10 Rules of Getting and Keeping Readers’ Attention

Recently, I ran across a volume that I had read years ago, and I paused long enough to flip through its pages, scanning parts that I had underlined and reading the notes I had written in the margins. The book had been written by famed British preacher and writer Charles Spurgeon and was titled Lectures to My Students. One particular chapter especially (and appropriately!) caught my attention: “How to Obtain and Retain the Attention of Our Hearers.” I remembered having read it because much of his advice is applicable to not only ministers but also writers. Perhaps the ten points I summarize below (with supporting quotations from Spurgeon) will prove helpful to your own writing. They’re worth considering.


  1. HAVE A MESSAGE.  “To get attention, the first golden rule is, always say something worth [reading].”
  2. ORGANIZE YOUR MATERIAL. “Let the good matter . . . be very clearly arranged.”
  3. ENSURE APPROPRIATENESS. “[Write] plainly.”
  4. PRACTICE SUCCINCTNESS. “Do not make the introduction [lead] too long.”
  5. AVOID REDUNDANCY. “Do not repeat yourself.”
  6. STRIVE FOR BREVITY. “Avoid being too long.”
  7. EXHIBIT PASSION. “Be interested [in your topic] yourself.”
  8. USE SUPPORTING TECHNIQUES. “There should be a goodly number of illustrations.”
  9. DEMONSTRATE FRESHNESS. “Cultivate the surprise power. Keep your sentences out of ruts.” Avoid cliches.
  10. BE SINCERE AND GENUINE. “Be yourself clothed with the Spirit of God. . . . Remember, ‘it is not by might, nor by power,’ that men are [blessed], but ‘by my Spirit, saith the Lord’. . . . If you do not touch the heart, you will soon weary the ear.”

Why not join me in running each piece of writing through this checklist. If we apply these rules consistently, we might be surprised by how much more interest our writing will earn.


Happy New Year–New Beginnings

Happy New Year to all the readers and followers of this blog.

The start of a new year is a new slate, the beginning of new opportunities. What we do with those opportunities that come our way, however, is up to us. And we can make the most of those opportunities by planning, setting goals, and being ready to take advantage of those opportunities when they arise. I’ve already made my list of goals for 2019. Have you?

A new year is also an opportunity to evaluate what was done in the past and to make adjustments as necessary. Often, however, it’s good to find someone to help us do those evaluations and make the changes that we determine are necessary. I’m doing exactly that with this blog. I need and value your input.

Since I began this blog more than two years ago, I have consistently posted every Tuesday and Friday. Sometimes I noticed that more views occurred on Fridays. Later, however, Tuesday’s posts began to show more views. But that shift in days has not been consistent. So I’m wondering when most readers prefer to receive my posts and how often. Is twice a week really the optimum? Or would less actually be more?

I have considered the possibility of reducing my posts to once a week. If I do that, however, I need to know which day of the week most of my readers prefer. Do you have a preference on either the frequency or the day of the posts? If so, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Just jot a short statement of your preference(s) in the comments section below, and I’ll consider all of those I receive before making any changes to the blog. Also, if you would like to read more (or less) about any particular topic(s) I’ve written about, include that opinion in your comments, too.

Thanks in advance for whatever suggestions you might offer. I know your input will do a lot to improve this blog.

Reflections and a Look Ahead

As 2018 winds down to a close and the new year fast approaches, I’ve been doing some reflecting. Some of the reflections have been backward, analyzing the things that I’ve accomplished versus the goal that I set for myself early in 2018. Other reflections are aimed at the goals I’m setting for myself for 2019.

I always seem to set high goals for myself, more than I can realistically accomplish. Perhaps it would be better to set more realistic goals. But I also believe that if one sets goals high, he or she will accomplish more than if the goals are too low. As I look back over my list of goals for 2018, I readily admit that I had some things on the list that I failed to accomplish. For a few, it wasn’t for a lack of trying; things just didn’t work out. For other things, perhaps I didn’t do everything I could to achieve them. I find, however, that I certainly did accomplish more than I would have had I set no goals at all and probably more than I would have had I set lower goals. As someone famously said, “If you aim [your arrow] at the moon, you probably won’t hit it, but you’ll get closer than if you never shot the arrow at all.”

In addition, whenever one has several on-going projects simultaneously, some of them will be completed while others are not. And I acknowledge that not all of my original goals had the same level of priority, so I don’t feel too badly about not achieving some of them. I did achieve my top priority goals, and that’s what counts to me.

As the new year approaches, I again am setting some goals for myself. Some of them will be highly ambitious; perhaps I’ll achieve some of them, I’ll come close to achieving others, and, no doubt, a few projects will end 2019 unfinished, perhaps even unstarted.  I’ll have a goal for the number of articles I want to get published, and to do that, I’ll have to set a number of manuscripts that I must submit. I’m realistic, so I know already that some of those submissions will be rejected for a variety of reasons, from poor writing to “doesn’t meet our current needs” to “we recently ran something similar.” But I also know, based on past history, that some of them will be accepted and published. A few of those might even warrant eventual payment!

Although time and space prevent my sharing all of my goals, I will “let the cat out of the bag” for a few of them, just for the voyeurs among my readers. I have several on-going projects on which I’ve been working, some of which I’ve unsuccessfully bounced off publishers and others that a prospective agent is considering. I have a commission from an editor to write an article on South Carolina’s peaches. There’s no guarantee that the final result will be accepted and published, but at least an editor asked me to do the article. I also have the following book manuscripts (with tentative titles) ready for submission:

  • Evangelism and Eviction: Missionary Work among the Cherokees Until Removal
  • In Camp and Combat: Religious Activities in the Confederate Armies
  • Combat! Spiritual Lessons from Military History
  • Preventing Spiritual Anorexia Nervosa

I’ve been writing for publication long enough to know that rejection is just part of the game. I also am encouraged by the example of other writers before me whose experiences teach that publication comes to those who not only do their best writing of which they’re capable but also those writers who persevere despite rejection. (For example, study how many times Dr. Seuss’s book And to Think that I Saw It on Mulberry Street was rejected before a publisher took a chance on him. All of those editors no doubt now wish they had had greater foresight!)

If the good Lord should tarry His coming and grant me life for another year, maybe one or more of my aspirations for the aforementioned manuscripts will be turned into published books. Whether they are or not is in His hands. He will accomplish His will. All I know is that I must do my best in writing and marketing them. If they do not get published, are stillborn, so to speak, at least I’ll have written and tried. If one or more does live to see the light of published day, sola gloria deo!

Verbal Voyeurism

One of the key ingredients of both good fiction and creative nonfiction is realistic dialogue. Readers certainly know that fact. Writers should know it, too, but they often forget and must be reminded. Actually doing it, however, is hard, and that’s the rub, as the saying goes.

One of the most logical ways of learning that skill (and, yes, it is a learned skill that doesn’t just “happen naturally”) is to practice what might be called verbal voyeurism. Now don’t get alarmed. I’m not suggesting that you do anything illegal or even a little shady. I’m saying that you simply must train yourself to begin listening–really listening–to people talking in their normal conversations. Listen to not only what people say but also, and more importantly, how they say it. Jot down those aural observations and incorporate your findings in your writing.

One of my sons-in-law made me more aware of this skill when he began noting aloud the many odd (to him anyway) things my daughter, his wife, said and how she said them. Here are a few of the ones he found recurring in her conversation but that he had heard nowhere else in his life.

  • “We were meant to be here” (usually spoken whenever we found a parking space close to our destination).
  • “I could eat more for taste” (at a meal when one was full but enjoyed the taste of the food).
  • “. . . going around Nicely’s new ground” (another way of saying “beating around the bush” or taking too long to say something).
  • “. . . got the gaps” (when one was yawning).
  • “tuna fish” (noting the redundancy of the phrase).

Another characteristic of “real world” conversation is the fact that people don’t always use complete sentences. They speak in fragments, often even allowing single words, knowing that the listener can fill in the missing words from the immediate context of the conversation.

Moreover, they often include nonessential details in their conversations, get off the subject, and finally find their way back. They often cut sentences short, stopping in mid-sentence, to interject some new detail, maybe even something totally off the subject. (That’s how conversations evolve, and the speakers sometimes will even comment at some point, “Now how did we get to that subject?”) This was a technique that Mark Twain was an expert at using in his writings. (Read his story “The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County” as just one example.)

Another characteristic is that people use a lot of slang, colloquialisms, idioms, regionalisms, and euphemisms. All of these, used in your dialogue, add authenticity and color. But they must be genuine and authentic to your setting (time period, geographic location, etc.), or readers will perceive them to be forced or artificial. Moreover, they must be used in moderation. As is often the case with such writing tools (e.g., writing in dialect), a little goes a long way.

Verbal voyeurism takes practice. Whenever you’re sitting in a waiting room or eating in a restaurant, try practicing it. Casually listen–really listen–to what the people around you are saying and how they say it. Listen to people around you whenever you’re shopping in a busy mall or grocery store. Note your own speaking patterns. You’re as guilty as anyone else; we all are.

The goal is to make dialogue in your writing sound natural and authentic. Practicing verbal voyeurism and applying what you learn to your writing will go a long way toward ensuring that your dialogue is both.

An Article Finally Sees Daylight!

Things notoriously often move slowly in the publishing world.

Quite some time ago, I queried an editor with an article idea I had. I was given the go-ahead to do the article. I worked for several weeks researching and writing the article and then additional weeks making trips to the subject sites to obtain usable photos to accompany the article. I submitted the completed manuscript and waited.

More than two years (and two editors later, with a baby–the editor’s, not mine, sandwiched between them), the article finally was published. While serving as one of two docents on duty at a local historical society museum, the subject of my writing came up in our conversation. A copy of the publication which I had submitted the long-delayed article happened to be lying on the table between us, and I tapped on the cover as I mentioned that one of my articles was scheduled to appear in the next issue. My fellow docent took a photo of the magazine and said, “I’ll have to check this out and read your article.” Later that day, she e-mailed me a photo of the cover of the latest issue, which she had just found in a local supermarket.


So, fellow struggling writers, don’t lose hope! Persevere! Keep waiting. Your work, like mine, may soon see the light of day!

David’s Principles of Good Writing

The best writers, writing teachers often say, are avid readers, and high on their reading lists are great writers, those who stand as exemplars of what good writing is. So it stands to reason, if one wants to become a good writer, one should read the works of great writers and follow their examples.

I realized while reading the other day that one such great writer is typically overlooked as a writing exemplar because his name is generally associated not with writing instruction but with religious instruction. That’s too bad because writers can learn a lot of important principles about not only spirituality but also writing from the psalmist David.

Consider, for example, only one of his psalms, perhaps the most famous one, one known among even non-religious people: Psalm 23, which is often called “The Shepherd’s Psalm.”

If you type that entire psalm as a Word document and then run that software’s spelling/grammar check feature, a box pops up showing the “readability statistics” for the piece. I did that, and what I discovered was an eye opener.

The entire psalm (in the King James Version) consists of only 118 words in 6 paragraphs. (For you Twitter aficionados who must worry about such things, it contains 478 characters.) David averages one sentence per paragraph (or verse) and 19.6 words per paragraph. The words he chose to use average 3.9 characters per word. In readability, the psalm scores 85.2 on the Flesch Reading Ease scale; is, according to the Flesch-Kinkaid Grade Level chart, on the 4.6-grade level; and he used no passive constructions, only active voice.

So to what principles of good writing do all these statistics point? Well, I identified at least three, but you might discover even more upon careful study.


David shows that you can say a lot without using a lot of words. Only 118 words, but how much deep content they contain! They have been comforting millions of people down through the ages, and they continue to do so today.

We writers should never try to fool people into thinking we’re profound by piling on the verbiage. The older I get, the more I’m coming to conclude that those who are the most verbose aren’t really the smartest people on the block. If a writer’s central message is well thought-out, he or she should be able to communicate it concisely and succinctly. The root of the word concise is cis, which means “to cut out.” So “make every word count.” “When in doubt, cut it out!”


David wrote this psalm so simply that the average fourth-grade student can understand what he intended to communicate. The sentence structure is simple; the words are short (typically one syllable and less than four letters) and simple. But the message they communicate is deep, profound, emotional, and effective.

Too often, I’m afraid, writers try to impress readers with their alleged superior knowledge by using big words and complex sentence structure when simple terms and simple structuring can communicate just as (or perhaps even more) effectively. Never try to convince readers of the profundity of your thoughts by the obscurity of your vocabulary or the complexity of your sentence structure.

Producing writing that is brief and simple is not easy. It takes a great deal of thought and often many drafts before one gets it just right. I learned this lesson the hard way when I was tasked with revising the text of an eighth-grade history book. I quickly discovered that the reading level of the original text was twelfth grade! Reducing it to the eighth-grade level required shortening paragraphs, restructuring sentences, and using shorter words. It was hard work! But it can be done. We should do the same with our writing. Put your writing “on the bottom shelf,” where everyone who reads it can understand it.


And this leads to the third principle of good writing that we can learn from David’s psalm: humility. David was not only a talented writer but also a mighty king, a great warrior, and an able administrator and logistician. Yet, he was, more importantly, a humble writer. He knew that his writing talent came as a gift from God. He always remembered that he was just a simple shepherd who had been called by God to lead a great nation. He acknowledged that everything he accomplished, including his voluminous writing of most of the psalms, was a direct result of his being blessed and used by his God. He never took upon himself the praise that rightly belonged only to God. In himself, he was nothing. But God chose to use him to be a blessing, through his writings, to generations of people.

Do you have a gift for writing? Recognize that it is not due to anything within yourself; it is a gift from God. Also, acknowledge that, having that gift, you are accountable to its Giver for what you do with it, the uses to which you put it. So use it aright. “Use it, or lose it.”

These are just three principles of good writing we can learn from Psalm 23. You can probably come up with others. If so, share them with us in the comments section. But look beyond even those writing principles to discover the even more important life lessons it holds for the spiritual side of your life. If it’s been a while since you’ve read that psalm, why not read it again with a “fresh set of eyes.” (An excellent help in such an endeavor is Phillip Keller’s book A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23.) I look forward to hearing from some of you about what you glean from your own examination of David’s writing.

First Impressions

“You get only one chance to make a good first impression.” That statement is especially true when it comes to submitting your writing to a book or magazine editor.

You can do much, however, to shape that first impression, thereby increasing your chances of getting your work accepted and published. My experiences as both an author and an editor have taught me that making that good impression requires looking at your work on two different levels: a macro view and a micro view.

The Macro View

Looking at your work from the macro view means looking at it to get the “big picture.” Imagine it as using a telescope to view your writing. It involves asking yourself the following questions about your writing.

  • Does your manuscript deliver what your proposal or query promised?
  • Is it logically organized?
  • Does it adhere to the publication’s/publisher’s stated guidelines and style?
  • Does its message meet a clear need?
  • Does it have a clear focus?
  • Has it had the benefit of a second (or even a third or fourth) “set of eyes”? (Have you had others read and comment on it and suggest any changes?)


The Micro View

The micro view of your writing involves examining it for the details. Imagine it as using a microscope to view your writing to detect such characteristics as those listed here.

  • Spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc. (Don’t rely on the spell-check feature of your software. It can be a big help, but it is not infallible!)
  • Style (Does it reflect the industry standard and the publication’s/publisher’s guidelines?)
  • Usage and vocabulary (Is it age appropriate for the intended audience? Is it precise?)
  • Reference citations, if any are necessary (Are they accurate and formatted correctly?)
  • Active versus passive voice (Does the subject of each sentence do the acting, or is it acted upon? Eliminate as many passive constructions as possible.)
  • Strong verbs and nouns (Are they precise? Ensure that you aren’t overly reliant on adjectives and adverbs to “carry the weight” of your message.)
  • Concise and precise vocabulary rather than needlessly verbose (Make every word count. When in doubt, take it out!)

Looking at your writing from these two levels and asking the appropriate questions will help you identify any weaknesses that would tend to give an editor a bad impression of your work. Correcting those weaknesses before submitting your work will take you several steps closer to your goal of acceptance and publication. The less work the editor must do on your submission, the greater your chances of acceptance.

So do your homework, ensuring that you make that good first impression and making it easier for the editor to say “Yes!” You will reap the benefits of not only acceptance of your work but also possibly a long-term relationship with that editor and publication!


Word Man

One hundred ninety years ago today, a man was born who later published a book the influence of which stretched far beyond his own lifetime and has affected every generation since.

Born on October 16, 1758, in West Hartford, Connecticut, he was a descendant of two governors. A quick learner, he entered Yale College at age sixteen and graduated four years later. He became a school teacher because he didn’t have the money to become a lawyer.

While teaching, he developed a burden for both his students and fellow teachers, who had few good teaching materials. He also dreamed of Americans’ speaking one common language and pronouncing and spelling words consistently. He was convinced that those qualities were critical to their survival as a people and a nation. More importantly, he was burdened that American students learn ethics, morality, manners, and Christianity without which even otherwise well-educated people could not truly be successful.

To develop his students’ minds and enrich their souls, this man began writing books. He published his first work, A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, in 1783, and George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and other prominent leaders endorsed it. He gave copies to schools, and educators, realizing its value, ordered more copies of their students. More than 100 million copies of his book have been sold. It has never gone out of print. (How would you like such results for your books?!)

The man was Noah Webster. And the book that was so successful is better known as “The Blue-Backed Speller” because he printed it on poor-quality paper “held together by two broad strips of cloth, between thin wooden boards covered in plain blue paper.”

In 1806, Webster published A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language and in 1828 An American Dictionary of the English Language. The latter work, which took 27 years to complete, was his greatest effort toward developing a truly American language.

It included 70,000 entries, traced the etymology of each entry, and gave its precise definition. He added new words, especially words unique to American usage.

So strongly did Webster believe in what he was doing that he paid from his own pocket to print the first edition of his dictionary and mortgaged his own home to print the second edition. He later published abridged editions in 1841 and 1847 (posthumously), making his dictionary and the Bible accessible for practically every American home and school in the nation.

Following Webster’s death in 1843, George and Charles Merriam purchased rights to Webster’s dictionary and published in 1847 the first Merriam-Webster dictionary. That book became the nation’s standard authority on American English. (Although many dictionaries call themselves “Webster’s,” only a Merriam-Webster is truly a Webster’s dictionary.)

Today, even dictionaries that carry Webster’s name are far removed from his original. Political correctness, multiculturalism, and moral relativism dominate those volumes. Christianity and morality are no longer central to their purpose.

Yet, Noah Webster’s influence is still felt throughout the English-speaking world. We see it in our rules of spelling, pronunciation, and usage. And his original dictionary and the Blue-Backed Speller are worthy of our attention.


Put the Cookies on the Bottom Shelf!

I don’t know where I first heard that statement: “Put the cookies on the bottom shelf.” It certainly didn’t originate with me, but I have claimed it as my own because it’s a good rule of thumb for anyone who is trying to communicate. The gist of its meaning is, Whether speaking or writing, do so in such a way that the youngest, simplest person can understand what you’re trying to say.

Too many people don’t do that. For whatever reason, they make things complicated and difficult to understand when there’s no need for it. Sometimes I guess they do it to impress the readers or listeners with their supposedly greater “smarts.” Well, people aren’t stupid; they get the message. Such a writer or speaker is a blowhard who thinks he’s a know-it-all. In reality, there are no know-it-alls. As Will Rogers often said, “We’re all ignorant–just on different subjects.” And even on the subjects we do know more about, we’ll never know it all.

When I was a little kid, I always wanted something (especially sweets) to eat between meals, but my mother had a way of redirecting (maybe I should say “forcing”) my appetite into different directions. For some reason that I couldn’t understand, she didn’t like my getting into the chocolate drops that she bought in bulk at Miller’s Department Store in Knoxville and put in the freezer. (I used to sneak into the freezer, get one drop from each of the many boxes, and think that she’d never notice. But when I did that time after time, she did notice!) But she never complained when I dug up a turnip from the garden, washed it off at the pump house, peeled it with my pocket knife, and ate it raw.

Another ploy she had was to store the healthful bananas in a drawer beneath the refrigerator. I could get those easily. But she put the chocolate chip cookies in a jar on top of the refrigerator! Only after I grew taller and a little smarter did I learn that I could climb onto the stool she kept beside the refrigerator and, by tiptoeing and stretching as high as I could, tip the cookie jar toward me, and get that sugary treat.

It might work (for a while) to put the cookies on the highest shelf or atop the refrigerator if you’re trying to keep junk food from the kids, but it just doesn’t work if your goal is to communicate. To communicate effectively, you have to keep things simple. If it’s complicated and complex, write or say it in a way that everyone can understand. If the most simple-minded person can understand it, then you know you’ve reached everyone. But if you use terms and phrases and sentence structures that are complex and convoluted, you lose all but the smartest. In fact, you might not even communicate to the one smartie in the crowd.

You put the cookies on the bottom shelf by using simple words, short sentences, and simple sentence structure. Make every word count. Say the most you can with the fewest words and the simplest words. And when you have to decide whether to use a short word or a long word, opt for the shorter one.

Consider, for example, some of the greatest writing in history. Seventy-three percent of the words used in Psalm 23 are one-syllable words. In the Lord’s Prayer, it’s 76 percent. In the “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, an amazing 80 percent of the words are of one syllable. The same holds true for the greatest of the secular writers. For example, analyse the Gettysburg Address some time. In fact, as Haddon Robinson pointed out, the biggest things in life are one-syllable words: “life, death, peace, war, dawn, day, night, hope, love, home.”

So if you want to communicate effectively with the greatest number of people (rather than confuse or impress), “put the cookies on the bottom shelf.”

Copyright (c) 2018, Dennis L. Peterson

Revise, Resize, Recycle!

Perhaps you’re familiar with the adage “Don’t work harder; work smarter.” Although writing is always hard work (because it requires a lot of serious thought, organization, and precise word choice), we writers can save ourselves a little bit of unnecessary work if we learn to do what the title of this blog post says: Revise, resize, and recycle. Another way of saying it might be “Don’t reinvent the wheel.”

It took me a while to learn this important lesson, but it’s one that I’m reminded of quite often. Here’s what I mean by “revise, resize, and recycle.”

For quite some time after my first published article appeared in May 1981, I labored to turn out completely new articles, every one of them researched from scratch and freshly written. After numerous rejections and a few isolated acceptances, I became aware of something called “rights.” (Yes, I know. I’m a slow learner, a late bloomer, or just plain dense!) I learned that if I sold only first rights to a newly created article, I could later market the same article to a second publication after it had appeared in the first publication. I began to submit some of my previously published articles to other publications, offering reprint rights. And they, too, began to sell.

The work required to sell reprints was still tough. It required that I study the possible markets to determine which publications published the types of articles I was offering, match the length and scope of each article reprint with each prospect, and, if the original article didn’t meet those qualification, revise and/or resize it until it did meet the editor’s specifications. That usually meant cutting, sometimes reorganizing a little, providing references and/or photographs, or doing something else until the original article met the standard. Even at that, it required less work than I had put into the original. The benefit, however, was that I could sell and resell essentially the same article over and over ad infinitum. That’s working smarter rather than harder.

I was reminded of this important lesson by some of the mail that arrived in my box as recently as yesterday. I received contributor’s copies and a check (an important matter for any serious writer!) of a publication that included my article “Spiritual Anorexia Nervosa,” which was originally published in the March 1985 issue of Good News Broadcaster. (That article proved to be a foot in the door, leading to the sale, five years later, of two other articles to Confident Living, the successor publication to GNB.) Since its original publication, I have been able to resell essentially the same article, usually with a few tweeks or updating of statistics and with the editors giving it slightly different titles, at least three or four times. All told, that’s not a bad return on my original investment of time researching and writing! (Incidentally, or perhaps I should say providentially, a few days after the original print publication reached readers, broadcaster Ken Boone read it over his national Family Radio Network program–and I just happened to be listening at the time!)

I have several other articles I could use as examples of this sell-then-resell lesson, but I think you get the point. Sometimes, I haven’t even had to do the marketing; editors contacted me after having read the original and asked permission to reprint the articles in their publication. Always for another fee. Although that fee is usually less than that received for the original, it’s still money in the bank! The gift that keeps on giving!

So when you’re preparing an article, don’t think only of the first publication to which you’re submitting it. Think of other potential markets to which you can submit the same article later. Just be sure that you sell only first rights to the original publication and then offer reprint rights to all subsequent publications to which you submit it. Also, be sure to check each publication’s guidelines and adjust your original to meet those requirements, if they are different. It also helps to think of topics that are “evergreens,” that is, subjects that can be used year after year over a long period of time. (My original “Spiritual Anorexia Nervosa” article was published in 1985, and it’s still being published in 2018, more than thirty years later!)

Now, get busy digging through your tearsheet file, and begin identifying possible articles you can market as reprints. Then revise, resize, and recycle!

Copyright (c) 2018, Dennis L. Peterson