A few months into my role as TGCA Editorial Director I shared some reflections on writing and editing. Nearly eighteen months later seems a good time to make some more observations. The first article was more philosophical, more of a drone shot. In this piece I will focus more on some specifics of craft, a street-level view.
Differences Between Written and Spoken Communication
Many of our writers are preachers, teachers, podcasters, evangelists and trainers. They are experienced verbal communicators. Others are bloggers and Substackers—platforms that often bear the marks of the spoken word. This means our writers are good with words, but not necessarily as well practiced at the slightly more formal context of website articles and reviews.
One common difference between written and spoken communication is the degree of informality and the use of humour. Passing analogies (like advertisements during a sports broadcast), pop culture references (like you might find in a Bluey episode) and jokey parenthetical comments (like this one, haha!) can liven up spoken communication. In written communication they can have various negative effects. They can make sentences cluttered or give them a forced feeling—one of characteristics of what is called ‘overwriting’. They can cheapen the writing, making it seem folksy or cute, in a bad way. They can fail to connect with a wide audience, since humour and cultural references are often culturally specific. Certain writers can get away with these things, but to my taste, for the TGCA platform, many can’t.
Another difference between written and spoken communication is the use of redundancies. This is another form of overwriting. Preachers and teachers use repetition and paraphrase to compensate for the ephemeral nature of spoken communication: you can’t pause or rewind a live seminar or sermon. By contrast, an article doesn’t need to say something two or three ways when one will do. So also, unless a quotation is obscure, an article usually does not need to restate its contents in different words.
These issues can be fixed by writers in the redrafting process. It is probably easiest for many writers to compose the first draft of their article in a similar style to the way they would write a sermon, to get everything down on the page. Then authors can go back through the article, not simply to catch any typos, but also to identify and remove unnecessary repetition.
Thinking Through Exceptions
Informal communication and public speaking allow for more overstatement, simplification and generalisation. Even then, verbal communicators should choose their words well. However, good quality articles are more careful with what they affirm and deny, permit and forbid.
As a part of the drafting process, I encourage authors to re-read their piece with different possible readers in mind: how might they hear what you are saying? Deliberately look for those things that don’t always apply, that might be misheard or misapplied. Sending your work to a trusted friend or colleague to skim over might also help highlight potential issues.
Becoming sharper in this area will, I believe, also benefit our preaching and teaching. A carefully worded sentence or passing qualification can be greatly appreciated by those congregation members who are an exception to the rule; they can help everybody be more aware of the subtleties of doctrine and ethics. If we are not wise, the cumulative effect of general emphases, rhetorical flourishes and impassioned appeals can be to distort our teaching of the whole counsel of God.
Normal Expectations for Response Times and Editing
For many of our authors, TGCA might be the only publication they have submitted to. It is therefore completely understandable that they don’t have clear expectations of the publishing process. Here, then, are a few pointers.
Firstly, one of the best ways to get a sense of what a website like TGCA publishes is to read other articles on the website. This will give you many clues about topics, tone, style and so on. Most websites will also have a ‘submissions’ page with more details about what to submit and how to submit it. As obvious as it sounds, submissions that conform to submissions requirements have a much higher likelihood of acceptance.
Secondly, it is surprising to many how slow response times can be. TGCA, like many websites and journals, is edited by significantly part-time staff, and yet we receive a large number of submissions, most of which require editorial attention prior to publication. This means that an article may take up to three months before it is read, let alone accepted, edited and published. We do make exceptions for various reasons, such as time-sensitive topics, but in general, authors shouldn’t be clicking refresh on their email client, waiting for a reply.
Thirdly, publications, including TGCA, have three basic responses to submissions. The first is acceptance. If an article is accepted it goes through the normal editorial process, sometimes several rounds, before final publication. The second response is a request that an article be revised and resubmitted (R&R). In these cases, the editor will give a few big picture notes on substantial changes that need to be made before the piece would be considered suitable for possible publication. An R&R is not a commitment to publish the article, once resubmitted, but an indication that the idea has merit, and would be considered if revised. Lastly, an editor might reject an article. For many reasons, of which time is one, TGCA’s standard practice (in keeping with many publications) is to not provide details for why an article was rejected nor enter into correspondence regarding that rejection. If I do give reasons for a rejection, this is for the benefit of the writer and an expression of goodwill, not an invitation to have a discussion about the legitimacy of my editorial decision.
Planning of Editorial Direction
From time to time I will get various questions and suggestions about editorial direction: that we should get someone to write an article about this topic, or asking whether we had some underlying rationale for publishing an article, or series of articles. For the most part, the reality is much more chaotic—the Lord, working in and through all things, of course. Often there is a happy convergence of topics, but rarely is this planned. The reality is that I do not have the capacity to spend time planning editorial direction or commissioning articles. We instead largely rely upon a steady flow of diverse submissions. I understand this is true even for publications with much larger staff than us.
For the most part, any editorial planning is more reactive. I might delay or reject the publication of an article that is too similar to a recent piece. If an author asks if there is anything in particular we are looking for, I point to our broad ‘sections’ (topic areas) to see which have not had anything published recently.
No One Knows What to Do with Em Dashes and En Dashes
Arguably the em dash (—) and the en dash (–) are two of the least necessary punctuation marks in the English language; most people use the hyphen (-) to do the work of all three. However, even on aesthetic grounds alone, articles do look better with em dashes and en dashes, I think.
If you have no idea, or little clarity, on when to use them, don’t be ashamed: it seems most people don’t! Here are some simple rules.
Em dashes can be used to make a list, as an equivalent to bullet points. An em dash can be used instead of a colon (:), to introduce a list or an explanation. Em dashes can be used like parentheses, to bracket off information. An em dash can signal a break in thought, a little like an ellipsis (…).
An en dash can be used for a range of numbers, like Bible verses or dates. An en dash also marks a coordinate relationship, such as Creator–creature or father–son; or a route, such as Perth–Adelaide.
Writing Reviews Is an Act of Ministry Partnership
An important part of the TGCA website is our weekly book review. Writing a book review is demanding: three, six, ten hours of reading, taking notes along the way; the task of summarising 50 000 words in three hundred words; formulating and justifying points of critique; chasing up quotes and page references. It is costly but very valuable work.
A good book review helps readers in many ways: it gives a brief summary of the valuable content in the book, it raises awareness of what books are out there and it models how to read with discernment. Although it is a time-intensive undertaking, reviewing a book also helps the reviewer: you get a free book and additional incentive to keep reading and learning.
A good book review is also a great act of ministry partnership. Reviews help authors and publishers promote the books they have invested an enormous amount of time and energy into. Even the critical element of reviews can help an author, as negative feedback often does: it can sharpen their ideas and their writing. As an author of several books, I know from personal experience that it is not an easy thing to get people to write reviews. Therefore I would like to conclude this article by urging you to seriously consider whether you can make a contribution to the wider Christian community in Australia by writing a book review, at least every now and then.
