Umm, not really, but maybe that depends on your point of view. Plus I hate that word, the 'n' one I mean. Anyway, I like to get my stuff as 'correct' as possible re grammar and language, within my own idea of real world usage and the way things flow that is. So I get the whole artistic purity, kernel of perfection don't mess with the muse thing. Even if I think the 'muse' idea a bit pretentious.
Of course perceptions of what is and isn't acceptable re language, not to mention commenting on such, varies. Some are cool, some get a bit narky and some are seriously precious. Hell, perfection is an impossibility and I have no claim on it, that's for sure. Everybody makes errors; doesn't hit that key quite hard enough or misses a word they thought they put down or homoniminees or something, I know I do. Hey, being a somewhat uneducated semi literate type stylist I probably makes errors I know not what of. Me two, so their.
Yet it seems reasonable to believe that most 'authors' would wish to put their best foot, or work, forward. Mostly I don't make a thing of it and even when I notice I don't mention it. One or two little glitches here and there, meh, a whole bunch though... Sometimes in a story I like by an author I respect I will comment on it. After first saying I love the story I may add... but a tweak or a proof would be a good idea. Sometimes a PM, but I don't harp on it, don't really do pedant and I sure don't go where I'm not wanted. I get that one good and walk away. Used to that for a whole bunch of reasons.
I think I've made such a comment maybe three times and to different authors. One ignored it, another took it fine, one basically told me to shove it... ever so politely though. Shrug, that disappoints me that someone does not care enough about their own work to correct the obvious minor errors. Emotional purity of the prose? Oh give me a break.
Does this make me a pompous arrogant self righteous snotty opinionated bitch? Superior and elitist? Perhaps so, if you choose to see it that way. I reckon it's just bloody lazy.
Criticism for the sake of it is self defeating, pointless and rude. Praise with a ..but.. seems reasonable, yet maybe I'm kidding myself. I dunno, so tell me where do you think the line is. Blanket praise ignoring errors to boost the delicate ego or a gentle nudge, lovely, but could do better?? Hey my 5th grade teach taught me all I know, red pen circles, sit up the front, no daydreaming. She'd prob'ly frown a bit now and then but.
Feel free to pick my stuff apart if you so desire. There are many here smarter and more literate than me, or I even. All I can say is, like or loathe, I do my best.
So, wha'cha reckon then eh???
Yours in pretentiousness, cough
Kristina
Comments
Call yourself a ...
Double space after a full stop you fool!!
Whilst being a bit of a 'nazi' myself, I eventually realised that it's better to stay quiet and avoid the inevitable 'foot-in-mouth' that occurs when you comment on someone who doesn't speak English as a first (or second) language, or is on the way too young side of things. (Though that latter point is more of a problem on the HP fanfic sites)
I Don't Think She Is Really
A grammar Nazi, that is.
Someone of that ilk would insist that every comma and full stop is in the right place and that there are no sentences starting with "And" or "But" and the tenses are consistent throughout, etc.
I think what Kris is actually talking about is making sense of what you write and making the words flow so that the reader is encouraged to keep on reading. You can put up with the odd missing word. Everyone misses an "and' sometimes and once you've missed it your eye just glosses over it every time. Or when you fail to write "I" instead of "i".
I know from my day-job how easy it is and that's why you have Beta readers and editors. It's even more important when you're dealing with English as a second language. BUT...the important thing is that the meaning is conveyed and that the flow of the sentence is not compromised.
Personally I cannot stand what I see as contempt for the reader,for instance, where words which can be so easily checked are consistently mis-spelled (and I'm no fan of SpellCheck). An author should be proud enough of her work to want it to be enjoyed by the audience. Other things which may not strictly fall under the umbrella of grammar can be important.
I have just read a comment where the writer complained that the story was written in one-sentence paragraphs, so I went back and read it again, and in my opinion there was nothing wrong with using single-sentence paragraphs in that particular context. Had the author been voicing a University lecturer rather than her characters then I may have agreed.
I guess the long and the short of it for me is that the story should make sense within its own internal logic and that it should actively help the reader to follow it. Whether I like it or not is another matter entirely.
As a final observation I would say that generally the standards of writing, grammar and layout here are pretty good, especially when it's all done for love, not money. So when you do get a story that's NOT written to those standards it's actively annoying,
Joanne
Confessions of a Pretentious Sod
Time to play the Devil’s advocate.
I am a great believer in what some writers and other creative types refer to as their Muse. While mechanical skills such as the construction of a ‘Proper’ government inspected and approved sentence is important, there needs to be more to a story than a well managed alignment of nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions and all those other things my third grade teacher tried to teach me. There needs to be a spark of life, an ill defined whiff of inspiration or the sudden congealing of seemingly unrelated and ethereal ideas into a well ordered sequence that combined fictional events, scenes, conversations and even mood into an engaging piece.
Whether this is brought about by a mythical muse, supernatural intervention or nothing more than the random firing of synapses located in the frontal lobe of the brain housing group does not matter, not to me. What I do know is that a good story requires more than a collection of words blessed by the ever vigilant self proclaimed Grammar Nazis, those stalwart guardians of the Queen’s English and the mongrel version we Yanks take such delight in using. A good story requires a breath of inspiration, a touch of magic and even the odd bit of luck if it is going to be transformed from simply being an engaging collection of well ordered words into something that moves, inspired and entertains the reader almost as much as it does the writer.
So count me as one of those ignorant sods who pays homage to the mystical force known as a muse. It has served me well in the past and, I hope, will stay at my side well into the future.
Nancy Cole
"You may be what you resolve to be."
T.J. Jackson
I'm happy
when people point out glaring mistakes in either my grammar or spelling - especially, as I'm usually writing at the end of the day, so fatigue plays a part (or that's my best excuse). Again, if I make a factual mistake, I prefer to be told via a PM rather than have my ignorance paraded to the world - although let's face it, anyone who posts over a thousand episodes of codswallop has to be a bit short of grey matter somewhere.
Dialogue is obviously a place where some rules can be relaxed, because most of us speak ungrammatically, innit. What's sometimes sad is the way that more Americanisms are slipping into English over here, such as response to, "How are you?" "I'm good," when it should be 'well', as it's describing a verb.
That apart, the writing here is mostly readable, unlike some sites where paragraphs of a hundred lines seem common and make reading such hard work, or the oddball who perhaps fancies themselves as post-modernist, who doesn't use full stops, capital letters or commas makes it nigh impossible.
Angharad
Angharad
It's the Keybored
Imagine an existence where your only function is to be poked at. For many of us that's not all that hard.
Add to that indignant onslaught the name "Qwerty" and you have a recipe for wanting to shut down your senses to avoid as much life as possible.
Such is the lot of the miserable keyboard. It's no wonder they amuse themselves by occasionally "misinterpreting" our finger punches and popping and "i" on the screen when they no perfectly well we typed an "o". Those devilish monsters rebel to the extent of sometimes switching entire homonyms to laugh at our anguish when we cache them . . . or even worse, when our friends due.
So, don't blame it on the Bossa Nova. . .when the real culprit is right under your nose.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
With computers...
it's personal - I know they hate me - they've told me.
Angharad
Angharad
Peevologist
I'm sorry to have to say this Kris, but you are just way over the line here!!!
Having been lucky enough to have had a few of my -- things (what ever they are) proofed and edited by you, I can promise you you're not a grammar nazi; hell, you don't even come close to being a peevologist. If you're pompous, what am I? (Don't answer that.)
Is there really any writer (never mind the highfaluting name of author) that would deny they make mistakes? I doubt it. I can't keep my commas in line to save my life, and I can't see my own mistakes at all (though I often spot those of others.). It is the nature of being too close to the narrative or of having seen it way to much (as writers are wont to be and do with their works.).
But, yes, there are those that think they can throw any string of words out and leave it to the reader to sort it all out. Alas and alec for such writers; they are too close to their story to love their story, and they obviously haven't done the first thing every writer should do, read a hell of a lot, and there is no excuse for such disrespect for their story, their readers, nor themselves.
On the other hand, I can easily see how any writer can get fed up with peevologist too. I have had subjective voice 'corrected' (both times by Brits, but I'm not drawing any conclusions from that, not all the Brits who've read my stuff have done so.). I've been told I have too many copulas in my writing. (Well, sometimes I describe on-going action. "But 'is' and 'was', that means it is passive." "What's is wrong with the Passive Voice?" I retort. The passive voice is loved by me. (It stresses agency; it doesn't hide it except when it is meaningless.)) And God forbid anyone should try to use the preterite of 'lie' in anything to be read in North America! (Well, I lay down in my bed last night. (And I'm not talking about my pillow fetish (I'll use a different pseudonym if I ever write those stories.))
The trouble with all peevologist is that they are so, so, so often bloody wrong! (there's one such discussion on the BBC this week (they're a great way to sell ink and pixels, and increase the number of the misinformed), that got so out of hand it annoyed The Economist.) And those people are not pointing out a typo, or a comma error (Oh, to be writing in the time of Defoe, when most commas just indicated a pause, and one could sparge them across a manuscript at will.). Even in this tread already there are people listing there incorrect peeves (In this paragraph's first sentence, would anyone have said, "...so often bloody wrongly."?) (I haven't a clue on how to punctuate the end of that last parenthetical. Forgive me!)
Great writers do this wrong headed, peeving stuff all the time. Not just here in this thread, but all over. A very, very good American writer did it. Someone whose novels I adored as a child, and whose essays I admired when older, wrote one of the most insidious, vile peevologist manuals ever written. (He also wrote one of the most brilliant passive voice sentences ever pinned. It's even better than, "The Duke was killed by..." Then he told generations to not ever try to top it.) Of course, the reason his manual is so well loved is because he always, always ignored the 'advice' he gave; makes his manual more accessible then anything his followers will be able to write.
Oh well, I've got to stop now because I've used up my parenthesis allowance for today, but just get over it. Pointing out a clear error ain't a sin, it's a mitzvah. Refusing help isn't just arrogant, it's ignorant. And I for one, know you aren't out there pushing wrong headed notions all over the place.
Hugs, Jan
Punctuation
I seem to recall a story about Mark Twain, reporting that in one of his submissions he added to the end a collection of periods, commas, quotes, semicolons, etc. and a note telling his editor to use them as necessary.
I am one of those readers who will avoid stories that have no caps, no space between paragraphs, poor spelling, and/or poor to no punctuation. Does that make me a nazi???
Zip
maybe
I think that makes you a rational reader, and I say that as someone who enjoys many 'post modern' writers, depending on how one defines 'postmodern'. If you mean only those that are intentionally unenjoyable when you say, 'post-modern'(a common definition), then I don't enjoy it, but might read it for other things. (Eco? Calvino? DFW? -- Enjoyable and, I think, postmodern.).
I'm just getting back online, so this comment is a few days late
I edit for a number of writers here and elsewhere, but as was commented, once you have made a mistake in your own work, you are more likely to miss it on a reread, as you see what you thought you had put down, not what was actually put down.
A lot of my editing is just proof reading, but I try to comment on why I changed some things, and comment on possible rewrites of a section, or even, ( gasp!),a possible change to the story line.
Homonyms are not problems, as they are two or more meanings for the same word, ( as far as spelling is concerned, ).
It is the homophones, two words that SOUND alike but are spelled differently, that many miss.
For anyone who would like it, I am working on a list of hundreds of homophones, ( and words that should or should not be compound words ), and would be glad to send it along.
I created if from a number of online lists.
The largest list had a lot of definitions meant to be humorous, such as 'Feet - look down', and few had more than one definition for each word. I am still in the process of adding more definitions to many words, and every once in a while I add a new one.
But if you would like a copy of it, I would be glad to send it along, as is.
.
.
It’s not given to anyone to have no regrets; only to decide, through the choices we make, which regrets we’ll have,
David Weber – In Fury Born
Holly
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice.
Holly
heteronyms
I love heteronyms, they cause me no problems when I'm typing -- though they give me fits whenever I read aloud.
The first word processing program I owned, though not the first 'word processor', was called volkswriter, and you could set it to flag homophones in your own idiolect. Modern typing programs don't, and I don't know why. But for twenty years all my schools have had headmasters/headmistresses/chief administrators. And countries always have seat of government.
never mind
I had, I admit hoped for a bit of discussion on this. Wishful naives maybe. Thoughts of past blogs when stuff like writing mattered. Shrug, all things change and this is no exception. I'll take my little pompous ball and go play in the park.
Thanks for those that did, whatever your view, they made me smile.
Kristina
The problem, and joy, is
The problem, and joy, is that each author is different. Different in how they perceive criticism, different in how they look at revision, different in so many different ways. (Bear with me, it's 3:37AM my time, and I'm awake.)
How thick a skin do they have? How sensitive toward perceived slights? Do they welcome criticism as a way of improving their craft, do they see it as slings and arrows that they just can't deal with on top of everything else in their life?
Conversely, how diplomatic is the one offering criticism? Diffidence would be going too far, but are they making sure that they sound friendly and supportive in their critique? (This presumes, of course, that the work being critiqued is one they can come across as friendly and supportive about, rather than a steaming pile of horse droppings better shoveled out the door, in which case critiquing is much more challenging.)
Can the one critiquing get behind the story? Is it a matter of pointing out technique for improvement, or explaining why they can't deal with the subject matter, and how things could be changed to make it more palatable, which is a very different thing indeed; does the work fit the ethos of the hosting site, or is this the wrong place for it without certain changes?
3:57AM, the mind glazes over.
Yours,
JohnBobMead
Yours,
John Robert Mead
The Joy of Story Creation
The pain of writing and the agony of editing. That is how I would describe my process of writing a story.
The problem, words are as fucked up as humanity. They're pretentious little pricks who either won't sit beside another or demand to sit beside someone all wrong. They're wordists who will not let other, more common, words lead them into a sentence. They're cowards who are afraid of letting the end of those same sentences be prepossessed. Sometimes they act like fashionistas, changing their appearance for different places in a paragraph, accessorising with all manner of punctuation. Then there are those that could be the crazy room-mate who mimic the other, but never well enough to be a replace. And this doesn't yet speak of their desire to be many different things all at once.
Why? Because we let them get away with it, in fact we aid their insanity through the good intention, readability.
This is why I rank the writing process as a I did. Stories enter my mind with great ease. However, the language in my head is much richer, more descriptive, than that which I use to type the story onto a screen. This is the painful part, where I have to determine if a story is possible, often times it is not. And throughout this painful process I constantly induce the agony of editing, combing and re-combing the story so that when it leaves my computer it will be presentable.
Yet no matter how many times I rewrite a paragraph, move it around, trash it completely. Or how many times I look at every usage of specific words. my confidence about the story is always less than I when I started, sometimes fairly.
An answer, often given, is to use editors, proofers, beta readers. And though I have done that a couple of times, the process always leaves me feeling uncomfortable. I'm barely enjoying the story at the point when they enter the picture, why would I ask a volunteer to wallow in the mud with me. Every time I have asked someone, it's always felt like I took advantage of them.
The automatic follow-up question to that, is then why inflict it upon readers? To which, my answer is, they have not made a commitment to finish the story, they can stop at any time.
And they do in droves. Is it because of my editing, which despite the agony is far from perfect? I don't know, maybe, people don't say. And while I know there is a contingent that tends to like my stories, there will always be more reasons to stop, be it my genre, my flow, my characters, my hook, story size or you name it.
This understanding, in turn offers me an escape from making the leap of faith that better editing will bring me larger audiences. Cynically, and maybe wrongly, I think I could obtain a larger growth by changing the types of stories I write, even when written with the same technical aptitude. Yet truthfully, that would be less easy than increasing that aptitude or breaking down the barrier to allow people to help.
After all, it would minimize my joy in creating the story, leaving me only the pain and agony.