SPaG is far more than just a "squeaky wheel." Although that's the phrase I used earlier, it's so much more than that. I don't see how you can consider it a finished story without proper SPaG. You'd be selling yourself short, especially when the mechanics are so bad readers can't fully understand what's being said. I've seen your work, Leaka, (and your RPGs, of course). You have great ideas, but they could benefit from a hefty dose of grammatical toning. I don't mean to be a downer, but it's not always easy to look past these things. As I said before, what kind of reviewer would I be if I let a major foundational problem go by uncommented?
I wasn't saying that you were narrow minded. I was saying the idea of not wanting to look at the rest of the story just because of SPAG is a bit narrow minded. There isn't just SPAG to a story. Yes, but I don't think you are looking at what I am saying. There is a such thing as to much of a SPAG check. When you have eight post and all of them are about SPAG. You have so many SPAG issues coming your way, you might try to incorporate it all and your story doesn't have it's vibe any more. Every writer has a little bit of SPAG OCD and so if you just put them on the war path of SPAG, who knows what they could do. But I do see SPAG as a leaky faucet. I mean if you are looking for a home, do you just look at one thing? Do you just incorporate one thing? No, you look at the size, the design, etc. So why does a story be you can only look at one side of the story?
Again, we just see the issue differently. A leaky faucet wouldn't keep me from buying a home. The crack in the foundation would. Go in peace, RR
Sometimes you just want to finish the story. And when it's finish then fix your SPAG. My first language isn't English. So I tend to pace and phase SPAG for a while cause I don't how to fix it sometimes. But I don't just want my oil to be checked at the mechanics. I want my whole car inspected.
Yes, but even so...those are just the models of the home. They aren't what is going to be built later. Those model homes are like the rough draft of a story.
I think this is much ado about nothing. Go look at the recent reviews - like in the past week or so. Reviewers are critiquing content a whole lot. When there are a lot of SPaG issues, you might see someone take the time to point out the problems, but I see a lot of content reviews too. Often I'll only see content being reviewed. There are new reviewers who will post one-sentence comments or just say it's good. That's a problem, if you want to talk about a problem. Proofreading for SPaG is a difficult task. It takes extra time, and sometimes I'll check my Strunk & White or look online if I'm not sure about something. If someone's checking your SPaG thoroughly, it's really a nice thing they're doing for you.
Anony Mouse--You made some good points. I like a lot of what you said. But some things are still a bit off. "What kind of reviewer would I be if I looked past a piece's most obvious problems? SPaG is the most basic thing of all. Why should I ignore the fact that a writer doesn't have a grasp on the basics?" Who said anything about ignoring? Looking past the grammar doesn't mean you have to ignore it entirely. It means you're still able to see the work for what it is. But if the mentality is--"I can't critique something on content if it has grammar errors" then you're not "looking past" or maybe, better-"looking through" the tangible. "To me, reviewing content on a piece that has poor SPaG is like pushing a car that won't start to the paint shop. SPaG posts are like saying "here's a wrench; fix the mechanical issues, then we'll talk." And, yes, a basic grammar handbook and dictionary could spare us the trouble. I shouldn't have to hand you that wrench. And I certainly shouldn't have to get griped at when I do. (Not aimed at you, in particular, but at all the posters who whine about their SPaG errors being pointed out. You'd be surprised how often this comes up. I'm just as annoyed as you.) How often does someone fix the mechanical issues and you return to critique the content? How often does anyone do that? (I don't know. I'm just a lowly n00b.) If the policy was first correct grammar, then once the grammar is corrected return and review content, I would have nothing to gripe about....but I don't think that's what's going on. (It would be nice though.) And I could understand why you would get annoyed at someone who spurns your critique. That would irritate anyone. Perhaps it would be easier/better if people posted the type of critique they wanted along with their piece (Some people want or have different tastes. *shrug* It's seems a little pompous to not give someone a content review just because they're grammar isn't fantastic). Like, content, grammar, grammar-content, etc. "Content reviewing should only be done once the mechanics are solid There are too many writers on this site ignoring the mechanics, even after reviewers point them out Apparently the majority of the work on this site is a result of people who only hear what they want to hear from reviewers and ignore anything else" So maybe just reviewing grammar isn't working too well, huh? No one wants to submit their writing for review and all they get back is--"red line, crossed out word, don't use that punctuation--" They already have literature professors, friends, etc. Why would someone submit their work to an online writing site? For the most part, it would be to see what other writers thought about their "story". Have you ever submitted a piece of writing solely to have others correct the mechanics? (doubtful face) And yes, many people need that correction and don't realize it. Heck, most do. Certainly me. But just throwing down red marks and x's on anyone's paper without examining the content makes you more like the old English teacher no one liked, instead of a helpful peer. (You're both doing the same thing. Well...minus the detention and phone calls home. Hopefully.) "Would it hurt me to review content on a poorly written piece? It wouldn't hurt me, but it would hurt the writer. S/he should be made aware that you can't get your point across when it's trapped under layers of SPaG errors. If I read a piece with lousy SPaG and then write a long critique about how much I liked the characters, that would be sending mixed signals. After the SPaG -- which I deem to be far more fundamental -- is fixed, I'd be happy to move on to character development. In a perfect world, writers would address SPaG before posting, so we wouldn't even have to go through that annoying little step here." This is where we differ. I think content is more "essential" than grammar. But if I see a problem with grammar, I still try to point it out. Is it sending mixed signals to say you liked the characters but the grammar was bad? That would be...a review. Is it so hard to include grammar and content in the same review? Is it too much effort? Does the person not deserve it? And if so, who are you, or any of us to decide what other writers do and do not deserve? This is probably the core of what I'm trying to say. "Of course we don't all write on the level of a paid author. That's why we're working together to get there. Take what you get and give back twice as much. IMO, that's what it means to try your best." But it also means using what you know to your full ability. If you know how to review for content, and you don't because of whatever reason, is that trying your best? I would say that's settling for par.
@marina--I'm not sure a week of content reviews could be considered a total over-haul or anything... But I think a lot of people are missing the general point. I'm not saying that content is better than grammar (For everyone. To me, it's more necessary.) But I am saying that you can't have one without the other. They both go hand in hand. Sometimes one is more prominent, sometimes the other. But to completely ignore either is ludicrous. And for the most part, this thread has primarily been a defense for why you "shouldn't" have to review for content, and that just...I don't know. It doesn't make very much sense to me.
I've not noticed the problem you're noticing, Chad. I agree that only reviewing SPaG seems...incomplete. I just don't see people doing that. And the reviews you got on your one story didn't do that either. Also, you write well, so I don't imagine people doing that with your stories. They tend to focus on the big, glaring problems, and if SPaG isn't it, no worries for yourself then. I still say it's much ado about nothing.
Well, thank you for the compliment. But I have noticed it. (I tend to comb through the posts and read everything, so maybe I just notice it more because of that. I get pretty bored around here (My dorms. The collegiate past time is trying to count the number of dots on our spackle walls.) Like I said, several times before, this really isn't about me. I have no qualms with any of my reviews at all. (You're right, by the way. There has been about a week of really strong reviews. Which is great. But many, many, many pieces in the past got SPaG only critiques. Or really limited content ones. Or one liners. But that's totally off topic, so ignore it. )
I've only skimmed part of the discussion because it seems to be going nowhere. Simple answer would seem to be... Fix the spelling and grammar mistakes before posting a piece for review. Then all that would be left to consider is the content. If one is unable to fix the SPaG before posting, then maybe that is what the individual needs to work on first, and should be thankful that members are willing to assist in that area. Terry
I had a crazy-long response written out, but cut it down to just the essentials. Before going on, I'd like to clarify that my intent was never to ignore content indefinitely. I prefer to focus on SPaG first, then get to content, not ignore it altogether. One step at a time, if you will. I see this is the meat of your point and you ARE right, in a way... but consider the practical effects of what you're saying. When someone writes a story, they have certain things on their mind: a character they really like, a setting or theme they're eager to explore, a story they're dying to tell, etc. It's very easy for mechanics to take a backseat to all that. Look at it this way: If I commented on your character and your capitalization, in the same sentence, which suggestion would you gravitate toward? Too often I've done comprehensive reviews, covering both SPaG and content, only to see the writer return a few days later with an updated version. The dialogue flows a little better, the characters feel a little more "real," but they STILL can't get the basics right. Yes, it truly irks my nerves. It's like talking to the captain of a ship, telling him, "there's a lightbulb blown out in the crew quarters and a thirty-foot hole in the hull." Then, he hurries off to fix that lightbulb. I'd rather tell him about the hole and save the bulb for later to make sure he doesn't get things misconstrued. Didn't you go through grammar class before you got to creative writing class? It's the same deal. Sure, one wasn't nearly as fun as the other, but... one step at a time. If a writer knows SPaG and doesn't submit a clean piece of writing, s/he isn't using his/her full ability. That's settling for par. If someone posts up a poor piece of writing, I'll give them my "best" SPaG review. After they edit it and re-submit, free of major SPaG issues, I'll give my "best" content review. It's as simple as that.
But what if the writer doesn't know. That is rude to just say they didn't put up their best work with their best effort in mind. They did put up their best work with their best effort in mind. Sometimes you can't catch everything in a story. To say they didn't work hard enough or to imply they didn't work hard enough is rude.
I didn't say or imply anything of the sort. I said "if a writer knows SPaG and doesn't submit a clean piece of writing, s/he isn't using his/her full ability." If the writer doesn't know, then that statement doesn't apply. But regardless of the writer's intent or prior knowledge, a post riddled with SPaG errors is going to be met with a review riddled with SPaG corrections. Next time that person posts something, s/he will know what to look for and there won't be any excuse for poor grammar.
SPaG are some of the tools a writer uses to tell the story. A writer needs to learn the tools if they hope for their work to get out of a slush pile and into print. What else will the editor or agent see, but the spelling and grammar errors first? What will the result be? And if a writer posts work filled with such errors, then they should learn from the suggestions and corrections provided by those who read and crit their work. Will it (strength in SPaG) happen immeidately? No. But there can be progress, even if it is how to properly punctuate dialoge one post and then learning the difference between it's vs. its and whose vs. who's the next. A writer who has SPaG troubles and ignores improving in that area because they're more concerned with what other have to say about deeper parts of the story, will not get the quality of crits they're seeking on a regular basis, if ever. And if a writer has competent mastery of SPaG and simply doesn't bother to adequately edit before posting...well, that says something about how much they respect the time and effort it takes from a critter. As an editor at a small magazine, I can say that SPaG does make a difference in what gets accepted and passed on. There is never a lack of submissions in the queue. Terry
I see this is the meat of your point and you ARE right, in a way... but consider the practical effects of what you're saying. When someone writes a story, they have certain things on their mind: a character they really like, a setting or theme they're eager to explore, a story they're dying to tell, etc. It's very easy for mechanics to take a backseat to all that. Look at it this way: If I commented on your character and your capitalization, in the same sentence, which suggestion would you gravitate toward? I understand your point here, and it is true. People enjoy hearing about the creativity in a story. But if you have one author who takes your SPaG only advice, do you honestly think they will suddenly decide "not" to take it once you include content? It would seem to me, that the people who don't take SPaG advice aren't content-hungry-wolves, but people who are just generally not very good with taking criticism! "Too often I've done comprehensive reviews, covering both SPaG and content, only to see the writer return a few days later with an updated version. The dialogue flows a little better, the characters feel a little more "real," but they STILL can't get the basics right. Yes, it truly irks my nerves." That is a personal and unfortunate choice of the author to ignore. It should not be a personal choice of the reviewer not to include advice because the writer "thinks" that basics should come first. It's a little cruel to purposely withhold information just because you don't think the author is ready. Everyone has different standards. Why not just...give an entire review? You're already writing it anyways. "It's like talking to the captain of a ship, telling him, "there's a lightbulb blown out in the crew quarters and a thirty-foot hole in the hull." Then, he hurries off to fix that lightbulb. I'd rather tell him about the hole and save the bulb for later to make sure he doesn't get things misconstrued. Didn't you go through grammar class before you got to creative writing class? It's the same deal. Sure, one wasn't nearly as fun as the other, but... one step at a time." Haha! That's an interesting metaphor. (A little...dramatic.) But I see where you're coming from. But once a piece that has been riddled with grammar errors is reviewed, how many people honestly come back and write "another" review about content? Usually it's--"Good work. It looks much better now." (Which is a totally subjective statement, I might add) If you can find me a few good examples of that (How you said it should be done) happening, I'll bow out. It's still not what I had in mind. But if there's more than two or three people that review that way, I'll be happy. @ Terry--I hope that isn't what you think my standpoint is. I've already said, numerous, numerous times, that grammar is critical. If a piece has bad grammar, of course you want to address that. But should you choose "not" to address the content because you "feel" like they should work on grammar only before moving on? Is it so incredibly, impossibly, hard to do both? A review can lean towards grammar. It can lean towards content. But as an editor, have you ever read a piece solely for grammar and then said--"Alright! Looks fine to me!" ? It isn't about the process. It's not about what should come first. If this were real life, yes, an editor would rip your paper to shreds without even glancing at the story if the grammar was defunct. But once that was fixed, and it got sent in again, an editor would read it for content. This is the internet. Many people are only reviewing for post count. (Not a bad thing.) But how many of those people come back to the originally reviewed piece to look at story issues? As I said earlier, if everyone reviewed for SPaG, and then after seeing the revised copy, reviewed for content, that would be perfect. But normally this isn't the case. And realistically, how could it be? People move on. Especially over the internet. What if they edit and don't repost? How many times has that happened? (Many) Unless you say so, no one, especially new people, know that you want them to repost their work. Do most reviewers say--"Edit this grammar. Once you get that done, I'll look at the piece again for content." No. Usually it's something more like--"This could be better. Needs a lot of work. Etc." You may mean that you're willing to help more, but I assure you it doesn't come across that way. Wouldn't it be easier on the writer if you just told them everything at once, or that you would only critique when the grammar improved? People aren't mind-readers.
Consider, that part of the reason the SPaG gets marked first is because it stands out and it distracts and detracts from the story. Imprecise grammar and punctuation and spelling cloud what is going on, inhibits the flow of the reading and under some circumstances, makes it impossible to evaluate higher or more elusive or artistic (whatever you would want to name them) aspects of the story. Wouldn't it be easier on the reader/critter if the writer just posted a piece that didn't suffer from prominent SPaG issues? Terry
I find myself repeating myself a lot. Literally, in my last post, I said that grammar needs to be dealt with. And obviously, if you can't understand what a piece is talking about because the grammar is so bad, then you need to deal with it. For lack of a better word--Duh. You're talking about the low end of the spectrum, where you can't even decipher the meaning because the SPaG is so bad. What about the countless other posts that have adequate grammar and a story that can be worked with? You don't need to get "deep" and "artsy" to review content. "Wouldn't it be easier on the reader/critter if the writer just posted a piece that didn't suffer from prominent SPaG issues?" Indeed it would. But the last time I checked, this post wasn't about the merit of writers. It was about the merit of reviewers. If you want to start a thread on how "Writers" should start using better grammar to help reviewers, be my guest. I'll probably toot my metaphorical horn right there with you.
Hey guys, I think this has developed into a very interesting discussion. It's good to see people discussing reviewing principals, even if we can't all agree! From my point of view I much prefer to do in depth reviews, really picking apart what is written and getting to grips with both content and SPaG issues. I find a review like that can take upwards of an hour on any piece that is of moderate length. That's a serious time commitment so I don't perhaps review in the same quantity as others. Conversely, I would hope that anyone who expects me to read through a long piece of their own work would commit a decent amount of time to straightening it out for SPaG etc themselves. If they haven't why should I commit myself to it in any meaningful way? A piece that gets posted and gets, say, 10 sensible reviews has been read carefully 10 times by different people. If the author hasn't done the basics to fix what they can in what they have written then they are effectively saying that their reviewers time is worth less then their own. I'm not saying that I don't review for SPaG (I certainly do!) but that there should be a certain onus on the writer to make sure their work is clean before posting it in the first place. As for the people saying that reviewing/editing can 'kill' a piece of work - if your piece can't take being scrutinised then perhaps it isn't as strong as you believe. Even if you do think that it is strong, the except that you post for reviewing should at least be clean; otherwise SPaG errors will be distracting reviewers from what you would prefer them to look at. I'm sure we have all seen TV shows or films which are interrupted by adverts. Well to my mind SPaG errors are much like the artificial breaks. If you ask someone to review your film for plot/content/flow then you don't show them the version which has a commercial every two minutes. No matter how good they are at looking past the adverts it isn't going to look its best. Long winded and rambling, sorry. *please ignore all SPaG errors while reviewing my post, I couldn't be bothered to check them myself
This has been interesting. I think members will generally review according to their experience and thus, will improve with time, but when it comes to whether or not to review a SPaG-heavy post, I'm afraid I lean away. It's been a pet peev of mine how often posters seem to ignore such basics to get their new work out. I know it's good to see your work 'up', but doing the basics beforehand actually constitutes 'real' work that intils fundamental qualities of reviewing and editing into the new/aspiring writer. It's not just about 'finishing' the 1st draft. It's about making it right to the best of your ability, then going that step further, enhancing your awareness of levels that appear behind SPaG issues. It seems that too many just want to see a response to their new creation, rather than getting intimate with their own work and having it 'ready' to be reviewed. My two cents, as they say.
See I don't agree with this. From my experience of writing any piece, I really tried my hardest on SPAG, the G part in general. But it's very hard for me, but I do try. It isn't that I ignored it, it's that I was really having a hard time with it and I couldn't catch every mistake. So even if it's still really badly G of SPAG doesn't mean I didn't finish my 1st draft with my best of ability in my mind. I put up my work for SPAG, but as well as Content. I figure if 5 people have posted about SPAG why do the others that post in there have to do SPAG as well. It should be a combination. But as the same time we shouldn't generally just focus on SPAG. And that is what a lot of people do.
I believe it is difficult to divorce the responsibility of the writer from the responsibility of the reviewer. In the end, the writer has first (or initial) responsibility for what is posted--the content. What happens after that stems directly from what was posted. Leaka, Nobody said SPaG is easy, and for some it is more difficult, but it is something that has to be a priority if one wants to get their work published (if that's your goal). Either that or you'll have to find someone willing to edit the work up to standard--a very good and willing friend, or paying an editor to do it for you). Here is an article I had published on the topic: Never Learned Grammar? that can explain in more detail what I'm getting at. Terry
Well it's more like my tenses. lol! I'm no good because certain sentences sound nasty this way, nasty to me, but the right way is the nasty way, but it sounds better the other way. Anyway, I just think there should be an inspection of the whole car and not just the flat tire or whatever.
While I agree in principal that you should try to review the whole piece in some cases the fundamental problems with SPaG are so great that you can't see past it. Sticking with the car analogy this can be like asking the mechanic to tune the engine when the bonnet is rusted shut. Until you fix the bonnet he won't be able to tell you anything! You may not like that he can't see through the bonnet but he's not going to touch the engine until it's fixed.
