(Leave a comment below for the chance to win my review copy of this book). Layers of meaning captivate me. I think it has to do with my love of words. Double entendres, puns—anything with two or more layers always makes me smile. In my own writing, I take delight in creating titles or subtitles that hold two meanings whether or not readers notice them My love for doubles is one of the many reasons I fell in love with Susan Meissner’s latest offering, Lady in Waiting (Waterbrook Press, 2010). This gentle but powerful work shares the story of two ladies in waiting tied together by a mysterious ring. Present-day Jane Lindsay, people-pleasing manager of an antiques store, finds the ring in a box of scrambled items from a British jumble sale. Captivated, she begins her quest for its original owner. In the process, she confronts both her troubled marriage and the choices she alone must make. Lady Jane Grey of 16th-century England also has choices to make and a destiny to fulfill. In love with one man but pledged to another, her life seems as subject to the whims and wishes of others as Jane Lindsay considers hers to be. Meissner sets the modern-day story alongside the story of Lady Jane Grey as seen through the sympathetic eyes of her dressmaker, Lucy. As the two stories unfold, they have much to say about choice, desire, and truth that sets free. Meissner’s skill as a writer is evident as she weaves the two stories together with a firm but gentle hand. Each  carries its own unique voice and leaves readers contemplating their own choices and relationships—and wanting more from Meissner. And that makes this reader a lady in waiting, too. Want a sneak peak at Lady in Waiting? Click to check out a sample chapter. If you’d like, take a moment and rate my review on the Waterbrook site, too. Thanks! What other books have you read that carry layers of meaning or perhaps a dual story? Share your comment for the chance to win my review copy of Lady in Waiting. And watch for a WRITE interview with author Susan Meissner later this week! I’ll draw names from those who comment on either post before midnight this Friday night, February 4.  (FTC disclaimer: I received a copy of this book free from Waterbrook Multnomah Publishing Group in exchange for this review. I was not required to post a positive...

Today’s WRITE blog features an interview with Linda W. Rooks, author of Broken Heart on Hold: Surviving Separation which I reviewed in Tuesday’s post. Remember, if you’d like a change to win an autographed copy, please leave a comment on the book review. About the Author: Linda W. Rooks has a passion to help heal marriages, a passion that is fueled by the hope she and her husband found together when their own marriage was restored after a three-year separation. Since that time Linda has shifted much of her energy to bringing hope and understanding to couples experiencing crisis in their marriage. An almost native Californian, Linda received a B.A. in Creative Writing from San Francisco State University.  She met and married her husband, then a Navy officer, and moved to his home state of Florida to put him through law school.  Linda and her husband Marv, an attorney and assistant professor at Barry University School of Law, now live in Central Florida and have two married daughters and five young grandchildren. 1. For readers who haven’t yet met you, can you share a bit of your background? My love for writing goes back to my elementary school years, and I have been writing in one form or another ever since.  I majored in creative writing at San Francisco State University but didn’t start publishing on a national level until about 12 years ago.   In my personal life, my husband and I started our marriage deeply in love.  We had two lovely daughters, and thoroughly enjoyed our family life.  Unfortunately though, we were not good at resolving conflicts, and as a result too many unresolved issues began to eat away at the fabric of our relationship.   Things continued to deteriorate until 1995 when my husband left me.   We were separated for three long years.   In 1998 after each of us had looked into our own hearts and made some needed changes, we restored our marriage.  The strong marriage we have today is a testimony to what God can do with two hearts that are submitted to him. 2. During your own time of separation, what resources helped you the most? The Bible, My Utmost for His Highest by Oswald Chambers, What You Feel You Can Heal by John Gray, Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus by John Gray, Men in Midlife Crisis by Jim Conway. I also listened a lot to Christian music and Christian radio teachers like Chuck Swindoll and Charles Stanley. 3. How did you make the decision to turn your painful experiences into a book? When I was dealing with some kind of issue during our separation, I would often sit at my computer...

(Don’t forget: Leave a comment on Tuesday’s Flourish review for an opportunity to win a copy.)  “The writing’s not bad, but I can’t tell what your article’s about. At first, I thought it was about [this topic.] Then, I thought it was about [that topic]. It doesn’t have a main point!” The words stung. I’d looked forward to meeting this editor. In fact, we’d already enjoyed an engaging lunchtime conversation. She didn’t fall in love with my article? What was she trying to tell me? Only the truth: my words wandered. Instead of writing about one topic, I’d covered many. In my mind, my article summarized the points of one of those recent book projects. But the editor—as a good editor should—was remembering the reader. What would the reader take away from my article? As I reexamined my article, I realized she was right. In attempting to summarize the book, I’d forgotten to stick to the point (or provide a point to consider). My article presented not one but multiple topics. Because it said a little about many things, it said almost nothing at all. I share this true confession to remind my fellow writers that even a published, usually-polished professional doesn’t always get it right. I also share it to encourage you that, regardless of any personal tendencies to stare out the window, interrupt others in conversation, tap your foot incessantly, or chase the proverbial rabbit (or squirrel), your writing must demonstrate focus. But how? Decide on one main point and stick to it. Your anecdotes, your bulleted lists, and your explanations all need to return to that main point. Yes, the main point may have subtopics. If you’re writing an article about making Christmas memories, for example, you may want to discuss decorating, baking, and shared family time. But each of those subtopics should support the main point. And how do you maintain focus? Decide ahead of time what you want to communicate. Go back to high school English and write a purpose or thesis statement. For example, for the article mentioned above,  “My readers will learn to make lasting Christmas memories with their families.” You may decide not to use your statement in the article (and please don’t begin with “This article is about . . .”), but please keep it in mind as you write. Reread each section and ask “Does this help achieve my overall purpose?” If not, it needs to go. In another WRITE post, we’ll discuss self-editing. But for now, please know that the old KISS (Keep It Simple, Sweetheart) rule applies. Write about one thing. Teach your reader one thing. They’ll appreciate it—and your editor will, too. This post addresses nonfiction...

“I can’t believe it! They changed the whole meaning of that paragraph!” Had you lived in the Pieper household during the first few years of my professional writing career, you’d have heard many similar rants. If my long-suffering husband disagreed, he never told me. In fact, he did everything possible to sympathize with his wounded writer wife. What I did wrong: I failed to recognize the value of the editor’s work. What I did right: I never took my comments to the editor. Everyone needs an editor, as I mentioned to one of my blog regulars who found an error in a recent post. “Develop rhino skin,” the more experienced among us like to tell new writers. We mean it. Even the best writer or the strongest grammarian needs a second pair of eyes. An editor provides those eyes along with the experience to know what to cut, what to change, and when to cut or change it. “So what?” you may wonder. Today, I want to encourage acceptance and adherence to an editor’s fixes, critiques, and comments because on too many recent occasions, I’ve witnessed FME (Frequently Made Error) #7: Arguing with the Editor. This happens when a writer (usually via e-mail) takes the rants from the privacy of home or office back to the editor’s desk. She complains about the removal of sentences. He moans about the lost voice. She whines, “But I thought you’d work with me.” He grouses about the posted editorial guidelines. And everyone loses. Since I sit behind both a writer’s and an editor’s desk, I experience this issue from both sides. But whenever I consider it, I land on the side of respect. As an editor, I respect the writer’s expertise on a story, a subject or situation. I recognize the source of the story, and I’m not it. When I work with experienced writers, I recognize that their voices won’t—and shouldn’t—sound like my own. But as a writer, I must also respect my editor’s expertise. If eliminating a word here or a phrase there helps communicate truth, so be it. If reworking a paragraph or changing a chapter makes the teaching or story flow, let’s do it. In the end, both editor and writer must respect the reader. If we can work together to produce a product that lives, moves, and communicates truth, we’ve both reached our goal. Yes, minor changes can seem major. Some editors are less sensitive than others. Your article may not seem as much your own work after editing, and your book may not appear in print quite as you had envisioned it. But remember that someone cared enough to edit it. Someone also cared enough to...

“I want to write, but I don’t have time.” “My schedule’s already full—when would I find time to write?” “I want to write, but I keep putting it off.” I’ve heard—and made—all these excuses and more about one of the most common writing FMEs (Frequently Made Errors), “I Don’t Have Time.” Yes, I call it an excuse. And so should you. You’ve heard the saying: You make time for your true priorities. For the past couple of weeks, I’ve made time for (among other things) quantity cooking, homeschooling, writing, preparing two new seminars, and traveling to teach those seminars. I haven’t (as you may have noticed) made time to blog.   I make frequent mention of my writing career here and on my Facebook page. I speak at writers’ conferences and other events. So it doesn’t surprise me when I meet people who want to discuss writing. And it doesn’t surprise me, either, when I hear one of the common excuses about why they don’t write. One of the reasons I take time to mega-cook (our family prepares and freezes anywhere between fifty and sixty dinner meals at one time, usually five or six of each recipe, to use over a period of several months) is because this way of cooking gives me time to write. I prefer to take several days to peel, chop, grill, simmer, broil, and wash dishes (over and over) than to repeat this process on a smaller scale every night. With fifty-something meals in the freezer, dinner becomes simple. And I can spend my time writing instead of cooking or cleaning up afterwards. Do I encourage other writers toward this type of cooking? Not necessarily. It may or may not help you (Intrigued? Check out my mini-cookbook under the “Freebies” link to the right). However, I do encourage you to make lifestyle changes that will yield time to write. Get up earlier. Stay up later. Avoid or limit television (I instituted that long ago). Ration your time on Facebook or email. Wear earplugs. Set aside a room or corner of a room as your office.  You make time for your true priorities. If writing’s important, you’ll find a way to get it done. What works for me may not work for you. But a large part of writing sounds a lot like the Nike slogan: Just do it. Today! What lifestyle changes could you institute (or have you already instituted) that give you more time to write? Share with the rest of us,...

The question came again this weekend: “But how do I get rid of it?” As a part of our Word Weavers writing critique group, I critiqued a manuscript and encouraged its writer to reduce her use of passive voice. Overuse of passive voice, in fact, is one of the FMEs (Frequently Made Errors) I discussed in an earlier WRITE post. But as a friend pointed out, I failed to finish my blog discussion of that topic. Please forgive me! Here, at last, I present the follow-up to my original (5/18/10) explanation. REVIEW: Overuse of the passive voice can weaken your writing. However, some things are or need to be.  Good writers don’t avoid all passives. But they can curtail them if they watch for overuse of forms of the verb “to be”: am, is, are, was, were, be, being, been. Those forms mark the passive voice. Print one page of your manuscript and circle or highlight all the forms of to be you find there. Or use the “Find and Replace” feature in Microsoft Word. Choose one form of to be like is or was to replace with a nonsense noun like hippopotamus. You may end up with sentences like this (replacing was with hippopotamus): The eager salesman hippopotamus standing on the porch. While he hippopotamus waiting for someone to answer the bell, he hippopotamus twirling his mustache. An old woman hippopatums shuffling to the door. She rasped out, “What do you want?” and the salesman hippopotamus shocked. He hippopotamus unable to answer. No one hippopotamus ever brave enough to ask him that question. The bolded words should help make you aware of  the passive constructions. Now rewrite your piece in a more active way. My example: The eager salesman stood on the porch twirling his mustache as he waited for someone to answer the bell. An old woman shuffled to the door and rasped out, “What do you want?” Shocked, the salesman couldn’t answer. No one had ever dared ask him that question. Did you notice that some of the other words and phrases changed when I removed the passive constructions? The corrected version also uses fewer words. Overuse of the passive voice can make your writing tedious. Good writing is easy to read. I have a few more things to say about how (and why) to change passive constructions to active. But I’ll save those for another WRITE post. After all, I don’t want to be boring or confusing bore or confuse you. Do you have a problem with passives—or a way to help eliminate them? Please...