Remedial resources

[Gorza]

I apologize if this sounds grumpy.

I've been seeing a lot of badly written drafts of late. These are not drafts with the odd silly error, which we all have; these are drafts that lack knowledge of the basics of written English. Drafts of such poor quality are almost impossible to proofread: it takes a long time to do, and even then the text is confused and without much to commend it.

I wonder whether we are doing these writers a diservice by telling them they need an editor. Are there any volunteer editors willing to do such remedial editing? There are some writers who have so little self-knowledge that they admit no failing on their part, and there's not much we can do to help them. For the others, would it be possible to put together some resources or links to resources for basic written English, perhaps over at AH? I know we have a few resources already, but we need something that is simpler and more thorough, back to school.

In the end, we all should learn as we write. I think it better that those with poor writing skills who have a desire to write are equipped to improve rather than given the false expectation that an editor can magic their mess to something bearable.

Like any good editor, I sound mean, but am offering constructive criticism.

 

[NotWise]

There's a "Writers Resources" section linked on the story index page. Does that address some of what you want?

I think quite a few stories get posted that suffer from a severe shortage of English writing skills. - or a shortage of the patience and attention to detail that it takes to produce better writing. I read one this morning that seemed to start a good story, but very basic writing problems made it hard to read. I couldn't get through more than about a quarter of the text and it wasn't very well-received by the voters.

That said, I don't think I've seen similar sites where the level of writing is consistently better than it is here, so I think Laurel's standard and the volunteer editors are doing something constructive.

Now back to watching the news from Paris.

 

[legerdemer]

I apologize if this sounds grumpy.
...
For the others, would it be possible to put together some resources or links to resources for basic written English, perhaps over at AH? I know we have a few resources already, but we need something that is simpler and more thorough, back to school.

In the end, we all should learn as we write. I think it better that those with poor writing skills who have a desire to write are equipped to improve rather than given the false expectation that an editor can magic their mess to something bearable.

Like any good editor, I sound mean, but am offering constructive criticism.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is apt here. For example, although imperfect, Word has grammar and spell checkers, as does Mac's Pages, so I imagine that some writers are too lazy? inexperienced? to use those. Do programs like Open Office lack such editing tools?

Some folks are dyslexic, but I just can't believe that dyslexia is that prevalent among the writers here. I didn't think being highly sexed and being dyslexic were genetically linked. ;-)

That said, some writers' resources are pretty easy and short reads. I'd be happy to contribute to the thread.

In fact, here are ten free (!) resources: http://grammar.about.com/od/60essays/a/Top-Ten-Online-Style-Guides.htm

And Strunk and White's very brief Elements of Style can be found for pennies on the web these days.

None of these are perfect, but a great start.

There are a lot of people who lean heavily on "it's a free site, what do you expect?" Is it too much to expect literacy?

 

[NotWise]

Do programs like Open Office lack such editing tools?

For English writers, Open Office and Libre Office have a spell checker which I believe is on by default. They also have several grammar checkers that can be added as expansions.

 

[_Lynn_]

I'm not sure if any of these match what the OP is talking about, but here's a list of some threads that are in the EF:




http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=838661

Troublesome expressions



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=841164

Compounds



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=967523

Standard Style that Bugs You




http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=839853

British vs. American Renderings




http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=842374

Redundant Expressions



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=839532

Some Spelling Demons



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=839691

Taking the Gooblygook out of 50-cent terms



http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=842814

Subject-Verb Agreement

 

[sr71plt]

I wonder whether we are doing these writers a diservice by telling them they need an editor.

I'd go even further than that. I sometimes think it's a disservice to feed folks the notion that they just have to write stories like it's something like the need to breathe. If their grasp is so weak not only of the basics of presentation but also of storyline, I would (and have) suggested that they learn basic grammar and read enough literature to have some idea of what to write and how before trying to bring in someone else to give time and effort to propping them up. Not everyone was born to write. It's not something you just have to do and should expect someone else to prop you up without doing any preparation yourself.

I don't really see it as Lit.'s or anyone using Lit.'s responsibility to provide remedial writing education to anyone here.

 

[Gorza]

I did say that I realise we have writers' resources and various helpful links. However, they are piecemeal and not even basic enough for some writers I've seen.

Part of my thinking was whether we do poor writers a disservice by suggesting they need an editor. Most of the time, no decent editor will touch their mess. These writers seem to have the idea that editors are janitors who simply clean up the stuff that they find too boring to learn.

I've started to ask prospective writers to send me a thousand words as a sample. Even those I turn down I return their sample with full editorial notes to show them what is needed. I tell them I am not prepared to spend my free time cleaning up 10,000 or so words, if they show no interest in learning how to write.

I'd go even further than that. I sometimes think it's a disservice to feed folks the notion that they just have to write stories like it's something like the need to breathe. If their grasp is so weak not only of the basics of presentation but also of storyline, I would (and have) suggested that they learn basic grammar and read enough literature to have some idea of what to write and how before trying to bring in someone else to give time and effort to propping them up. Not everyone was born to write. It's not something you just have to do and should expect someone else to prop you up without doing any preparation yourself.

Yup, I agree: we need to take a stronger line saying 'learn how to write' with some. I've seen some suggest that they resubmit because Laurel doesn't catch them all, which doesn't help anyone (apart from the publication of dross). Perhaps also it should be suggested to Laurel that she shouldn't always advise seeking an editor.

I agree wholeheartedly, but the saying "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink" is apt here.

Some folks are dyslexic, but I just can't believe that dyslexia is that prevalent among the writers here. I didn't think being highly sexed and being dyslexic were genetically linked. ;-)

There are a lot of people who lean heavily on "it's a free site, what do you expect?" Is it too much to expect literacy?

True! If people think they can write without learning how to do it, they're not going to listen to advice or read resources. Such has been proven.

Dyslexia is an awkward issue. Compassion might make us offer help, yet, from the point of view of workload, the same janitorial work is being asked of us. I've looked at some scripts by those who are dyslexic, and I wonder whether some errors can really be excused by dyslexia. Perhaps someone more learned in such things could comment.

Yeah, 'free' works both ways. Some seeking help complain because I won't help them. To them I reply, "In so much as you are free to write, and to do so badly, I am free not to waste my time editing it". I'm so mean!

 

[legerdemer]

...I've started to ask prospective writers to send me a thousand words as a sample. Even those I turn down I return their sample with full editorial notes to show them what is needed. I tell them I am not prepared to spend my free time cleaning up 10,000 or so words, if they show no interest in learning how to write.

Great idea. I am a slow writer and an OCD editor, so I tend not to volunteer to edit unless I really like what I read. And sometimes I volunteer and fail to come through, which I then feel very bad about. But I do have a day job that leaves me little time for my own writing... so yes, I don't blame those who edit being selfish with their time. They should be, and that should give wannabe writers extra incentive to have as good a product to give an editor as possible. But again, "horse... water..." <shrugs>

Dyslexia is an awkward issue. Compassion might make us offer help, yet, from the point of view of workload, the same janitorial work is being asked of us. I've looked at some scripts by those who are dyslexic, and I wonder whether some errors can really be excused by dyslexia. Perhaps someone more learned in such things could comment.

I am not learned about the issue except that I live with a dyslexic and have dyslexic friends. There are many types of dyslexia, which makes it harder to spot, but there are patterns to their mistakes (the b/d confusion is a common but not the only sign of dyslexia). Many have a really hard time with spelling, but not with grammar. I brought it up to be inclusive, but it probably affects fewer than 5% of the general population (the real number isn't known). The sad fact is that most dyslexics are very bright.

"In so much as you are free to write, and to do so badly, I am free not to waste my time editing it". I'm so mean!

Time is NOT a renewable resource. I sure wish I had more of it... you're not mean, you're realistic.

 

[Gorza]

I am not learned about the issue except that I live with a dyslexic and have dyslexic friends. There are many types of dyslexia, which makes it harder to spot, but there are patterns to their mistakes (the b/d confusion is a common but not the only sign of dyslexia). Many have a really hard time with spelling, but not with grammar. I brought it up to be inclusive, but it probably affects fewer than 5% of the general population (the real number isn't known). The sad fact is that most dyslexics are very bright.

Thanks for this, Mer. It does seem that a basic spell checker can go a long way to helping people with dyslexia.Of course, there's the old problem where a spell checker won't catch a mispelling if it's another word. I've noticed Google Docs (which I often use for editing, as the writer and I can share an online master document) has a spell checker that queries well-spelt words too, in a 'did you mean?' way. Does dyslexia tend not to affect grammar and punctuation?

 

[NotWise]

A grammar checker might help finding problems like their/there, to/two/too etc, at least the LibreOffice "Language Tool" does.

Dyslexia can cause a range of problems, varying from switching letters and numbers around to being entirely unable to learn through reading or express themselves through writing. I think it's unlikely that anyone with severe dyslexia will be submitting stories here, unless in audio.

 

[Gorza]

A grammar checker might help finding problems like their/there, to/two/too etc, at least the LibreOffice "Language Tool" does.

Dyslexia can cause a range of problems, varying from switching letters and numbers around to being entirely unable to learn through reading or express themselves through writing. I think it's unlikely that anyone with severe dyslexia will be submitting stories here, unless in audio.

These tools are only so good as their programming, which, from what I remember of using them, wasn't so hot. I spent most of my time telling the grammar checker to 'ignore' things of which it knew not. It's perhaps because I write like a Shakespearean codpiece.

 

[NotWise]

These tools are only so good as their programming, which, from what I remember of using them, wasn't so hot. I spent most of my time telling the grammar checker to 'ignore' things of which it knew not. It's perhaps because I write like a Shakespearean codpiece.

I remember doing that with an early grammar checker, probably in Lotus WordPro. "Language Tool" sets its sights a little lower and doesn't identify many grammar problems. I've given it some doozies that it ignored. Instead it seems to key on word usage and some structural problems and that lets it catch some of the "wrong word" occurrences.

I didn't know that a codpiece could write, but clearly you can.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I did say that I realise we have writers' resources and various helpful links. However, they are piecemeal and not even basic enough for some writers I've seen.

Part of my thinking was whether we do poor writers a disservice by suggesting they need an editor. Most of the time, no decent editor will touch their mess. These writers seem to have the idea that editors are janitors who simply clean up the stuff that they find too boring to learn.

I've seen one or two writers express that position explicitly. Not quite that bluntly, but to the same effect.

There are things no grammar/spell-checker is likely to catch (affect/effect, casually/causally), and I don't mind helping with those, but if it's full of errors that a spell-checker would catch then somebody's probably being lazy.