With this post, I would like to extend an apology to the readers and readers-to-be; for, I have been away from this platform for a long while. It is one thing when a website owner possesses the essential makings of a passionate intent to post regularly any relevant writings. It is an entirely different process when that good intent is distracted gravely by the demands of life; such as in my case: A full-time work schedule, one that encompasses a highway of some sorts where the multiple lanes of the rapidly moving traffic presents detours, never leading to a rest-stop along the way. In a nutshell, this image is most accurately depicted when my life is concerned.

I have not given up on my original intent to write for this site -regardless of who is reading it or from it, nor will I give up my intentions to do so while staying true to my inborn passions for devotion, dedication and determination.

Allow me now to proceed with a simple practice in the field of editing; namely, the approach to an author’s reaction (or response) to the suggested adjustments of his/her book draft when grammatical structures are concerned. An often difficult exchange -though not as trying as doing away with suggestions for modifications in content!

Instead of pushing my own strategy on you, I would like to open the floor to your ideas: How, whenever applicable, do you prefer to get near to an author’s “mine-field” of communication as far as his/her sensitivity toward receiving any hints at easily justifiable suggestions for the improvement of the original draft of his/her writing?

One thing to avoid under any circumstances is/would be . . . (what, in your confidently presented but most certainly substantiated insight?)

Until next time!


Leave a Reply