I realize now that I am not a free spirit.

P-C, could you put a link in Press?

We all blinked at her sadly, and one of us said, "But . . . but . . . you said there'd be breakfast." She replied, "There's breakfast right there. There's just no coffee."

Back when I was in the freak-ass church, whenever someone moved, you always knew you had a ready-made gang of people who would help you move. The FAC members were all, by and large, caffeine addicts, particularly coffee.

When we helped someone move out of the apartment bldg. I'm in now, we started at 7 a.m. The guys were moving the really big stuff, and I was just shuffling around all useless, until inspiration struck. I ran downstairs, brewed a pot of coffee, and brought it upstairs with mugs, cream, and sugar. You would have thought I brought in gold, or something that people would be equally ecstatic to be given.

From then on, whenever someone moved, I was in charge of making sure there was an adequate supply of caffeine.

I realize now that I am not a free spirit.

Whoa. Prisoner flashbacks.

P-C, could you put a link in Press?

Done, Betsy. I was unsure if it was really Press-worthy, since it felt kind of pimptastic, but you asked so nicely.

so of what went to print, maybe fifty percent was present in the first draft. It was my first article.

P-C, retaining 50% of the original is pretty good. Particularly in newspapers, they have to cut to fill the inches they have available, which isn't something they know when the story is assigned. I don't think it was because it was your first article -- that's always going to happen.

As both an editor AND a writer, let me say this: as a writer, I *loathe* being edited. I loathe it with a white-hot passion, because I am *positive* that Divine Inspiration came out of my pen on the first try, that every word, every comma, every paragraph break *belongs* there.

And every single time I let someone edit my writing, it ends up much better than it started. But with editing comes cutting things out. It happens. So brace yourself, my friend. It's going to happen to you over and over, particularly if you're writing for newspapers.

I want a place to write where you can see me. Cause that's what I want to bring to the table, dammit. Me. I don't know if there's even a job like that.

There are jobs like that, P-C. The problem is, and no one wants to hear this, is that you have to pay some dues first. Editors are not only looking for writing skill but also for a demonstated ability to deliver. Over time, I came to believe that I was ultimately a better writer from my years of journalism and some of my corporate writing, because my natural tendency is to be more discursive and, well, chatty, but the edited, more focused articles were better.

What Ginger and Steph Said.

Most entry-level writing jobs require collaboration. Some writing professions, like journalism and writing for television, require collaboration even at the most senior levels.

You have to learn to take an edit. And when you do, you'll probably learn to be retroactively grateful.

P-C, retaining 50% of the original is pretty good. Particularly in newspapers, they have to cut to fill the inches they have available, which isn't something they know when the story is assigned.

Oh, well, in this case, it wasn't an issue. There wasn't a whole lot of heavy cutting: in fact, the first draft was 612 words, the fifth draft (which was fine except for not having a source) was 761 words, and the published article was 986 words. In my case, it was that they wanted me to explain more and more, and repeat things frequently to help the reader understand.

And every single time I let someone edit my writing, it ends up much better than it started.

I agree. It's much clearer now, I think, then it was initially. What does get frustrating, though, is having one editor tell you to change this or that, and then having another editor telling you to change it back. The editing process for this wasn't too painful, really. I accepted some changes without question and made my stand for others (especially the ones that were FACTUALLY INCORRECT). And yeah. I know I should get used to it. I'm still annoyed at the final edit, which refers to 1989 as "recent studies" and four labs confirming their discovery as "suggest"ing. And this weird "But" near the end that doesn't follow.

Over time, I came to believe that I was ultimately a better writer from my years of journalism and some of my corporate writing, because my natural tendency is to be more discursive and, well, chatty, but the edited, more focused articles were better.

And I've never had a journalism class. So I'm kind of learning on the fly, here. But it's good for me, and I'll wait for the light at the end of the tunnel. The good thing about this gig is that so far, I'm finding stories that interest me and the science editor's all, "Sure, do it!"

Cause that's what I want to bring to the table, dammit. Me. I don't know if there's even a job like that. Most want you to conform to their specific style. Which, okay, give me money.

IMO, versatility of style is a wonderful thing to develop. While I hope I'm someday a popular enough author to write nothing but fiction, I think it only makes me a better writer to be able to write everything from fundraising brochures to formal business correspondence to magazine articles, all in their appropriate styles. It'll increase your awareness of voice, and help you make your own a carefully honed tool rather than a blunt instinctive weapon.

In the long run, you'll be able to make your work your own no matter what it is. My business letters, board posts, and novels are written in three very distinct styles, but they all ultimately reflect my preferred vocabulary, my sentence rhythms, my idea of good writing.