Commonly-Confused Words: Don't Be Discreet When Citing a Site

Saw some really messed-up usages on Yahoo! this week, so I thought I’d share with you how to use these words correctly.

discreet/discrete:  
Unfortunately, they’re both adjectives, so there’s no easy memory gimmick to help you with these.  Discreet is judicious, decorous, modestly unobtrusive.  Taking somebody aside to tell them they botched the assignment is much more discreet than yelling at them in front of their coworkers. From the same Latin root as our modern word “discern.”  To use discretion is to be judicious or thoughtful when making a choice. Discrete, on the other hand, means detached, separated, as in:  “The students were in discrete groups for the mythology unit:  some groups researched Greek myths, some Roman, and some Egyptian.” From the Latin discretus, meaning “separated.”

site/ cite/ sight:
Site is a noun, and only a noun.  It is used as a synonym for place. “The photographer was shown the dig site where the pottery shards were found.” “The new site for the store has excellent freeway access.” It’s been compounded into the word website, which is, simply, “a place on the Web.”
Cite is a verb, and only a verb. It means to quote, to mention or support, or to call attention to.  “Don’t neglect to cite your sources in your research paper.” “The candidate cited her experience with a local Board of Education when listing her qualifications for State Board of Education.” “The soldier was cited for bravery on the battlefield.” Equally, “My brother was cited yesterday for going 45 in a 30 zone.”
Sight can be noun and verb and its past participle can be adjectival.  As a noun, it can simply refer to vision: “I’m angry with you and I need you out of my sight for awhile.” Or as a metaphoric reference to a firearm: “You obviously cannot be trusted, so be warned I have you in my sights.”  As a past-tense verb: “She was sighted coming out of The Coffee Cave yesterday.” It’s a little silly and pretentious to use it instead of seen, but at least it’s used correctly; I’ve seen sited used in that context. The past participle sighted is also used as an adjective.  “All but one of the Gleeson’s children were sighted; the youngest lost his sight to diabetic retinopathy.”

Why there was no post this weekend

This is my talented husband playing a Native American style flute on stage with Nino Reyos at the Moab Arts and Recreation center, for a flute festival which took place over President's Day weekend. I've been trying to have some kind of predictability to my posting, usually timing them to hit on either Sunday or Monday every week, but I dropped the ball this weekend.  I was making new friends and renewing some old friendships, basking in the music and talent and positive energy of the people who make flutes and the beautiful music of those who play them. And I was blissfully off the grid, only checking the computer once to see if we should be trying to cross Soldier Summit in a snowstorm at 2 in the morning (we didn't--it turned out to be a wise choice).

When I write, I agonize over every word.  I edit and re-edit and often end up completely scrapping things I'd spent a good deal of time on.  In other words, my process is pretty slow and I'm hard on myself. There are times I'll go back and re-read some of these posts and think, "jeez, everybody knows this.  Why do I bother?" There are times I feel like taking down everything I've ever written online and crawling back into my cave of relative anonymity.

Especially when I read something like this. It's Neil Gaiman's praise for Jonathan Carroll and other writers who inspire him, put so eloquently that it makes me want to bury my own keyboard and never write again.

Here's a snippet, but I encourage you to go and read the entire post:

There are millions of competent writers out there.  There are hundreds of thousands of good writers in the world, and there are a handful of great writers.  And this is me, late at night, trying to figure out the difference for myself.  That indefinable you-either-got-it-or-you-ain't spark that makes someone a great writer.


And then I realise that I'm asking myself the wrong question, because it's not good writers or great writers.  What I'm really wondering is what makes some writers special.  Like when I was a kid on the London Underground, I'd stare at the people around me.  And every now and again I'd notice someone who had been drawn - a William Morris beauty, an Berni Wrightson grotesque - or someone who had been written - there are lots of Dickens characters in London, even today.  It wasn't those writers who accurately recorded life:  the special ones were the ones who drew it or wrote it so personally that, in some sense it seemed as if they were creating life, or creating the world and bringing it back to you.  And once you 'd seen it through their eyes you could never un-see it, not ever again.  


There are a few writers who are special. They make the world in their books; or rather, they open a window or a door or a magic casement, and they show you the world in which they live.

As much as being in the presence of talented and loving people inspires me, it also brings all my insecurities to the surface. The comfort zone isn't very interesting, but it is safe.

Sorry for the personal wangst.  I'll be back to my critical analytical wordnerdy self next post.

Genres and Tropes: Historical Fiction

Or, “Everything I Know About History I Learned From Literature”

This is one of the most difficult posts on genres and tropes I’ve written yet, probably because it’s mostly “genre” and not much “trope.”  

Historical fiction deals with fictional characters placed in a historical setting.  You have practically limitless possibilities here, as long as you’re willing to do the research necessary to do justice to your subject.

You could choose a “major historical event” such as the Nazi Holocaust, the Russian Revolution, or the American Civil War and place your characters in or near the action.  Your characters can be “ordinary” people caught up in extraordinary circumstances or they can be friends or acquaintances with some major historical figures of the time in which your story is set.  Most authors opt for the “ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances” trope because this presents much less difficulty (both of fact and of logistics) than, for example, creating a character who’s a BFF for Eva Braun.  

Some final (I hope) thoughts on reader reviews

In my past two entries, I’ve ranted about author shenanigans in response to online reviews by readers. There are writers who create accounts under assumed names, aka “sockpuppets,” in order to praise or defend their own books.  They go on Twitter and encourage their friends, relatives and fans to vote down negative reviews and vote up positive ones, or to join a dogpile to criticize a negative review or attack the reviewer.This week, I turn to thoughts on amateur book reviews.

Once we've bought or borrowed a book, spent time reading it, succeeding or failing to relate to it, we feel a certain ownership. For this reason, I believe that readers have every right to call an author out for not doing research for a historical novel or for one set on the other side of the world.  A writer giving a novel a present-day setting has no excuse for not checking an atlas or Google Earth to verify whether Istanbul is located in the middle of a desert or not. A writer who presumes to write about an ethnicity or culture about which they know very little deserves any criticism she gets for not accurately portraying those people, their culture, their history or folklore. I personally consider it disrespectful and arrogant to co-opt a culture without their knowledge and consent. A writer writing historical fiction has to remember that he is placing fictional characters in an historical setting and treat that setting with appropriate respect. This includes anything steampunk, science fiction, or presented as alternate history. Whatever your alterations, we readers can tell if you know your stuff or not.