Search options (Page 3 of 30)

Of course, I would ask a foreigner how to speak English in a natural way.

...and...  Xyr Royal Highness and Mx President for any gender dysphoric Head of State of the Commonwealth and United States, respectively.

Use of "I" is correct and natural to native speakers of proper English. The parenthetical nonessential dependent clause "who is...," while correct, is unnatural in dialogue and is what probably makes the final "I" awkward. However, if the speaker is speaking in a pseudo-formal fashion like a cop, it is appropriate.

Not sure if you mean to show example of where Marx was ever right (apart from some trivialities) by way of Hegel who was deeply wrong about everything, but Marx as an economic socialialist took the flawed economic aspect of the Labor Theory of Value from Adam Smith and ran with it to disastrous conclusions.

The rest of the garbage is by Bobbitt?  I have mentioned he will start his statement leading to falsehood with some obvious bits of truth ... the nature of building things, etc. ... to garbage he will assert without connection. (He will be forced to develop a sense of the realistic - and this, once again, is a cultural constant, measured entirely by the ability of each particular culture to cope successfully with the specific challenge posed by the world it inhabits.)   Why should not one dismiss it, for there is no basis in reality for it, and it exists by mere assertion. And then finish with a common sense statement that in fact has nothing to do with his assertion - that Arab wealth was created by means of transfer of information and technology from a foreign culture then stolen in whole by socialism. The indigenous "culture" involved is that of Mohammed who directed that if you need to steal from the infidel, do so. You will  not find a DC swap dweller like Bobbitt saying that.

Read Francis Fukuyama for contrast still within the collectivist perspective.

Readability test would not test for comprehension so much as  the means of writing that can allow for comprehension. It is possible for someone who reads at college level and still cannot comprehend the material. I cannot divorce my mind from what I already know, so the sample from Bobbitt is easy enough for me to read (at lower college level as I would be in history and law) to conclude it is wrong because I know it is written by a creature who inhabits the academic subdivision of the DC swamp. Written by someone else I would want to thumb through the book to see what he has to say about Natural Rights expecting negativity or absence and, if so true, come to that same conclusion, or I would ascertain his position on historical determinism and if positive, not only deem it wrong but evil.

Education has to do with the level to which this author writes, and content has nothing to with that statement of fact, except possibly in terms of targeted audience, e.g., children's book written at a child's level of education.

Illustrating a point that writing for a target audience is important, and the target audience being highschool dropouts, the thing bores me painfully. As pointed out, it does not accomplish the power of progressive-tense writing -- it is barely evident -- and violates a basic rule of good writing style in repetition of an auxiliary word (was) to extent of constituting 10% of the sum of the words used.
____________________

Repetition, the coda foreshadowed previously, perhaps, is a feature of music, but not repetition of a single note or invariant use of a phrase 12 times in less than a minute,

I think you are comparing apples and oranges by fiction versus non-fiction. I will grant that Flesch predicts better for non-fiction than for fiction, and especially sophisticated non-fiction versus sophisticated fiction. The above scores 13th grade which is where I think it should be -  a college-student level. For a graduate student, it is easy. It is not sophisticated or complex but does use polysyllabic words. I also do not consider Dickens sophisticated, and I recall he was in the 8-12 grade level range.

Also, see here (puts Dickens at 8):
https://etc.usf.edu/lit2go/readability/ … e_level/8/

12th graders are supposed to be able to read Berkeley.

If the grade-level prediction seems out of line with reality, the explanation is American education has degraded since the '70's when the test was developed.

I have to disagree. My prognostication on the future of reading for the generation born after 2010 is that unless a novel can offer something other than the 7 basic plots (*) and tough competition from the visual means to depict action, the novel will be dead.  There is an intimate nexus of intelligence, education, difficult/complicated grammar, and sophisticated messaging to a certain kind of entertainment reward that certainly is not basic. Unless our culture (**) dies altogether there would be a profitable niche of intelligent, educated, nuanced-minded, philosophic readers.

(*) https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/15/book … s-new.html

(**) The so-called Whiteness Culture, irrespective of individual race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. in the sense that you do not have to be white to appreciate and acknowledge the value of Shakespeare, but you do have to be a racist to undervalue Shakespeare because he was white.

From my anecdotal experience of running through it high and low literature, so long as the sample is a paragraph or longer, it works.  For the last paragraph of my most recent story, which is a reworked version of the first paragraph of my first book, it gives a readability number: 16.32. That is in the middle of a college-graduate score of 0-30. A rational perspective understands my target audience is the college educated interested in a different sort of entertainment than is on TV or at the movies, though arguably at grad-student level, and I have to make no apologies or excuses for its style of complicated grammar.

No, it is not for the purpose of improving regulation-writing bureaucrats, but rather more to access the reading ability of military recruits who are likely required to read manuals rather than novels in their military duties. The "grade-level" score converts the "readability" score of 0-100 to a factor that is more tangible but also a bit more arbitrary. Readability in the middle range 50 means at a level of a high school graduate, and below (difficult) 0-50, college educated, and above (easy) at a level of the high-school dropout. Your sample from Mr. Ringo at score 80 is just above illiterate, and certainly that was my impression when I called it bad writing, but in terms you have expressed, well aimed at readers who just made it into literacy but would be rejects as recruits into the navy.

"I was having a dream. A really odd one. Generally my dreams involved a blonde on a beach who was very open-minded. In this case, I was standing on a dock on a lake. The water was a perfect blue as was the sky. There were hills on the far side and they were such a perfect green it was literally unearthly. It was, easily, the most beautiful place I’d ever seen."
Flesch-Kincaid Grade = 4.48

"Like you know I was listening to my music when like the guy is staring at me, so I am telling him what the fuck, man, who is giving the right to go gazing on me like you king or something and am telling that loud, but he is gazing and staring and going all weird, so like you know it is telling me he is just crazy."
Flesch-Kincaid Grade = 25.85

We are amused.

https://www.online-utility.org/english/ … mprove.jsp

Yes, the Fuzzy Wuzzy example is odd-sounding and grammatically tortuous not by accident. By that, it is actually sophisticated. Your author creates his mess by accident.

I won't point out the other mistakes and stick to the was issue. 12 of 128 words are "was" and if 10% of your words are the same word, you have a problem. Moreover, you claim this is about the progressive past tense when only 3 of those was's are used for that purpose, and the rest are simply past tense condition of being.

In the matter of style, your claim: "He emphasizes that the protag/narrator is immersed in the experience," is true, but all the more shows up that pitfall in first-person narrative. Within a character's dialogue, license can be made for ugly patterns of speech, or non-normative if you prefer, but an entire book or even large portions thereof in blah, blah of an ugly English is annoying.

Okay, fine. Let's do this occasionally, but narrate the whole book that way?

It is a guarantee that non-normative target audience does not read.

Running through a grammar/spell/style checker will not find any mistakes except perhaps "know" used too many times.

So like it is better than your sample, for sure.