Irish Writer seems to be in their sights now. Is it because in the main the GNs can write beautiful a scripted sentances in a story with no real plot, no true characterisation and not worth reading.
Irish Writer seems to be in their sights now. Is it because in the main the GNs can write beautiful a scripted sentances in a story with no real plot, no true characterisation and not worth reading.
I get the impression irish Writer writes very quickly and doesn't check what's been written before posting. Even if irish Writer suffers from eg dyslexia, which might make proofreading difficult, SOL has a system of volunteer proofreaders.
AJ
grammar Nazis
Browsing in a local charity shop, I was literally struck by a book - a book of grammar for English language teachers. Needless to say, I couldn't leave it there.
Am I about to turn morph into Adolflee Hitlking? :-)
AJ
was literally struck by a book
It jumped off the shelf and smacked you over the head?
It jumped off the shelf and smacked you over the head?
No, something far more wimpish. The adjacent rack held CDs. I had to remove the front CDs so I could see the ones at the back. The CDs had been supporting the book, which collapsed onto my hand.
No damage done, But I couldn't waste the opportunity to use the word 'literally' correctly :-)
AJ
So you got your wrist slapped by a book on grammar?
No. The book landed on the fleshy part of my hand between my thumb and fingers.
AJ
So you got your wrist
Since we are on a thread about grammar, errr, people. Should your comment not have been "So you had your wrist.."🤡 😁
That's a matter of linguistics, specifically dialect. I told Claude 3 Opus it was an expert in linguistics, specifically dialects and asked for an explanation. Here's what I got :
The use of "got" in phrases like "I got a whupping from my Dad" is a common feature in various regional dialects, particularly in Southern American English and African American Vernacular English (AAVE). In this context, "got" is used as the past tense of "get" to indicate the reception or experience of an action or event.
In Standard American English, the phrase might be more commonly expressed as "I received a whupping from my Dad" or "My Dad gave me a whupping." However, the use of "got" in this context is a dialectal variation that emphasizes the recipient's perspective and the impact of the action on them.
This usage of "got" can be traced back to older forms of English, where "get" was used more broadly to mean "receive" or "obtain." Over time, this usage has been preserved in certain regional dialects and has become a characteristic feature of those varieties of English.
It's important to note that while this usage may be considered non-standard in formal written English, it is a legitimate and rule-governed feature of the dialects in which it is used. Recognizing and understanding these dialectal variations is crucial for appreciating the diversity of the English language and the communities that speak it.
There are two types of reader comments: those intended to be helpful and those intended to be critical. Most author's can tell the difference between the two types of comments. I am thankful for helpful comments and ignore the other, assuming I don't tell the ignorant critic to go to hell.
Irish Writer, if you read this, it can be satisfying to tell those ignorant critics whose only purpose is to demean you to go to hell, and then just ignore any further comments without replying.
I did read the blog, and did spot the multitude of simple and obvious grammar issues within the blog. Thought about making a comment, decided not to (Stones, glass houses and all that).
You open a right can of worms when you complain publicly about comments relating to spelling/grammar within your work. Just by reading the blog, I immediately knew those comments had veracity without even reading any of the writers work.
I don't believe this site is full of trolls. I do believe the site has a lot of well meaning individuals and some writers who can not take criticism (constructive or otherwise), and who see well meaning advice as personal attacks.
On the positive side, I can't see anyone telling irish Writer to stop writing, despite all the typos. In that respect it reminds me of 'Tales From Mist World' by Anotherp08, currently rated 8.70.
AJ
'Tales From Mist World' by Anotherp08,
is a fun tale and I did enjoy it. A world where the locals navigated the thick mist of the planet in airboats. What's not to enjoy?
I did like it so I made my usual offer to help them rebuild it. The author said to go ahead. I spent some time on it, mostly fixing the tenses, spelling, etc. Just polishing it.
I sent what I had completed, but the email had closed and I couldn't get back to the author.
I thought it had good bones and could polish up nicely. I have no idea if they are still around here. Sigh.
But 8.7 is still a pretty good score.
who see well meaning advice as personal attacks.
I agree with your post. However, I have been on the receiving end of a few of those post. Based on my reaction, those well meaning individuals need to learn how to extend their advice and to accept responsibility for how the advice is presented. Just claiming a comment was meant to help the author is not enough to change the fact that the post was presented in a negative fashion.
Just claiming a comment was meant to help the author is not enough to change the fact that the post was presented in a negative fashion.
I often find problems while reading a story. Few stories on here can be said to be perfect 100% of the time.
If there is a place to give feedback to an author, then that is how I will communicate with them. If the only option is a Public post, then I might mention that I have some comments to make and request access to a place to share them. I won't ever post them as a Public comment because that is - to me - inappropriate.
"Praise in public, criticise in Private," is how I work and there are many authors on Sol who will respond with thanks for the feedback.
When they respond with, 'If my work is that bad then I should stop writing' then I stop reading their work and leave them to it ;}
I read a large part of the first chapter before abandoning it. No feedback to the author in any form (he had email turned off at the time).
Obviously I have not read any of the mails the author got, but most of them will have been from readers who saw the same problems rather than a coordinated campaign.
If he gets a good editor - Omachuck has offered - I'll happily look at version 2.0. A suggestion there: the chapters should also be shorter, my preference (who cares about that?) would be around 30kb.
I do believe the site has a lot of well meaning individuals and some writers who can not take criticism (constructive or otherwise), and who see well meaning advice as personal attacks.
Additionally, I think this issue is made worse by the fact that many online story sites have explicit policies that disallow criticism. Specifics vary, but an author could very easily come here having only ever heard compliments and having even constructive criticism can come as a shock.
As with many things, my answer to this is: it's complicated.
If there are 'goals' for reading fiction, one of them is surely to be transported vicariously into the world of the author's imagination. Part of that comes from 'willing suspension of disbelief.' For many people, bad grammar / spelling / etc gets in the way of suspending disbelief. They're the written equivalent of 'speed bumps', knocking you out of the story and into the mundane world of words, definitions, usage, etc.
I know nothing of Irish Writer in terms of responsiveness to edits. Some authors love corrections, whether trivial or enormous. I do, for instance. Every correction I make is one fewer reader (or, hopefully, many more) who don't stumble over that speed bump.
On the other hand, SoL itself is free. Editing, proofreading, fixing, etc is work. Some authors take the view that they've provided as much 'service' as they're going to by making their work freely available, and have no interest in spending time correcting things. While I would find that counterproductive, it's obviously their right. Publishing on SoL does not create an obligation for an author to proofread, edit, correct, update, or anything else.
Following up on what Dinsdale said, I've had cases where a single small flaw will get ten or more emails. In one sense, that's reassuring: people are reading! They care enough to report it! But, for someone who struggles with corrections, I can see how it might feel like being 'judged' by a lot of people.
Some authors love corrections, whether trivial or enormous.
I do. Just yesterday someone told me I wrote "pecks" instead of "pecs" (as in pectorals) in "The Nymphomaniac." It might seem trivial to some, but not to me. I had to correct it. Both on Bookapy and SOL.
I know nothing of Irish Writer
It's actually irish Writer.
Publishing on SoL does not create an obligation for an author to proofread, edit, correct, update, or anything else.
I thought the Author Contract had a clause allowing management the right to reject works of insufficient quality, not that Magic 201 is anywhere near that threshold IMO. But I can only find a clause allowing management to reject a work for any reason. However there is a clause allowing management's agents to do stuff like spell-checking.
AJ
My comment was vague. I meant the literal publishing (pressing the publish button). SoL can reject, or can do certain things with the text, but the author has no definite obligation to do anything to the work once they've hit publish.
Depending on one's view of such things, they may have a moral obligation in several senses, but that's not well-defined.
I can recall a tweet by the American Nazi Party asking its members to use correct punctuation and not use LEET speak or abbreviations when communicating with the public.
True Grammar Nazis.
I imagine there will be a lot of objections to this but I truly believe there is no such thing as constructive criticism! All criticism is, to some extent, destructive. It always says, "I could do this better than you." The scores speak to the quality of the work; there's no need to tell an author how he should have written his story.
The scores speak to the quality of the work
No, they speak to the appeal of the work.
That's one of the main issues with the scoring system. Some readers see a story littered with errors but like the premise or the characters, so they vote high. Other readers see the high scores and expect a good story (by their standards), then can't get past the errors.
I think the old three part scoring system was, potentially, a more accurate measure of the story. People could give a high score for appeal and a lower score for technical merit. However, asking people to judge technical merit when they don't actually KNOW what should be the correct word/tense/spelling is a fool's errand.
I tend to think of many of the contributors here, not as authors or writers, but as storytellers. It makes it easier to overlook the technical failings. But if you think of YOURSELF as a writer, then get the damn words right!
All criticism is, to some extent, destructive.
Constructive criticism should be centered around helping someone improve, rather than tearing them down.
Of course criticism is pointing out something that was done wrong, but constructive criticism is not in a destructive manner, but a positive one.
How much "constructive criticism" do you think it would take before your wife either leaves you or smothers you with your own pillow? How much will your kids endure before they tune you out altogether? How about your boss? You'd best use that anonymous suggestion box to constructively criticism him. I wonder how many authors we have discouraged by telling them how we could have done it better?
I wonder how many authors we have discouraged by telling them how we could have done it better?
I wonder how many could have improved if they had received constructive criticism from people who knew what they were talking about?
I have 2 great grandsons. Their dad was a professional baseball player and is now coaching/teaching in a league with other former professionals. The league is made up of 11- & 12-year-olds and my great grandsons are only 4 & 5 1/2, but he brings them to the practices where they learn from the ex-pros. You wouldn't believe how good they are. Not because they get the I'm-gonna-make-him-feel-good pat on the head filled with unjust praise, but because they are told what they're doing wrong and how to fix it.
I imagine there will be a lot of objections to this but I truly believe there is no such thing as constructive criticism! All criticism is, to some extent, destructive.
I am posting stories here specifically to get feedback. Constructive Criticism, to become a better writer and storyteller.
It is difficult, if not impossible to grow or improve without making adjustments, corrections to what you have done in the past.
In the military we try to have AARs (After Action Reviews) of Sustains: what we did correctly. and Improves: what we should do differently.
It is often said beforehand: "No Thin Skins."
Being critical is saying: You Suck. or "Your a Retard!" (deliberate misuse of your for you're."
Constructive Criticism would be: I notice in you dialog you "leave the period outside the quotation marks".
"You should do it like this."
Criticism does not have to be negative. At Desdemona's FishTank the "rule" for criticism is to mention two things about a story that work as well as two things that could be improved.
It always says, "I could do this better than you."
As you said, you'll get objections :)
Some (many?) grammar or spelling mistakes are mistakes, period. If I write 'I fliered the gum at the criminal,' you may know perfectly well what I meant, but the errors are errors.
In that sense, sure, someone pointing them out is saying 'I could have written that sentence better than you could have.'
But that can still be constructive in many/most cases. Constructive comes from a few things. Goals are important. Specificity is also important.
If my criticism for that sentence is 'You suck! Stop writing!' that's fully destructive.
If, on the other hand, I give a list of mistaken words and suggest replacing them, that's fairly neutral at worst. My goal might be to make the story (which, perhaps, is great as story) palatable to more readers. That's constructive.
I might also suggest ways for the author to learn how to better write a sentence like that. That's maybe even more constructive in a 'teach a man to fish' way. Perhaps their next chapter will have fewer errors.
In my opinion, I am a much better writer in many ways than I was when I started writing, and I was (again, in my perhaps-not-so-humble opinion) a pretty good writer then. I'm far more aware of constructions I used to use that are hard for readers, ways of better formatting things, things to avoid, things to emphasize.
Intention matters. If one is criticizing to destroy, that's destructive. If one is criticizing to improve, that's (potentially) constructive. But, if the author doesn't want anyone's input, it can't be constructive for that author, no matter the intention.
It might be constructive for readers, though. If a story is a 10 for ideas and story-telling, but a 1 for grammar and spelling, knowing that is important. Some readers will enjoy it. Some will hate every second they spend trying to read it. Sparing that second group the pain of struggling through a story that's a technical mess is constructive for them.
Also, if I say 'Story X is lousy for the first X pages, and this is why, but after that it's great for these reasons' that's even better. Sure, it's critical, but it gives readers a reason to persevere through the rough parts. There are some well-regarded stories on here that I find between lousy and miserable for sections, but then they find their footing and make it all worthwhile.
If I write 'I fliered the gum at the criminal
Is the extra 'l' a deliberate dig at irish Writer for repeatedly using 'Concave' when 'Conclave' was intended in his latest chapter ;-)
AJ
It is not - I haven't been following irish Writer's story. Just a lucky (or unlucky) coincidence.
Also, I see autocorrect fixed a sentence I meant to be even worse. In the original, it was 'crinimal'.
Are the grammar Nazis trying to bring down another author?
No, but some fanatics seems wanting to suppress any word not applauding their worship!
I don't hunt for typos or grammar problems or clerical errors. But if i stumble on them, they force me to consider wether that what is written that is what the author wanted to say.
If "say" does not make sense in a context, what is the correct word? "stay"? "slay"? "may"?
Why starts a sentence 3rd POV but ends 1st POV?
Why is telling a author such things nitpicking or assoziates me with manslaughter and dictatorial methods?
It always says, "I could do this better than you."
Unless they use those exact words, it's more likely they're trying to say: "This story could be a lot better if the writer actually cared."
If you always hear it as "I could do better" - well, that's your problem. In real life, not everybody gets a gold star just for showing up.