Grammar, help. wanted, please.:;-.

I'm changing it to phenomenon.

Thanks for the input chaps. Yep, fair point. Even if phenomenon isn’t necessarily recent, the ‘relatively new’ is def. superfluous. I’ll ditch that and see how I go. Ta. (God, I am so sick of reading this bloody thing…)

I know - I could ditch the first phenomenon in favour of, The advent of the 'New Man' has... * chip, chip, chip *

Thanks very much for that, Jingle. It’s certainly clearer. Trouble is the style is probably too serious in this case. I should have put it in context. It’s from a parody of books on motherhood. Many sections start off pompous and end up facetious. This awkward little para. was just inserted to stress that I wasn’t slagging off all dads. So far I’ve got… ‘The advent of the ‘New Man’ has improved relationships between many first-time parents. As with any new phenomena, however, just because magazines keep banging on about them, doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of the old models still knocking about. It is with the latter type, the ‘Trad Dads,’ that we are concerned with here.’ Any better? Any opinions gratefully recieved.

haha - grammar! i before e, except after...

Aggghhhh - I meant phenomenON.

By George, Tom, I think you've cracked it! How about: Relationships between many first-time parents have been improved by the advent of the New Man. As with any new trend, however, just because the glossy magazines are full of new men, doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of the old models still knocking about. It is with the latter type, the ‘Trad Dads,’ that we are concerned with here. Or even, Relationships between many first-time parents have been improved by the advent of the New Man. Just because the glossy magazines are full of new men, however, doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of the old models still knocking about. It is with the latter type, the ‘Trad Dads,’ that we are concerned with here.

Oops - think I'd better get a move on with this. We'd set up a small press to publish the book and the original publication date was April. However, a friend passed it on to a comedy producer friend to have a look at, because she thought it might be suitable for animation (still haven't heard back yet). Anyway, she suggested holding off the print run in case it got taken up, so I did (even though I think it's incredibly unlikely). Thing is, I forgot to notify Neilsen's book data, and now I've just seen it listed on Amazon! What's more, it displays the lazily written one-line synopsis that I jotted down on the data form. It's obviously not going to be a problem as I'm not exactly expecting a rush of orders from the general public, but still... I am never on time for anything. Never, ever, ever. Not even my own bloody book.

Oh thanks Tom, didn't see your post. Yes I think 2nd is best too - already changed it in fact. Thank you sooooooooo much for your help.

Yep - right again, Tom. Thanks!

Ooooh oooh oooh... tv producer chappie hadn't got round to reading it yet so I was able to drop off the edited version two days ago. Anyway.................................. Just been speaking to him on the phone and and and he loved the book and he's going to pitch to the beeb for a series of animated shorts!!!!!!!!!!!! Even if that doesn't come off (animation is very expensive apparently) he said, do you have a literary agent? I said, I wish - now he's going to get someone from ICM to call me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry! I know it's trumpet blowing but I'm just so f***ing excited! Two years I've been touting this little books around! Thanks again for all your editing, Abcers!

Thanks Petals. I think I broke the exclamation key...