Forum: Author Hangout

A number feel that something so tedious as ensuring their writing contains minimal errors is both beneath them and more than anyone should expect since while people are spending their time on those stories, the writers don't get a cut of that.

More than that, many authors--especially newbies--don't yet know when something isn't correct. Even when we do, authors, like editors, tend to read what they assume to be there, so they often don't see the errors, even when they see it in other's work.

But, it takes time to learn to self-edit, and even if you're proficient at it, authors always need editors!

But, it takes time to learn to self-edit, and even if you're proficient at it, authors always need editors!

And even a proper editor won't catch everything.

a proper editor

How about an improper editor? And there are proofreaders, some help, some don't, but not all editors do proofreading.

And there are proofreaders, some help, some don't, but not all editors do proofreading.

There are many different kinds of editors, but that's a whole separate discussion. Here, we're discussing authors needing to recognize that they need an editor, ANY editor!

And even a proper editor won't catch everything.

No one can ever spot everything, even an expert or a master. That's why many hands often make a better meal, especially if each brings their own special skills to the mix.

It is a total lack of craftsmanship for an author to do nothing to determine if their story might contain errors.

This is true, but on the other hand, there exists no single process or even a combination of processes that can guarantee finding all errors.

Yes, authors should make some effort to minimize errors in their stories, but at the same time, readers like the op, who are seemingly demanding perfection in a product provided for free are being incredibly unreasonable.

readers like the op, who are seemingly demanding perfection

Holy fuck, oversensitive much? Did OP sound like he was describing you, when you read his complaint?

I bet REP and I both could name a few writers that the OP might've been talking about. Writers whose writing is so horribly flawed that it's practically unreadable, and yet who insist that they shouldn't fix even some of the multitude of errors. Writers whose work appears to have been the result of a text to speech software programmed for Slovakian grammar, with the speech provided by a recent immigrant who's also a recent stroke victim, then processed with a random character replacement algorithm.

I bet REP and I both could name a few writers that the OP might've been talking about.

Sure, a few.

The OP says:

Why is it that a lot of authors can't or won't use a simple spell checker or grammer checker.

No, it's not a lot at that level. The OP very much comes across as being oversensitive to minor errors.

There've been dozens of writers over the years that fit the description. And that's just the ones who've written stories that I'd bother opening. I can't imagine how many more shorter stories would be like that (I remember what writing quality was like on the shorter stuff published back on a.s.s and r.a.e and even there, longer works tended to be better written). And there's a lot of stories I won't go near, due to content, that the OP may, and maybe there's even more flaws in their writing.

And really, 'a lot' is relative. If there's a dozen different writers who've got stories that would be good if only the writing had been cleaned up, that I would like to read those stories? That would be 'a lot'. Realistically, even there being one writer who would refuse to improve his work with minimal effort on his part seems... insane. And yet there are multiple such writers.

And really, 'a lot' is relative.

And I would judge it relative to the total number of authors on the site.

And maybe I am a bit sensitive about it.

I have had some readers point out errors in a way that is polite and constructive, and I made an effort to correct such errors when brought to my attention in that manner.

I have also had others who were very rude and/or down right nasty about it. And yes, when they approach it that way I blow them off.

In my opinion, the people who make these kinds of complaints on the forum come across as falling into the later category rather than the former.

And I would judge it relative to the total number of authors on the site.

But you can't infer the OP's meaning and have any chance of being correct unless you know that he defines terms identically to you. However, if his definition is relative to the number of authors he regularly reads, and he only reads a half dozen writers...

But the meaning of saying '[blank] is relative' is that [blank] has different meanings to different people.

owever, if his definition is relative to the number of authors he regularly reads, and he only reads a half dozen writers...

Then his sample is too small to be making the kinds of generalizations he is making.

Then his sample is too small to be making the kinds of generalizations he is making.

And again....
is .1% "a lot"?

How about if it's people dying?
How about if it's your 401k ROI?

It's relative, based on how important it is to you, not on sheer numbers, right?

It's relative, based on how important it is to you, not on sheer numbers, right?

No, a lot is quantitative, not qualitative. It's numbers based.

quantitative, not qualitative

"What's the difference between qualitative and quantitative research? ... Quantitative data is information about quantities, and therefore numbers, and qualitative data is descriptive, and regards phenomenon which can be observed but not measured, such as language."

"What's the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Well, you have to search once and not find anything before you can research. :)

No, a lot is quantitative, not qualitative. It's numbers based.

So a virus kills .1% of the population. Is that a lot of fatalities?

This is true, but on the other hand, there exists no single process or even a combination of processes that can guarantee finding all errors.

No one can ever find every error. The key isn't perfection, but consistency. If you have fewer errors than most, and keep improving your error ratio, then you're doing pretty damn good. What's more, if you openly acknowledge your mistakes, you encourage other readers to also point out any mistakes that they see.

The goal is to improve your writing over time, rather than just plowing ahead, regardless of how well, or how crappy, your story is. No matter how good you are, you can always improve.

Then I send the draft story to my editor, and I fix the mistakes he finds.

Don't forget the inevitable 'mistaken corrections', where you screw up a simple correction. That's why Mushroom's 'final edit' before posting makes so much sense! Having the story read back via audio also helps, but I tend to do that stage before I submit the final revision to my editors.

There exists no process which will find all errors.

Even with dead tree books, back in the days when the publishers kept editors on staff and provided professional editing to the authors as part of what they did, errors still made it into print.

True, but I'll wager my home against an outhouse that there were far, far fewer of them.

We are reaping the results of lowering educational standards. Is spelling even taught anymore in grade school? I remember sweating over the spelling book when doing homework. Which probably also is a thing of the past.

Suck it up, guys; it ain't likely to get any better.

We are reaping the results of lowering educational standards. Is spelling even taught anymore in grade school?

AFIK, yes, but how well is it being taught? In the public schools, the trend is if you can't get the kids up to the current "standard", lower the standard.

Hmmm. Different path, same destination.

Hmmm. Different path, same destination.

I think a large part of the problem goes a couple of steps up the ladder. Poor/incorrect/blatantly political standards in college/university education degree programs.

Even with a well designed curriculum and high standards, how well will the primary education system do with a high percentage of incompetent teachers.

Then factor how hard it is to fire government employees for even blatant incompetence or misconduct.

I've read a number of reports showing that over the last several decades, per student spending K-12 education has increased dramatically, but at the same time, outcomes for students have been at best stagnant.

Then factor how hard it is to fire government employees for even blatant incompetence or misconduct.

Hell, the teachers' unions make it tough to fire known diddlers...

Is spelling even taught anymore in grade school?

Yes.

But there are no wrong answers, because stupid kids would feel bad about themselves.

A recent blog entry by Christine:

I have been made aware of several problems with my writings by a couple of the readers and also an SOL editor. The editor offered his assistance and a sample using my work, I viewed his corrections and immediately accepted his offer to work with me to not only edit future work but also go back and review/change what has already been posted.

This sounds like a successful approach, so congrats to whoever the editor was in this case.

There's needing an editor, and then there's finding the right editor. The right author will tell you what doesn't work when you most need to hear it, they'll tell you where your weaknesses are, and will help you develop your author's voice. Thus, finding the right author can radically alter your work, and I've seen this happened over and over, both here on SOL and even among professional authors.

Just like a great translated can bring a tedious story in a foreign language (when read in English), a good editor will transform a passible story into a work of art. Unfortunately, you, the author, will generally NOT enjoy the transition process! ;)

I don't want to get overloaded with the editing work and miss out on reading the stories.

If you do it right, you get to read the stories before anyone else, but yeah, you don't want to over promise what you can provide.

Should I email some of the authors and offer my assistance? I don't want to get overloaded with the editing work and miss out on reading the stories.

It's always best when editors volunteer: that way they already know the author's work, their writing style and the types of stories they write, so they won't fight with them the entire book over things s'he'll NEVER change. Thus, volunteering without sampling an author's work is generally a mistake. Authors and their editors are a relationship, and like a marriage, it often takes time to find the right partner.

I would say do like many do, and just offer corrections. I know myself, a "proofreader" would not work, with my style of writing. I may post 1 chapter a week, then I might fall into a "writing storm", and vomit up 10 chapters in a week. Almost no editor could help to keep up with something like that.

You may be surprised. For many readers (i.e. not full-time editors), many are glad to spend time on a few chapters at a time, as they not only get an advanced peak on future chapters, but they're also making a significant difference on the work they already so admire.

Which is the reason WHY I suggest that authors reach out to those reader who offer corrections, as yours did. Of course, I qualify that a bit, as I verify the offers. If the corrections make sense, or at least correlate to what my other editors suggest, then I'll invite them to join my 'team'. Which is handy as my "team" tends to vary from story to story and their own workloads, as most of my editors are now supporting multiple actors.

Again, I prefer editors who already appreciate my subject matter, recognize my writing style and are eager to get advanced chapters (i.e. there are fewer editors who'll bail mid-project because they don't like 'the subject matter').

Even more frustrating is I have come across authors who demand that you read their stories and accept the errors as they don't intend to fix them. That to me is the ultimate arrogance.

That's tricky, as many times, authors have specific reasons for using a particular approach, style or attribute. Often, I punctuation for flow and pacing (dropping the unnecessary commas), so some editors fight me endlessly, while others say "Okay, I see what you're doing/trying to do, so I'll save my fights for when it's necessary."

Again, as with any relationship, there are things authors and editors will agree on and those they won't. They key is to pick your battles, and listen when it's most important. And even if you don't agree, learn how to incorporate the advice in a way which fits your particular styles, rather than simply rejecting it out of hand.

I didn't say I was perfect. The story I am reading now, has a minimum of 20 errors per chapter. If it would not anger the author I would tell you his/her name and the story name. Also, this area of posting comments, does not have a spelling/grammar checker. 100 Chapters, 100 mispelled words and over 1000 gramatical errors, several names within a couple of paragraph's that don't match the previous person that was speaking/spoken to, or having something done to him/her or having something done to him/her.

I agree: criticize in private and praise in public. No name (author or story) in my posts. I am a disabled ARMY Veteran myself. Thank you for your service.

The story I am reading now, has a minimum of 20 errors per chapter.

That still doesn't say much without knowing more about the particular story.

Are we talking a shortish story with 2K word chapters or something like Three Square Meals with chapters that run 4 to 9 SOL pages (each page is around 12K words)

There is a big difference between 20 errors per 2k words and 20 errors per 48K to 108K words.

According to Microsoft Word, close to 1.5 million words. 175 of 256 chapters. 383 spelling errors and 854 grammar errors. I know I am not perfect in my spelling/grammar, but I think I could do better than this.

I wish there was a way that I could tell you the aauthor/ story, so you could see for yourself. I am enjoying the story anyway. I am copying and pasting the story into my Microsoft Word and correcting the errors as best as I can. My father was a type setter for news papers for close to 50 years. I picked up a few things from him. Plus I paid attention in my English and spelling classes.

And other things like names often are tagged as incorrect.

Or there are uncommon words not in the spellchecker's dictionary.

I've also run across cases where it accepted the singular form of a particular word as correct, but then flagged the plural form.

Mushroom: I am enjoying your story: A Country Boy, City Girl

According to Microsoft Word, close to 1.5 million words. 175 of 256 chapters. 383 spelling errors and 854 grammar errors.

looking at just the spelling errors (grammar should be compared to a sentence count), that an error rate of 0.026%.

You really think you could really do dramatically better over such a large volume of text?

According to Microsoft Word, close to 1.5 million words. 175 of 256 chapters. 383 spelling errors and 854 grammar errors.

And that doesn't even include typonyms (misspelled words that form other correctly spelled words so won't flag as errors) Or mistaken words the author thought were right, but weren't, like "aureoles" (when meaning areolae)

"aureoles" (when meaning areolae)

Yes, I see that alot also.

"aureoles" (when meaning areolae)

If you are not careful when you do a spelling look up, you will easily be led astray unless you also ask for the meaning. How do I know? Been there, done that.

The Boring Areolas. Isn't that the Northern Lights?

Well, areolae from far enough north should be hard enough to bore with. Not sure about them lighting anything tho...

Well, areolae from far enough north should be hard enough to bore with.

Well, the norther areolae are certainly boring to Alice.

The epidemic of monobreasted women on SOL is also reflected in the number who only have one areola.

There are plenty of cases where using the singular for is appropriate and does not in any way imply that the female character has only one areola/breast.

Having a partner play with the areola on her right breast does not imply that she doesn't have a left breast/areola.

Having a partner play with one breast/areola without specifying which (left or right) still doesn't imply that she has only one.

'Michael played with her breast' implies she only has one.

It states that Michael played with one breast. It implies nothing about how many breasts she has.

If I wrote "Michael sat in her chair." would you claim that it implies something about how many chairs she owns?

Sometimes I don't know how descriptive to be or leave to the imagination.

"He kissed my left boob then moved to my right."

vs.

"He kissed my boob then moved to my other."

"He kissed my boob then moved to my other."

You'd confuse AJ. He'll end up thinking you have one boob and one udder. :)

'Michael played with her breast' implies she only has one.

The only thing implied is the possibility that Michael has only one arm, or that the other is occupied elsewhere.

It implies he only had one hand free...

In the same way "I sat in the chair" implies there is only one chair in a room?

No. But only the one has the restraints and funky headgear.

No. But only the one has the restraints and funky headgear.

That would be The Chair, or The Chair, The Chair, the Chair, etc.

Michael Loucks used 'areolas' in today's AWLL excerpt.

Hurray for Michael. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists the plural of aerola as either "aerolae" or "aerolas."

morphs

"Is morph a real word?
To morph is to change from one shape to another. Morph comes from the word metamorphosis, which is a Greek word meaning "a transforming." As a verb, it has only been around since the 1980s, when computers allowed animators to make things change shape in an apparently seamlessly way. ..."

Actually, given that (future) teachers are usually the stupidest students in college/university, this is appropriate. Especially if it's a art or science or history teacher.

Especially if it's a art or science or history teacher.

What about an art history teacher? Would that be a double whammy?

No, that'd just be someone stoned most of the time.

Math/science geeks aren't expected to know anything about the english language that they didn't learn from Heinlein, Asimov, or Tolkein.

So functionally illiterate would make sense.

SciFi

Sigh Fie is not English. In English it is "Science Fiction". I have given in to HiFi for high fidelity, but by God Science Fiction isn't SciFi.

In English it is "Science Fiction". I have given in to HiFi for high fidelity, but by God Science Fiction isn't SciFi.

Resistance is few tiles.

Resistance is few tiles.

Something seems... wrong, with the universe.

QED.

"Q.E.D." (sometimes written "QED") is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" ("that which was to be demonstrated"), a notation which is often placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate its completion.

It communicated what you wanted to communicate, but it is Latin, a different language than English.

irony

Irony rusts.

Irony rusts.

Irony removes the wrinkles from clothes.

Irony removes the wrinkles from clothes.

Irony merely describes red blood cells.

'different than' rather than 'different from' or 'different to'.

"Different than is common in American English, but might sound strange to British ears, and in the UK, different to is a common alternative that is seldom used in the US. When in doubt, stick with different from. However, note that there is a time and place for different than.

"Different From" vs. "Different Than" | Dictionary.com"

oldest instead of eldest

"Which is correct older brother or elder brother?
Both sentences are correct in different contexts. Saying "older brother" dictates that the brother is aged, while the words "elder brother" are used to refer someone's brother who is born before. Thus, "older" expresses the specific stage of life but "elder" is for comparison of age-figures.

Which is correct to say, 'My older brother or My elder brother ...www.quora.com"

Is it an American convention?

I'm an American and I don't recognize it.

In my part of the US, as adjectives, older and elder are treated as synonyms, though elder would be considered somewhat antiquated.

The only place elder is still in common use is as a noun, for example: church elders.

Thus, "older" expresses the specific stage of life but "elder" is for comparison of age-figures.

When I was five, my older brother was seven.

When I was five, my elder brother was seven.

As is often the case, quora was wrong.

"Elderly", however, does express a specific stage in life. Seven isn't elderly. Eighty-seven is.

Seven isn't elderly. Eighty-seven is.

Twenty-seven is elderly. To the seven year old.
(Forty-seven is ancient. Sixty-seven is decrepit. Eighty-seven is prehistoric.)

Twenty-seven is elderly. To the seven year old.

(Forty-seven is ancient. Sixty-seven is decrepit. Eighty-seven is prehistoric.)

What's sixty-nine, then? (And keep that seven-year old out of this!)

What's sixty-nine, then?

Lots of fun for the beast with two backs. :)

What's sixty-nine, then?

The real answer to the ultimate question of life, the universe, and everything. Until the censors killed Doug and replaced him with what they intended to be a more controllable clone.

(And keep that seven-year old out of this!)

If you don't, eight to twenty, depending on jurisdiction

'mother to' as opposed to 'mother of'.

Well, that's reasonable if preceded by 'like'... As in "she was like a mother to me". "She was the mother of my best friend" is correct, tho.
But really, other than being a great song, I have little reason to mention 'mother'.

Guest1: "Me neither."
(In UK and Murica, guest would get no dessert.)

Guest2: "Me either."
(In UK, guest would get dessert. In Murica, probably not.)

Guest2: probably gets both in 'murica.

Guest2: probably gets both in 'murica.

As a 'murican:

If he was with someone else who had declined desert, he would not get a dessert.

However, if he was alone, or the first to order, or no one else in his group declined dessert, he would get one dessert selected by the waitress.

given that (future) teachers are usually the stupidest students in college/university,

Is this just your opinion or do you have actual evidence?

Well, there's the classic one - the state schools in Massachusetts found that SAT scores, etc, were at least 5-10% lower on average among those students in 'teacher track' programs.
I'm pretty sure that future research on the subject was dissuaded by the teachers' unions. They really don't like evidence that questions the competence (or lack of criminal tendencies) of their members. (Not that such studies would actually indicate the number of likely pedophiles, etc, in those programs.)

Why do I get a feeling that was a soccer reference I couldn't give less of a shit about?
But then again, since the score wasn't 1-0 in favor of Man U it's probably not. Maybe something else of negative interest, like cricket.

Why do I get a feeling that was a soccer reference I couldn't give less of a shit about?

Yep. Give me the choice of watching a soccer match and watching an ant farm, I'll choose the ant farm every time. They appear to be more organized.

So you're rooting for the hive-mind Sa'arm

If they're what's needed to eliminate soccer (and cricket) then... so be it. Bring on the swarm.

If they're what's needed to eliminate soccer (and cricket) then... so be it. Bring on the swarm.

There's nothing really wrong with soccer played by kids; they're running around kicking things, just like they'd do if left to their own devices.

Cricket, of course, is unexplainable.

Cricket, of course, is unexplainable.

Cricket, in French, is spelled Croquet, right? I blame the French for creating it.

So you're from London ... ;-)

Nope. My comprehensive knowledge of soccer consists of the following two facts:
1. the team that scores the goal during the match is the winner
2. that team is more often than not Man U.

Much more annoying is when I see just "poorly written". Insanely long paragraphs with 3 people speaking in them. Nothing but simple single lines of dialogue, one after the other for page after page. And when the syntax and spelling is so bad that after a page I get sick of trying to decode what they are trying to say.

Or stories where no dialog is ever spoken and mere summaries of conversations are provided. Or sex scenes where both participants are so detached and not into the action that it entirely consists of the two giving a running commentary of what's going on, like a cheap porn voice-over. Or stories jumping from first person to third person, or having present tense suddenly appear, or characters suddenly referred to by new names for no apparent reason, or...

How did we get from spelling to a morphing areolae in a BDSM chair?

Arguing over gram her. :)

Pyrrhic

"Pyrrhic victory is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at the Battle of Heraclea in 280 BC and the Battle of Asculum in 279 BC, during the Pyrrhic War. ... If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."

It is used as an English word, but it didn't start that way. It is the name of a foreign king. I don't think there are other words like it in English.

French was the official language of England for 300 or so years

And the English words for types of meat come from the French words, while the English words for the animals they come from retain the Anglo-Saxon roots. (Since the peasants - the anglo-saxons - raised the animals which were eaten pretty much only by nobles - the frogs - it's kinda obvious how the words that are in the current language were chosen...)

pretty much, in fact I thought it went without saying.

That said I was nearly in High School (Yr 7) before I learned that a GG was a horse, I always thought it was just the Governor General

word to rhyme with 'Orange

"sporange
The only perfect rhyming word for orange is "sporange." A sporange is an old botanical term for "sporangium," the portion of a fern in which asexual spores are created. This doesn't exactly lend itself to use in sonnets or couplets, but it's handy trivia nonetheless."

wonder if they have a similar root

Nah, one's a tree with real roots, the other's a fungus with mycelial threads.

Anyway, the quote I was looking for for this bit of thread is:

"The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
― James D. Nicoll

-though I had thought it was, if not a Terry Pratchett creation, at least popularised by him.

― James D. Nicoll

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James Nicoll
Born March 18, 1961 (age 59)
Nationality Canadian

James Davis Nicoll is a Canadian freelance game and speculative fiction reviewer, former role-playing game store owner, and also works as a first reader for the Science Fiction Book Club. As a Usenet personality, Nicoll is known for writing a widely quoted epigram on the English language, as well as for his accounts of suffering a high number of accidents, which he has narrated over the years in Usenet groups like rec.arts.sf.written and rec.arts.sf.fandom. He is now a blogger on Dreamwidth and Facebook, and an occasional columnist on Tor.com. In 2014, he started his website, jamesdavisnicoll.com, dedicated to his book reviews of works old and new; and later added Young People Read Old SFF, where his panel of younger readers read pre-1980 science fiction and fantasy, and Nicoll and his collaborators report on the younger readers' reactions."

poly lingual

Poly says "Poly want a cracker."

Poly can't spell poly, in this case it should be Polly. (Polly the parrot.)

Like when you can't remember which language a word belongs to.

Which is not a problem when writing in English. Saves us the trouble of tracking you down and stealing your vocabulary. :)

how many authors are bi

Don't ya think that's a bit personal to be asking?

bi

"bi
/bī/
See definitions in:
All
Chemistry
Biology
Geography
Pharmaceutics
adjectiveINFORMAL
adjective: bi
bisexual.
"are you both bi?"
Origin
1950s: abbreviation.
bi-
/bī/
combining form
prefix: bi-
two; having two.
"biathlon"
occurring twice in every one.
"biannual"
occurring once in every two.
"bicentennial"
lasting for two.
"biennial"
doubly; in two ways.
"biconcave"
CHEMISTRY
a substance having a double proportion of the radical, group, etc., indicated by the simple word.
"bicarbonate"
BOTANY•ZOOLOGY
(of division and subdivision) twice over.
"bipinnate"
Origin

from Latin, 'doubly, having two'; related to Greek di- 'two'.
Bi
symbol
symbol: Bi
the chemical element bismuth.
BI
abbreviation
Block Island.
bis·muth
/ˈbizməTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
symbol: Bi
the chemical element of atomic number 83, a brittle reddish-gray metal.

a compound containing bismuth used medicinally.
Origin

mid 17th century: from modern Latin bisemutum, Latinization of German Wismut, of unknown origin.
Translate bi to
Choose language
Use over time for: bi

Definitions from Oxford Languages"

How personal it is depends on the definition. And then there are the homonyms like bye and buy and good by. Online there is a reference for Business Intelligence. (Which Sounds as likely as Military Intelligence.) And BI is part of the FBI.

poly-lingual

It means I speak poorly in multiple languages.