Look at what you write

[Liar]

--:----------
---
----:---
-:-
-:---
---------:-----------
--------:----------
---:--------------------
-:----
---:------
---------
-:---
------:--
--:-------------------
-:------------------
----------------:-------------
-------------------------:--
:-------------------
:----------
---
------
---:----
-:-
-:-


Now, what the hell is this? It's a text I wrote when looked at with a little trick that I picked up from a journalist where I work. He use it daily to sharpen up the readability of the stuff he writes. There are a zillion different tools for text analysis, but this one seemed pretty useable to me. It visualises my text sentence by sentence. The ---- are the words in the sentence and the : is the first verb (if there is any).

He did this with all texts he wrote, and then he applied these guidelines to them when he edited:

1. Long ridges or long, deep valleys: bad.
2. Sharp peaks and valleys: good. Not too high though.
3. Late verbs: bad.
4. Sentences with no verbs: bad if too many.
5. If you feel like it, ignore 1-4.

I've tried it out on the stuff I write for work, and it seems to consistently identify the passages in my text that I feel is the worst written ones.

So if you're bored, give it a try. And remember rule §5. It's the most important one.

 

[NoJo]

That looks fun: I'm going to try it.


Edit:

---:---------
----:-----
-------
---:----
--:--
---
--:----
---
-:--

That's from one of my screenplay treatments -- treatments often have a terse style, and you can see it from the short sentences, sometimes verbless.


-:-----------------------
-:------------
-----------:-
--:-----------------------------
-------------:------------
-----:-------------
-:----------------------------------

Beginning of "The Case of The Steaming Turk" -- a Conan Doyle pastiche

 

[dr_mabeuse]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

 

[NoJo]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

-

(lol)

 

[wishfulthinking]

- : - - - - - - -

- - : - - - - - - -

- - -

- - : - - - - - - - - - -

Um, I think I'd be better spending my time with a spell checker [I don't get rules 1 to 4 - what are sharp peaks and valleys?]

 

[Liar]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

Um, I think I'd be better spending my time with a spell checker [I don't get rules 1 to 4 - what are sharp peaks and valleys?]

------:------------------------
:-
--:-------------------------
--:---
---------:---------------
---:-

Short-long-short-long-short-long.

 

[impressive]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

+ a coffee spew

 

[coochie]

*giggling*

 

[Guest]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

 

[BlackShanglan]

:- !

And the horse you rode in on.

Oh, all right. But only because it's SubJoe.

I like the basic message of the thing - that one ought to pay attention to one's sentence length and structure, and not use a monotonous string of similar structures. It's good as far as it goes, but I hesitate to wholly embrace it because I resist too great a simplification of the issues at stake, however nice it would be for them to be simple. Yes, I think it's important to vary sentence length and structure, but I don't think that that goal is usefully achieved just by making sure that there are both long and short sentences. The long ones should be long because they gracefully, usefully, and intelligibly coordinate complicated thoughts or because they linger delightfully on fascinating images. The short ones should be short because they punctuate the longer, more langorous elements with short, active moments that draw attention to key ideas or indicate a significant break in thought or action. That is, form and function should be closely integrated; the short should need to be short to achieve a specific effect, and so as well with the long.

Shanglan

 

[Rhys]

--:----------
---
----:---
-:-
-:---
---------:-----------
--------:----------
---:--------------------
-:----
---:------
---------
-:---
------:--
--:-------------------
-:------------------
----------------:-------------
-------------------------:--
:-------------------
:----------
---
------
---:----
-:-
-:-


Now, what the hell is this? It's a text I wrote when looked at with a little trick that I picked up from a journalist where I work. He use it daily to sharpen up the readability of the stuff he writes. There are a zillion different tools for text analysis, but this one seemed pretty useable to me. It visualises my text sentence by sentence. The ---- are the words in the sentence and the : is the first verb (if there is any).

He did this with all texts he wrote, and then he applied these guidelines to them when he edited:

1. Long ridges or long, deep valleys: bad.
2. Sharp peaks and valleys: good. Not too high though.
3. Late verbs: bad.
4. Sentences with no verbs: bad if too many.
5. If you feel like it, ignore 1-4.

I've tried it out on the stuff I write for work, and it seems to consistently identify the passages in my text that I feel is the worst written ones.

So if you're bored, give it a try. And remember rule §5. It's the most important one.

I'd suggest cleaning up the sentence fragments first. Oh, and use Word, or word pad if you aren't going to use an editor, as it will let you know where those pesky fragments are.

Unless, of course, the whole thing is artistic license. Artistic license excuses all manner of flaws. So does "I meant to do that."

 

[Liar]

Oh, all right. But only because it's SubJoe.

I like the basic message of the thing - that one ought to pay attention to one's sentence length and structure, and not use a monotonous string of similar structures. It's good as far as it goes, but I hesitate to wholly embrace it because I resist too great a simplification of the issues at stake, however nice it would be for them to be simple. Yes, I think it's important to vary sentence length and structure, but I don't think that that goal is usefully achieved just by making sure that there are both long and short sentences. The long ones should be long because they gracefully, usefully, and intelligibly coordinate complicated thoughts or because they linger delightfully on fascinating images. The short ones should be short because they punctuate the longer, more langorous elements with short, active moments that draw attention to key ideas or indicate a significant break in thought or action. That is, form and function should be closely integrated; the short should need to be short to achieve a specific effect, and so as well with the long.

Shanglan

Could be worth to emphasise that this was done as a quick and dirty way to check the decoding (technical, mnemonic and visual) readability of article text in a magazine. Time is a factor, and the journalists don't have time to fress over all the intricate interplay in the text structure. I'm one of them, and for me it did the trick when I have to hand in a text in matter of minutes. it points out parts with imbalance in them and I can swiftly rewrite those passages. It's not a way to write good, well flowing, clever and witty masterpieces, but one way to identify readability problems, before sending off something good enough to print.

It's just a crude tool, not the holy grail of fantastic writing.

 

[Liar]

I'd suggest cleaning up the sentence fragments first. Oh, and use Word, or word pad if you aren't going to use an editor, as it will let you know where those pesky fragments are.

Unless, of course, the whole thing is artistic license. Artistic license excuses all manner of flaws. So does "I meant to do that."

Sentence fragments is a dear old curse of mine. I mean, they're useable in dialouge, and other situations when you want to portray speech-language (Editorial columns, certain types of prose narration, this very sentence...), which is fragmented and incomplete in it's nature. But I tend to use them in everything. Legal letters, instruction manuals, news reports. it always takes at least one edit and a lot of muttering on my behalf to get rid of them.

 

[Rhys]

Sentence fragments is a dear old curse of mine. I mean, they're useable in dialouge, and other situations when you want to portray speech-language (Editorial columns, certain types of prose narration, this very sentence...), which is fragmented and incomplete in it's nature. But I tend to use them in everything. Legal letters, instruction manuals, news reports. it always takes at least one edit and a lot of muttering on my behalf to get rid of them.

I looked at Manhattan. You really need to use Word, or get a beta editor, because its riddled with them.

There were other problems, although the story itself was interesting. I think you could have done better by punching up the front part. By that, I mean the poetry confused me at first. How was it relevant to the story? The actual text beginning of the story needed to grab my attention better. I would make further suggestions because its a story you could rewrite and sell if you wanted to take the time.

Liar, realise that I have no reason to lie you to you, and I won't give you the hugs and snugs version either. If you want an honest, (and brutally so) review, I will be happy to give it to you line by line. If you find something I've said useful, good.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Sentence fragments is a dear old curse of mine. I mean, they're useable in dialouge, and other situations when you want to portray speech-language (Editorial columns, certain types of prose narration, this very sentence...), which is fragmented and incomplete in it's nature. But I tend to use them in everything. Legal letters, instruction manuals, news reports. it always takes at least one edit and a lot of muttering on my behalf to get rid of them.

Good point, of course. I laughed when I read this, having just been talking about choosing one's audience on another thread ... amazing how quickly we can forget those lessons, isn't it?

I suppose that that plays into my perceptions of "Manhattan" as well. I quite liked the poetic and fragmentary elements of it. Then again, I've read several of your pieces and find that I very much enjoy the presence of the poetic drive intertwined with the fiction writer's interests. It's not everyone's bag of mash, of course, but I do enjoy it.

Shanglan

 

[Liar]

I looked at Manhattan. You really need to use Word, or get a beta editor, because its riddled with them.

I use Word, and I've seen the handful of fragments it points out. I would hardly call that being riddles with 'em, but each to his own. The ones still there are the ones that I tried to rewrite into complete sentences or link with other phrases, but where it kept ending up sounding absolutely ridiculous. I went for prosodics that did what I wanted, instead of textual correctness. So yeah, "it's intentional", and it didn't bother me, or my editor.

There were other problems, although the story itself was interesting. I think you could have done better by punching up the front part. By that, I mean the poetry confused me at first. How was it relevant to the story? The actual text beginning of the story needed to grab my attention better. I would make further suggestions because its a story you could rewrite and sell if you wanted to take the time.

Liar, realise that I have no reason to lie you to you, and I won't give you the hugs and snugs version either. If you want an honest, (and brutally so) review, I will be happy to give it to you line by line. If you find something I've said useful, good.

If you feel like you get something out of doing that, be my guest. It would be interresting to see what you have to say, and I might pick up a thing or two for future use. Just don't expect me to run off and rewrite it. It's not worth that much to me, and I'm reasonably happy with it as it is. I have more important things to channel my energy at.

But yeah, I kind of cringe at the poem opening in retrospect too. Mostly because it's a clichéd poem, tho.

 

[Rhys]

If you feel like you get something out of doing that, be my guest. It would be interresting to see what you have to say, and I might pick up a thing or two for future use. Just don't expect me to run off and rewrite it. It's not worth that much to me, and I'm reasonably happy with it as it is. I have more important things to channel my energy at.

But yeah, I kind of cringe at the poem opening in retrospect too. Mostly because it's a clichéd poem, tho.

If you are reasonably happy with it, then there is no real need for me to continue. Why waste both of our valuble time?

My point in looking at your work was this. I am fair. In all honesty, if you or anyone is going to criticise, then you'd best be prepared to back it up with cited examples, which is why I under took your work. (since you've taken such umbrage to my comments and all) I didn't find it mediocre, but neither did I find it terribly exciting. If you are happy with it, then that is, in the final analysis, all that counts.

 

[CharleyH]

--:----------
---
----:---
-:-
-:---
---------:-----------
--------:----------
---:--------------------
-:----
---:------
---------
-:---
------:--
--:-------------------
-:------------------
----------------:-------------
-------------------------:--
:-------------------
:----------
---
------
---:----
-:-
-:-

I have long pondered the Morse code (as opposed to smilies) of Porn - thank you.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

From my latest story:

:-:--
--
-:--:-----
-:-:--
---
--:
-:-------
-:--:------:--:-:-------:-:--
----:--------
----
-:---:-:----
-:----

A LITTLE too many words, I think, but I'm surprised that I use that many verbs, I didn't think I did.

 

[Liar]

If you are reasonably happy with it, then there is no real need for me to continue. Why waste both of our valuble time?

Well, I'm not the one who brought it up. It would actually be really interresting. My stuff is all in public, so I welcome any and all opinions about it, private or in public. But sadly, I wouldn't have time to do anything useful with in-depth feedback.

This is after all, just me practicing writing a) in a foreign language, b) short fiction and c) erotica. Three things I'm not fluent in, so I haven't actually worked out that many kinks myself yet. And I think I learn most right now by actually producing text with some kind of regularity.