Another dumb question on spell checkers, AI flags, and self editing

[AwkwardMD]

I didn't see this resource linked yet. @StillStunned has an awesome thread with tips and tricks to help you avoid using any kind of AI program at all. You don't need it.

 

[dirk2024]

I suspect that anything beyond standard spell checks is likely to employ LLMs to some degree. I’d recommend using Word’s read aloud feature as a good way to catch issues.

This has been a helpful addition to my self-editing process.

 

[Britva415]

There are so many ideas to write about... but my mind can't articulate what it can visualize. I mean I can write a whole chapter describing it, but how do I make a reader see what i imagine?

Since you quoted me:

AI can't help with this.

And (my original point, to the person I quoted, in #15) even if it could, it wouldn't make one a better writer.

 

[EmilyMiller]

This has been a helpful addition to my self-editing process.

It’s super useful. I use the iOS version on my phone as I stopped using Word. I also find it helps with identifying plot inconsistencies.

 

[dirk2024]

It’s super useful. I use the iOS version on my phone as I stopped using Word. I also find it helps with identifying plot inconsistencies.

Really? That could be helpful. Not that I've ever had a plot inconsistency myself.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Really? That could be helpful. Not that I've ever had a plot inconsistency myself.

I find I hear things that I don’t read. I often listen when commuting to / from work (it’s only a 20 minute drive, so I have to chop stories up into bits).

 

[dirk2024]

I find I hear things that I don’t read. I often listen when commuting to / from work (it’s only a 20 minute drive, so I have to chop stories up into bits).

It's amazing what my eyes can miss when reading the same words over and over and over...

 

[Britva415]

Don't ask your reader to spend too much energy visualising your descriptions. That way you can reserve their attention for your story.

Very good advice.

There are so many ideas to write about... but my mind can't articulate what it can visualize. I mean I can write a whole chapter describing it, but how do I make a reader see what i imagine?

Maybe do this in a different order:

Instead of trying to articulate what you visualize, what if you instead just articulated what the story needs? Then what happens is both you and your readers visualize that. The sparkling, vivid, immersive lucid-dream you want them to read probably isn't really what's best for the story.

An awful damn lot of stuff which someone might feel like adding to the scene, to the description, to the story is contrary to Chekhov's Gun. Now, it's okay to disregard the Chekhov's Gun principle, but one should have it in mind. Disregarding it is different from being unmindful of it.

How much of the detail of the scene you visualize in your mind is necessary to make the plot move? Are you writing a story or an impressionist piece? What two or three (or even one) key elements of what you're visualizing are enough to bring the reader into the atmosphere of it? What two or three (or even one) key elements of it are callbacks to past scenes or foreshadows to future scenes?

You can leave out a lot more than you imagine you can, and doing so will simultaneously deliver enough detail to the reader while also pulling them along with the events, the happenings, the action, the plot.

What if you tried this: Go ahead and write a whole chapter describing "it" (whatever "it" is you might happen to have in mind) and then revise it with extreme prejudice. Pick no more than three adjectives describing the scene or things in it, pick no more than two physical items which aren't plot elements, pick no more than one sentence which doesn't have a character in it, and delete everything else (except for verbs performed by characters). You will probably have a paragraph left. Now really think about whether it needed that whole chapter or whether this one paragraph, distilled from your first draft, isn't way hella better than what was there before.

Another thing you could try is: Do the above, but after writing the draft of the descriptive chapter, do like ten versions of the revision I just explained. Compare them to each other. One of the ten versions will be pretty close to perfect, and others will clearly be meh, inadequate.

But an exercise like that is a way how to build the muscle of brain-dumping your visualized scene but condensing it to the effective bits.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It's amazing what my eyes can miss when reading the same words over and over and over...

It’s the same for all of us.

 

[DevlinSkye]

I thought I did a good job to play along on the hopes of being an accompolished writer... guess I added too much details than focus on intended fun element... aah never mind.

@Britva415 - Do I really suck so bad at carrying over a fun response for your implied hope of being a good writer?

I dont't mind writing advise but that wasn't the point... and now I am explaining it... making it even worst

 

[StillStunned]

I generally really appreciate your advice. And I try to follow this specific advice, which you have given in a slightly different form previously. But I also know some readers like detailed descriptions of the people and the place. They cannot visualize without that description. It's a good thing that some authors do this and some provide what I would consider overwhelming details. It provides things for different kinds of readers.

Oh yes, it definitely depends on what you're trying to achieve. The few times I make a deliberate attempt at descriptive writing the readers seem to love it. But those descriptions serve to create a sense of place, or establish a mood. Like the Chekov's Gun principle that @Britva415 mentions above, detail for detail's sake detracts from the effect.

I thought I did a good job to play along on the hopes of being an accompolished writer... guess I added too much details than focus on intended fun element... aah never mind.

It's important to realise that readers don't really care about any worldbuilding beyond what immediately impacts the story. If you're writing a sci-fi story where all the spaceships are named for Norse gods, the reader probably doesn't need to know why. A wasteland that lies on the Empire's northern marches might have been flourishing farmland once, but unless the heroes pass the night in the ruin of a farmstead where they're attacked by ghostly pigs, that kind of detail can remain in the author's headcanon.

A bit of detail can serve to make your world feel strange and different, but readers need to be able to relate. So if you only describe a few unusual highlights here and there, they'll gladly fill in the rest of the picture for themselves.

As an example of worldbuilding v story: how many people who've read or watched The Lord of the Rings bother with The Silmarillion?

 

[DevlinSkye]

I suck at expression my thoughts...

 

[IWroteThis]

Since you quoted me:

AI can't help with this.

And (my original point, to the person I quoted, in #15) even if it could, it wouldn't make one a better writer.

If that one is you, I won't argue the point. However, at least for me, learning is still a possibility.

Sure, just blindly accepting suggestions from an AI or a grammar checker is not going to make you a better writer. But, that's not at all what I said, or even implied. In fact, let me quote myself…

What I need a grammar checker to point out today is something that I will learn and get right on my own in the future.

Did you notice how I said "learn" and "get right," not "blindly do," in that sentence?

Now, let's look at what I was replying to. Funny, but I don't see where you actually mentioned AI, not that it would change anything. Instead, like my response which specifically mentioned grammar checkers, your comment was about proper grammar.

We see confirmation on a daily basis around here that bad spelling and pronouns actuation are no obstacle to getting published and getting positive ratings.

These tools clearly aren't necessary for success on Lit. They're flat out disadvantageous. I wouldn't ever be tempted to poke the bear by using them.

So, consider me unimpressed by your ignorant rant.

 

[IWroteThis]

It's amazing what my eyes can miss when reading the same words over and over and over...

There are some interesting studies out there on how your brain has a version of auto-correct when you read. Practice helps, but it also requires focus, so it's easy to fall back into it when you're tired or distracted.

 

[Britva415]

consider me unimpressed by your ignorant rant.

That's fair.

I didn't take "better writer" to mean "better at spelling, punctuation and grammar," I took it to mean "better at telling better stories."

Nevertheless, it doesn't seem ignorant to point out that using AI even if it's just to proofread and not to generate content is a risk factor for getting stories rejected by Literotica. It seems well substantiated by evidence.

 

[IWroteThis]

That's fair.

I didn't take "better writer" to mean "better at spelling, punctuation and grammar," I took it to mean "better at telling better stories."

I would say both qualify for making you a better writer.

Nevertheless, it doesn't seem ignorant to point out that using AI even if it's just to proofread and not to generate content is a risk factor for getting stories rejected by Literotica. It seems well substantiated by evidence.

I don't disagree with you about there being risk, but false positives do not require you to actually use those tools, so not using them doesn't completely eliminate that risk.

What's truly interesting though, is that using a human editor to do the exact same thing is perfectly acceptable.

 

[StillStunned]

What's truly interesting though, is that using a human editor to do the exact same thing is perfectly acceptable.

That's because human editors are the closest thing we have to gods.