Editorial Notes = clarifying information, additional insight, annotations

Hiya Reader,

A subscriber and fellow bibliophile shared this piece from LitHub: Nothing Better Than a Whole Lot of Books: In Praise of Bibliomania. On a recent trip to Seoul, I got to experience the absolutely gorgeous Starfield library, the shelves of which are more than 40 feet tall. A whole lotta books and a happy place indeed.

Think a friend would appreciate Editorial Notes?

Send them this link to sign up:

(And if you’re the appreciative friend, you can subscribe at the same link.)

Example of the Week

Sometimes this is a good example—or a great one. Sometimes this is a bad example—or just a funny blooper. Sometimes a combination. You never know.

From Patricia Evangelista's provocative book on the Duterte era in the Philippines, Some People Need Killing: "I published many stories, every one of them built around a corpse who had once had a name, even if all I had to go on was “Unidentified Body No. 4.” I wrote that five-year-old Danica was shot before she got to wear her new pink raincoat. I wrote that Jhaylord was his mother’s favorite, and that Angel had been carrying a Barbie doll on the night she was killed. I layered detail over detail, all of it, the color of the shoe, the tenor of the scream, the fact the dead man was wearing red-and-white bikini briefs when they stripped his body on the street."

Why should we use specific, precise details when we write — no matter what we are writing?

Because this choice doesn't just present clarity — it also confers implication. The phrase "she adjusted her tortoiseshell glasses" versus "she pushed up her frames" signals class, generation, aesthetics, even values. "He slammed the Subaru door" tells something about environmentalism, practicality, perhaps where he lives.

Precision activates the reader's associative knowledge, which is not only more engaging but more concise.

Actionable Tip of the Week

A trick to add to your self-editing toolbox right now!

I came across this gem of an article from Defector: Presenting The 2025 Shams Charania Award For Excellence In Divulging Of Information Through Syntax Comprehended By Many which got me thinking more about one of the most nuanced (and therefore, misunderstood) areas of writing architecture: syntax.

Syntax is the order of words in a sentence. Subject, verb, object. Modifier here, clause there. Simple enough, right? Except syntax isn't just about following rules — it's about creating rhythm, emphasis, and surprise.

Consider these two sentences:

• She finally told him the truth.
• Finally, she told him the truth.

Same words. Same basic meaning. But that tiny shift in word order changes everything — the first feels like relief, the second like exasperation. That's syntax at work.

Here's the thing: predictable syntax makes for predictable writing. When every sentence follows the same subject-verb-object pattern, when every paragraph starts the same way, when the rhythm never varies—readers tune out. They know what's coming. They've heard this song before.

Take a paragraph you've written and examine the sentence structure. Make a quick map:

• Short declarative sentence
• Long sentence with dependent clause at the start
• Short declarative sentence
• Short declarative sentence
• Medium sentence with conjunction

Now switch it up. Flip a sentence backward. Start with the object instead of the subject. Insert a fragment. (Yes, on purpose.) Let a sentence run long and winding through multiple clauses before landing, finally, on its point.

Not every variation will work, of course. (Though sometimes that weird inverted construction is exactly what you need!) But by mapping your syntax, you've made visible what was invisible. You've given yourself options.

Reader Question of the Week

Tim wrote: I have a finished MS that I have been submitting to traditional publishers, 1 query and 13 fulls. My question is, how often should I look at it again? Should I still continue to revise and/or edit? I don't know how I should treat it at this stage.

Tim! This process is achingly slow, even with the indies.

If you'd sent a bunch of queries and weren't getting requests, then the "issue" would more likely be with the query itself. But you've only sent one, so there may not be a problem with this portion at all.

I wouldn't suggest sending it anywhere else yet; wait to see what happens with the others. If they all come back as no, then you might want to focus on your first pages. The first ten absolutely, but also the first 20, 30, 50. These beginnings are always the make or break pages.

While you're waiting, resist the urge to constantly tinker with your manuscript. You've already done the work to make it submission-ready, and obsessive revising at this stage can sometimes do more harm than good. The exceptions would be if you spot a genuine craft issue or if multiple rejections cite the same specific problem. Otherwise, trust the version you sent out. The hardest part is living with the uncertainty, but premature revisions can become a form of self-sabotage or procrastination from starting your next project.

Just forget about it as much as possible for 3-6 months, but keep writing and hang in there!

(By the way, I feel for you. I'm in the submission game myself and it's so so so hard to wait.)

Want to Submit a Reader Question to Helene?

Give in to the urge.

Link of the Week

Check out my interview with Libby James! "Editorial thinking isn't just about catching errors; it's about being a sophisticated reader who can identify connections or articulate why something isn't working and suggest viable alternatives for consideration."

I ❤️ Hearing from You!

Comments? Just reply to this email or click this link. I respond to every email—that's a promise.

Thanks for reading!

~Helene, your writing sherpa