David Lassman sent off to 18 publishers assorted chapters from Austen novels in which he changed just the titles and the names of the characters.

Seventeen publishers rejected or ignored his bid for literary glory. Only one spotted the ruse and told him not to mimicPride and Prejudice so closely.

— Reuters

However, I do find it disconcerting that seventeen of the eighteen publishers didn’t recognize (or at least acknowledge) Austen’s work.

TRS primarily sells self-defense videos, so the products obviously aren’t aimed at everyone. However, if you’re promoting anything towards a similar audience, you could benefit greatly from just reading through these.

Some of the better ones:

• Glenn Boodry’s Real World Combat
• Jim West’s Fight to Win
• Vladimir Vasiliev’s Russian Fighting System
• James Painter’s Rock & Roll (American Prison Fighting)

Yes, I am a customer of theirs, and no, I’m not affiliated with them. I just believe in pointing out good material when I see it.

Note: If you’re interested in purchasing any products from TRS, it’s definitely worth your while to get on their mailing list, which you can do here. TRS often runs special discounts and package deals, and it can save you a bundle.

About this time I met with an odd volume of theSpectator. It was the third. I had never before seen any of them. I bought it, read it over and over, and was much delighted with it. I thought the writing excellent, and wished, if possible, to imitate it. With this view I took some of the papers, and, making short hints of the sentiment in each sentence, laid them by a few days, and then, without looking at the book, try’d to compleat the papers again, by expressing each hinted sentiment at length, and as fully as it had been expressed before, in any suitable words that should come to hand. Then I compared mySpectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them. But I found I wanted a stock of words, or a readiness in recollecting and using them, which I thought I should have acquired before that time if I had gone on making verses; since the continual occasion for words of the same import, but of different length, to suit the measure, or of different sound for the rhyme, would have laid me under a constant necessity of searching for variety, and also have tended to fix that variety in my mind, and make me master of it. Therefore I took some of the tales and turned them into verse; and, after a time, when I had pretty well forgotten the prose, turned them back again. I also sometimes jumbled my collections of hints into confusion, and after some weeks endeavored to reduce them into the best order, before I began to form the full sentences and compleat the paper. This was to teach me method in the arrangement of thoughts. By comparing my work afterwards with the original, I discovered many faults and amended them; but I sometimes had the pleasure of fancying that, in certain particulars of small import, I had been lucky enough to improve the method or the language, and this encouraged me to think I might possibly in time come to be a tolerable English writer, of which I was extremely ambitious.

— Benjamin Franklin, The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin

• Take a short piece of writing you find to be particularly eloquent, moving, and/or persuasive.
• On a blank sheet of paper, take notes about each sentence or paragraph, expressing the sentiment and tone of the passage.
• Put the original writing and your notes away for a day or two.
• Take out your sheet of notes and attempt to recreate the writing.
• Once you’ve finished, bring back the original and compare it side-by-side with your attempted reproduction.
• Note where the differences are and of the differing passages, determine if the original’s or yours are better and determine why.
• Repeat with different types of writing until you’re constantly producing well-written pieces.

This seems like a great way to learn copywriting. I’m going to raid my swipe file and try this experiment over the next week or so. I imagine it will be tedious, but if it works, it will be well worth the effort.

The main point of the article is simplifying your writing. I know this is one area where I have problems. Two of my worst habits are using complex sentence structures and active vs. passive voice.

Complex Sentence Structures:

Ugh: Dr. Sinister looked over Bobby and Jane and snapped his fingers, pointing at the two of them. Immediately, they were both grabbed by two men each, while two more jumped beside Dr. Sinister with their weapons drawn.

I’m embarrassed to admit I wrote that mess. This is a cut-and-dry case of trying to do too much in too few sentences. The above could easily be broken into five or more sentences and be more readable. As it stands, that paragraph is borderline painful to read.

Active vs. Passive Voice:

This is a misuse (or overuse) of the word “was”. For example:

Passive: The steak was eaten by Frank.
Active: Frank ate the steak.

Both sentences say the same thing. However, you can plainly see the Active version is both shorter and quicker to comprehend.

I think I began doing this because I’m a programmer, and I tend to see this in other programmers’ writing as well. As programmers, we’re often given the end result and have to work backwards. Even if we’re starting at the very beginning of a program, we have to constantly keep the end result in mind. Consequently, when constructing sentences, we consider the object before the subject.

Hopefully, Scott’s article gives you a few ideas about how to improve your writing. I know I’m going to be more conscious of my structure and voice in the future.