Search options (Page 9 of 15)

Yo, Seabrass ...

Thanks for the info.  But I’m really hoping for feedback specifically on the questions I posed — regarding those publications and that website.

Who could have guessed “reading happiness” could be measured?  Definitely gonna run my next brief to the Supreme Court through this puppy.   I mean, who would want their amicus to fail to warm the cockles of Clarence Thomas’s heart?

Just a point of clarification on this.  This wasn’t intended to pitch AutoCrit.  I think it’s a waste of money for most people.   I subscribe to their blog because it sometimes has some good articles.  I have tried it and found it too “mechanical” (and kind of silly in many cases).  Great writing (and great grammar/punctuation) is an “art,” not a manufacturing process employing interchangeable widgets.  I don’t use it or advocate it.  I have tested (out of curiosity) all of these kinds of applications—as I do believe, some day, they will evolve to be more useful.  I found them all wanting (so far).

My two cents (or more) in advance of being clobbered (and this is not just in reference AutoCrit, but all applications that purport to assist editing):

(PS and before I begin: yeah, yeah, yeah ... opinions are like a—holes, everybody’s got one. I’m an a—hole, here’s my opinion ...)

1. For the novice, it’s too often used as a crutch to support struggling writers too lazy to learn grammar and punctuation rules.  For people who use it that way, it will probably marginally help some of their writing (until they give up, because they will, inevitably), but without a solid grounding in grammar and punctuation, they won’t be able to effectively use what they get from it.  If you are lazy, then you won’t solve that problem with a crutch.  In fact, for these people, in the main, it does more harm than good, as if you don’t have the will (or gumption, it should be noted) to interpret the info, you end up just being a non-learning robot and repeating bad practices (and not even knowing it), and you never develop the ear for language, which is at the heart of being a skilled writer.  Tragically, it tends to create tedious know-it-alls who ... well, don’t.  Alas: lazy folks end up giving up these kinds of applications in the end, because even a crutch requires too much effort for the truly lazy.

2. For novice writers who use it as an active assist to help them learn punctuation and grammar, and who are disciplined enough to strive to understand the “why” instead of just blindly doing what it recommends, they might get some benefit out of it.  But voraciously reading and actively studying grammar/punctuation would be time better spent—and much more fun and effective.

3.  For experienced, non-lazy writers with a good grasp of punctuation and grammar: taken with a grain of salt (and used intelligently and judiciously), it can be a second set of eyes if you don’t have good beta readers and have money to blow.

4.  Bottom line, if you want a solution to weak grammar and/or punctuation, there is no shortcut or magic wand: 1) there are some great reference books out there to be read and absorbed - read them; absorb them; 2) read (read, read, read) with an aim to understanding why skilled writers make the choices they do and to develop your ear for language; 3) read the work of  good editors and try to understand why they make the suggestions they do; 4) try to edit the work of others to hone your skills; 5) seriously consider the suggestions others make about your work and try to understand why before you take or reject; 6) read your work aloud to get an “ear” for language (and good grammar and punctuation); 7) if you are lazy, just stop now and don’t drive yourself batty; and, lastly, 8) bow to Pablo Picasso for this piece of wisdom:

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”

You can’t “die of poverty,” per se.  You can certainly die from the “effects of poverty.”

You can die of starvation or diseases that attack the chronically malnourished, but you can’t “die from lack of shelter” per se.  Lack of shelter exposes you to conditions that could kill, such as cold, lightning strike flooding, heat, disease, animal attack, ad infinitum—but in those cases, the “lack of shelter” is merely a contributing factor, so indirect. 

I’d be specific about what caused the death if merely for precision.

With respect to poignancy, most anything can be rendered poignant if you have the writing skill to evoke pity from the reader.  That, of course, begins by having created characters the reader cares about.  But by the same token, the most poignant situation won’t be so if you don’t have the writing chops to make it so.

Climb has many meanings.  One is:
to proceed or move by using the hands and feet, especially on an elevated place; crawl: to climb along a branch; to climb around on the roof.

“Climb down” has always been legitimate when used properly, and it is almost always listed as a verb phrase in  “climb” entries in the dictionary.

I generally agree, for novice writers (like me), having the discipline and the good sense to delve deeply into the rules and embrace them as we learn is crucial.  The same thing can be said for any craft.  Too many of us begin ignoring them before we understand them fully.  Then (usually out of laziness, ignorance, or just not giving a crap about the craft) we use some reference to an accomplished writer to justify our (usually) less-informed rule-eschewing.  In reality, great writers are usually very knowledgeable about the “rules” they break (as pedantic editors pull their hair out), unlike us mere mortals.

This is a good and timely article on the topic:
https://www.readitforward.com/authors/j … de-syntax/

Yet there is hope.  For those writers who aim for something beyond mediocrity, to those of us who dedicate our lives to it every day, I offer this ...

“Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.”
-Pablo Picasso

LOL.  Curse the naysayers.   I like semicolons too; they help me direct the length of a pause in phrasing, like music.

“Punctuation tells the reader how to hear your writing. That’s what it’s for.”
-Ursula K. Le Guin

PS: But, Vern, if they’re “so cute” is your excuse for using them, what’s the justification for the superfluous hyphen?  ;-)

I don’t think you’re supposed to drink the bong water...