If only the panic attacks were the singular issue. Sadly, it is not so. Coupled with our heightened emotional angst comes a bit of blame and behind-covering moves that just leave this Frump feeling exhausted, as well as giddy that she’s not working in a corporate environment any longer.

Said issue cropped up unexpectedly months after a project was finalized. Our panicky client re-entered the picture, wondering where a specific portion of a project went. That would seem to be the million-dollar question with no answer, for it was the exact one I had asked a month before the project completion, to which I received a goose egg of the answer.

Now yours truly is hearing “I did so” instead of “Here’s what you need.” Alas, my side of the equation is still missing the key ingredients to getting the panicker out of rehab. Dearest client, I do understand you’ve come from a culture of covering thine own, but since I am a freelance contractor, why should I care who’s to blame if the project cannot move forward without the missing information? Let’s spend our time much better and just stop the blame, halt the panic and get the job done. Amen.

Dearest client gave this Frump a mere 48 hours to complete a rather involved project. What’s more interesting is the direction Frumpie received; there wasn’t any. The marching orders were “Give me 1,500 words by Thursday.”

Frumpie narrowed the clueless soul’s focus down to exactly what it was yours truly was to present to the reading public. Ironically, the client sent a rather large white paper and instruction Frump to “just take from this and rewrite it in your own words.” To which Frump replied, “We don’t steal; we create.”

Despite the odds being against us, yours truly managed a rather involved final project in under 48 hours. All original content, I tell you. This Frump was pleased with herself.

Which is to say this Frump invited disaster through the front door, for every time I feel confident, the client is sure to bring my sensible shoes back to earth. No exception here, for client wrote back stating he had to complete “extensive revisions” to the copy. But of course, dearie! You didn’t tell me what you wanted specifically and you gave me no time in which to perform the miracle of reading your mind! Yet it was his saying Frumpie’s document “didn’t appear to be proofed” that had this Frump revisit the document.

In going over the allegedly poorly proofed document, Frump was confused. What on earth was wrong with it? Then Frump compared the revision with the original. What was wrong, dear souls, was the sum total of nothing. In fact, Frump’s client had merely expanded on one or two ideas and took great care in introducing grammatical errors into the document. At once this Frump realized the true nature of this feedback. The client was about to attempt to get out of paying.

So Frump did the next best thing to sending out a pack of hungry wolves to claw at his door. She opened the revised document and further edited, correcting the client’s poor sentence structure, clarifying his convoluted prose, and cleaning up the misspellings. She ignored all references to the “not proofed” accusation and focused on the goal, which was to show the client his mistakes and send a very clear message that this Frump wasn’t trifling, nor was she about to lie down and take his word as fact.

Frump you, rotten scoundrel! You’ll pay me or you’ll see me in court. Either way, I’ll have the last, correctly stated, word.

Said client handles major projects for a large company. Frumpie handles portions of these projects for said client. In a frustrating round of revisions and edits and near verbal fisticuffs, Frumpie had to request the change of one item in said project, a change that involved six e-mails and some harsh words from the client because once again, Frumpie had to point out the client’s error in thinking. This Frump is one to spread harmony and to not hurt feelings, so the pointing out was done in the most tactful manner imaginable. Ruffled feathers were smoothed and Frump moved on, confident that said item would be altered appropriately.

Alas, again we do live on Imperfect Street. The one item was not altered. I daresay I do not understand why we were made to go through the agonizing process of final revisions and verbal tussles since the end result looked identical to the original problem. This would be fine if Frumpie weren’t relying on said item changes as promised to her own third party. The third party noticed the error, was upset with Frump over the lack of attention to detail and Frump had to apologize for a mistake she did not make. However, Frump did contact the third party in question and mention directly that the error was believed to be dealt with and Frump could not understand why changes hadn’t occurred. Scary thought since the project has several references that needed changing.

I would think it is a case of someone overwhelmed, yet there’s a remedy for that. Get additional help. Better yet, know when you are in over your head and do something to fix it.  Had this been the first time, Frump would not be in such a state of WTF. Alas, once more ineptitude has reached out to bite this Frump. No more. This one is on his own from now on. Frump off, inept one. I shan’t be taking the heat for your errant flames any longer.

This particular storm is exceedingly short of attention span. Dearies, there are deletions in the copy supplied by yours truly — large amounts of deletions — in which said editor has removed crucial facts and replaced them with …. um, questions that said facts had cleared up right before he struck out the sentences. One particular deletion said “Where is this fact?”

Tell me, oh patient reader. How ever should I address the obvious ridiculous nature of said question, and so many others like it? Should I point out to the dear soul that his heavy-handed cutting has removed nearly all of the facts he so desperately seeks? How do delicately tell him he’s working with an attention span of a goldfish, for the questions he’s asking are clearly answered in exactly those words he deemed unfit for print?

In wisdom that can come only from years of dealing with lunatics, tyrants and an assortment of odd behavior patterns, I have decided the best course of action is to complete all revisions twice, thrice even to remove said editorial splinter from my sore backside. The mantra of “get it done” has taken over where a more common-sense approach would otherwise prevail. Yet in this case, getting it done and over with is by far the most common-sensical tactic one could apply.

I shan’t work with this editor again, for this Frump has learned that sometimes burning bridges is the very best way to keep the crazies on the other side of the river. Frump off, you airheaded dork.

• Forgetting how to use hyphens
• Changing a company description that rendered it incorrect
• Adding such impressive descriptors as “and things like that” to otherwise accurate copy
• “Enhancing” the copy with such killer sentences as “Your company could use this.”

Frumpie is used to editorial guidance and input. She welcomes it. A good editor can make a good story worlds better. However, this is more a case of a bad editor trying to prove he’s a better editor than he is by editing good copy down to unintelligible copy.

To the editors of the world; if your edits change the voice, meaning, context, or look of the story, you’re not editing. You’re killing good work and insulting your writers. If a piece requires that much editing, could it be that you didn’t assign the right story in the first place or you weren’t clear in your direction or expectations? Trust your writers, dearies, lest they drop you on your backsides and let you put your own name on butchered copy.

Alas, the client has taken on a project far above his particular skill level. Being the smart client, he has surrounded himself with specialists to ramp up his skill level on the surface. Sadly, he does not take well to suggestions and guidance. In the most recent case of “I’m your boss and stop talking down to me” this little Frumpie was in the unpopular position of pointing out an editorial error, one that would embarrass said editor and make Frumpie look foolish, as well. The error was located by a third party, already an embarrassment, but was easily fixable.

If only ease of fixing translated into the real world, dearies. This editorial soul decided he was tired of taking marching orders from people who knew their businesses better than he did. He agreed to changes, but not without saying “I’m not doing it that way, but this way.” Let’s just overlook the fact that his change is still incorrect.

Playing mediator is not Frumpie’s favorite sport, but as the designated go-between, yours truly was elected to break the news to the third party, who again corrected Frump. Hat in hand, Frumpie here went back to Sir Editor and gently as can be told him the way the third party sees it.

Oh, if only July 4th offered such an awesome display of fireworks! Alas, the explosion was unnecessary and avoidable if Sir Editor had found it in his insecure heart to avoid the personalizing of a minor error. Frump was snipped at over the phone and made to believe she was questioning Sir Editor’s abilities. Frumpie smiled before responding with said third party’s contact information. We shan’t be in the middle of a struggle over adjectives.

Methinks the insecurity is the issue, dearest editor, for no confident soul would make such mountains from the ant hill in front of them.

That the dearie runs, of all things, a financial company does not escape this Frump’s attention. That it’s the second time he’s questioned the rate is rather surprising given his kick to the curb on the last instance.

Frump off, cheapo. You volunteered to write it yourself at least. I think that’s the best idea you’ve had yet.

The dear, miguided soul has accused this Frump of giving him back a project that is quite similar to what he sent me. I shall not reveal details, but let me stress that the similarities he pointed out amount to two words that are, indeed, similar. Two words out of 986 words. That hardly constitutes the major meltdown and nasty mouth on said client, yet he felt it necessary to tell me he was 1) disappointed, 2) not happy, and 3) really ticked. Well that may be so, dear, but you have to give me 1) the ability to use one or two similar words that actually describe your business, 2) the right to hand you a completely new project that is ten times better than the schlock you provided for information, and 3) the right to call for a reality check, for your complaints have no basis. Two words out of 986. For that you say I’m copying off your paper.

Frump you, jerk. I know a freebie seeker when I see one.

Since we had such a lovely time with our client handing control of a project over to everyone not writing the check, we soon lost control of the quality of the product – understandably so. However, the thrashing that came after having sent over a project for quick review to see if it fit the client’s style was, in this Frump’s mind, unacceptable.

There were mistakes. First drafts usually have those. However, the reaction was chastising, harsh, sarcastic and in a few cases, downright demeaning. Did client miss the note on it being a quick review before I finalized? You bet. I do not mind doing it exactly as you ask, but I do expect the chance to verify what those requirements would be. Since this was a complete rewrite (twice) thanks to this client allowing too many hands in the pie, this Frump wanted assurance. Instead I got told off.

Frump you, client. I’ve listened for years to your money woes, your yanking my financial chain, and your hiring me and then halting the work because you run out of money. You say you expect a professional writer. I expect a professional business person. I guess we’re both disappointed, aren’t we?

Contracts were signed for ongoing projects. Payments were arranged. Now Fump hears that “No, we don’t want any more work right now.” This came right after the “Spend just one hour on this other project.” We’re exactly one month into the contract. Having been down this particular trail with client, Frump here knows the signs; the client’s financial feast has turned into famine once more. This is a cycle that’s repeated for the last two years. The light on the horizon this time appears to be no more than the flameout from yet another business venture.

The knee-jerk approach to business, coupled with some unacceptable writing conditions that indicate to Frump the client is kissing behinds in order to secure advertising, has the Frump’s white flag up. I surrender. I shall not be your writer, for I don’t get paid enough to supplement this madness with the appropriate levels of Prozac.

Frump off, client. In your profession, it’s laughable that managing funds seems so difficult for you. That is, it would be laughable if I weren’t the one being screwed by your bad planning.