<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Written on the internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sterlingediting.com/written-on-the-internet-15/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sterlingediting.com/written-on-the-internet-15/</link>
	<description>Editing, mentoring and coaching for writers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:11:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nicola</title>
		<link>http://sterlingediting.com/written-on-the-internet-15/comment-page-1/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>Nicola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 07 Feb 2010 19:21:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sterlingediting.com.fqdns.net/?p=1570#comment-469</guid>
		<description>Yes.  Words aren&#039;t paint.  You can take them out and put them back in, over and over.  The key is to keep the original file.  Then if you go too far, you can reset and begin again.

Words, however, do have connotational magic.  They influence the reader in ways most would find difficult to articulate.  Expert writers understand the hidden meaning: ninety percent of a word&#039;s mass lies beneath the conscious waterline.  Every now and again it&#039;s worth leaving in something non-experts might consider over the top.

Operative phrase here: every now and again.  Nine times out of ten, the best advice is to cut.  You can always put it back in.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes.  Words aren&#8217;t paint.  You can take them out and put them back in, over and over.  The key is to keep the original file.  Then if you go too far, you can reset and begin again.</p>
<p>Words, however, do have connotational magic.  They influence the reader in ways most would find difficult to articulate.  Expert writers understand the hidden meaning: ninety percent of a word&#8217;s mass lies beneath the conscious waterline.  Every now and again it&#8217;s worth leaving in something non-experts might consider over the top.</p>
<p>Operative phrase here: every now and again.  Nine times out of ten, the best advice is to cut.  You can always put it back in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Billie</title>
		<link>http://sterlingediting.com/written-on-the-internet-15/comment-page-1/#comment-468</link>
		<dc:creator>Billie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:16:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sterlingediting.com.fqdns.net/?p=1570#comment-468</guid>
		<description>The overwriting post is particularly helpful. Many of us think we know how to avoid overwriting, and even indulge in schadenfreude when we see it. Rare and lovely to get real (snarky, and hilarious) tips for spotting it and stamping it out in one&#039;s own work.

Working hypothesis for the day: A manuscript is not like a painting -- the right kind of extra work can counteract/undo overwriting and make the piece better (unlike a painting, where the artistry is in not overworking/knowing when to stop). What do you gals think?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The overwriting post is particularly helpful. Many of us think we know how to avoid overwriting, and even indulge in schadenfreude when we see it. Rare and lovely to get real (snarky, and hilarious) tips for spotting it and stamping it out in one&#8217;s own work.</p>
<p>Working hypothesis for the day: A manuscript is not like a painting &#8212; the right kind of extra work can counteract/undo overwriting and make the piece better (unlike a painting, where the artistry is in not overworking/knowing when to stop). What do you gals think?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

