setting because she just acted and never considered consequences. I wanted a hero like that.

I have also had people tell me that children do not empathize too much when adults are caught in bad situations, unless there is visible pain or damage (i.e. moral or political dilemmas). I don't remember doing so. Yet I received much advice to the contrary.

Some persons may be too involved in their own problems and emotions to want to intertwine psyches  with their children. I have received advice from several editors to make my book's parents more understandable and lovable. But my intent was not to have parents like that because of their own internal emotional wars.
My main character tries get out from under their dark cloud, which accidentally results in new opportunities for the parents to regain self-respect and family ties.

So what should an author feel when editors advise contrary to main premises in plot and character?
​We'll see where it all ends up....

Wow, was I ever lucky....
Val Muller agreed to be the very, very last editor I would ever need.
A Pennwriters member and author of multiple books of her own, Val's knowledge of the industry and of young people's reading is invaluable. Visit her at http://www.valmuller.com/www.valmuller.com/

Goodness, here I am again after coming to a dead stop in 2015. 

Imagine my joy to take up a conversation with Diane Hassen of the Danbury Museum, just as if we had spoken last week. But we did.

Imagine my shock when Diane said that a new book had appeared on the Hamilton family and that it disagreed with my interpretation of the Hamilton genealogy in the book!
Yikes!
How wonderful that she contacted the book's author for me, so we shall see what we shall see.... He responded that he would respond....
(But I'm pretty sure I'm right....)

So 1777 has been through many more hands since we spoke last.
o my utter shock, March 2016 found that my dear friend and editor Linda Wirkner had died. Then what to do.... 
Different people have helped me with the book, Ann Westrick, Edie Hemingway, but one must never use the same pair of eyes twice, they say.

A filmscript editor I engaged asked if we could send young Joe Hamilton on a journey.
Not so much, since the book is about Danbury.
Then he wanted to know if we could blow something up.
Alas, the book is about burning! (And there was a little powder shortage issue....)
I gave up. Guess they'll make the movie when they make it.

Then 1777 journeyed to Thalia Newland and had a good romp with her. Thalia is great, but in Australia. I needed an American editor.
So best choice was everybody's favorite, Ramona deFelice Long, who had met my book before in a Pennwriter's Area 7 seminar. Definitely got good value from her!!
But still, something was missing! Or someone. Stay tuned!
​