I think this has been what most people have been saying. And I completely, one hundred percent agree. But I'll hop on the car analogy boat too. If your car has problems, when you take it in to get inspected, a mechanic doesn't only tell you about the bonnet if the engine also needs to be tuned. True, he may place more emphasis on the rusted bonnet. He may say--"You really should take care of this first." But does he pruposely with-hold information? Is that ethical? After all, no one is "forcing" him to tell the driver about the engine tuning. Just like no one is "forcing" anyone to give content feedback. But wouldn't the driver be pretty irritated to learn that the engine needed tuning months ago and they didn't take care of it, because it wasn't included in the original inspection? We're not talking about utter garbage pieces here. Just because the oil is low or the bonnet is rusted doesn't mean the car is a wreck. It means there are problems, just like with everything. And those probelms need to be fixed. Do they need to be fixed all at once? Not at all. Do they eventually need to be addressed? Yes they do. Is it up to the reviewer to address them at some point in time? Yes it is. It's also up to the writer to make sure their pieces are edited, but this goes along with what you were saying Terry--about the responsibilities of the writer and reviewer being so close... I meant that you only have control over what you do. Just like the writer can only control themselves. This thread is about reviewers who have the tools to review, and choose not to utilize those tools for whatever reason. Can you choose to do that because the writing is sub-par? It's not up to you to decide. You don't know the circumstances, you don't know the authors frame of mind, you don't know if they're trying, you don't know anything. The only tangent facts you have in front of you is that piece of literature, and you have the tools to review it. You review grammar, and you review content. Can you take it one step at a time? Say, work on grammar, come back, then we'll do content. Of course! That would be superb. But there is absolutely zero justification for completely ignoring content, even on a sub par piece of writing. Even if its only a sentence. That still helps.
I think its good that everyone responds from a different angle...this way, the most important errors are addressed and the varied responses help the writer see things from different perspectives. Also, some reviewers notice a point made by another member and might expand on it. There should be no official standard.
I think that is exactly the point. I don't think anyone would have a problem with you saying that YOU choose to review content even in a piece with a lot of SPaG errors. What came across in your OP was telling everyone else what THEY should do, and in your last post you even went so far as to say there was "zero justification" to not do it the way YOU choose to do it. It wasn't so much what you said, but the way you said it.
Ummm, yes it is up to each reviewer to decide. Ummm, each reviewer reviews grammar if they want to. And each reviewer will review content if they want to, tools or not. Oh, yes, there is plenty of justification--whatever justification the reviewer decides upon. Interesting notion attempting to dictate to a volunteer reviewer what they will and will not do to meet your notion of...oh well, never mind. The statements stand well enough for themselves. Terry
Ok. I'm not even going to go there. I've been writing about how much I respect everyone's opinions for pages, and suddenly its like I never did. Its ludicrous. Question 1. (Answer these, Terry. You are an editor, right?) Are there rules of writing poetry and prose? Do those rules include grammatical and content issues? Question 2. Are there rules for writing reviews? Do those rules include grammatical and content issues? If not- Why? If you say its up to the person reviewing to choose which rules to follow, then would you agree that a a poet or prose writer doesn't need to follow the rules either? Why would it apply for one and not the other? Why is one more strict than the other? Is each less of an art the other? Question 3. If there are rules for both, and the rules are broken, doesn't that mean the writing is not "good". It doesn't follow the rules. You can't have a double standard. Question 4. If there is not a double standard, and a reviewer breaks the rules of reviewing, and I call it a bad review. Is that any different than calling a piece of literature that breaks the rules bad? Question 5. Does making the review free change anything about whether it is a bad review or not? Yes, its nice. But people on this site "need" to do it if they want to post anything of their own. Question 6. If I ask why no one is following a rule of reviewing, does that imply that I'm a tyranical dictator? If so, then shouldn't an editor who asks why an author isn't using correct grammar be a tyranical dictator who is imposing their style on others also? (And for the record, I haven't said anything about my style...at all. Reviewing content is not a "style" as you so loosely put it.)
Here's the problem: Hypothetically speaking, let's say I want to build a Ferrari good enough to win the F1 World Championship. Now, I don't have a lot of funds to do this. So, I buy an old 1976 Ferrari with parts hanging off it left, right, and centre. I intend to make this car into a world-beater. Should I just ignore the bolts, nuts, and other intricate parts that make up the car, and concentrate instead on putting in a V-12 engine? No. It might beat the rest of the field for the first two laps, but it's going to fall to pieces before the fifth. So, if you ignore the main nuts and bolts of writing which, believe it or not, are SPaG, then you're going to inevitably run into problems later on. It doesn't matter if your story is the best thing ever in the world. If it hasn't got good structure and punctuation to back it up, it's never going to make it past a publisher's front door. SPaG is the main part of writing. Without knowing how to construct a proper grammatical sentence, you might as well be writing in Dutch. There is one thing, though, that's kind of annoyed me in this whole thing. Chad, you've been a member for two months. Are you telling me that you've seen enough reviews to make generalisations like this? I don't mean any offence, but this site has been here before you came, and I'm pretty sure it'll still be here if you ever decide to leave. I think it's doing pretty damned good, to be quite honest. One more thing: A reviewer is not an editor. As an editor for a city newspaper, let me assure you that editing is a completely different animal to reviewing. Editing questions every comma, sentence, and paragraph. It rips apart chapters, shortening some and completely removing others. It is ruthless. Don't confuse the two, please.
Sweet mother of jumping Christmas biscuits. I "just" said. Twice..no, no. Three times. Maybe even five or six, that grammar is "essential" and you need it to form a good piece of writing. You absolutely can't without it. I agree, it is a base. I haven't denied that one, singular, solitary time. The next person that says-- "Well, if a piece doesn't have good SPaG then it falls apart. Even an idiot would realize that if something doesn't have good grammar it is completely worthless." I've acknowledged that so many times its incredible. I'm not going to re-state my point if you don't even know what's going on. Please read a little. Thanks! And, um... "There is one thing, though, that's kind of annoyed me in this whole thing. Chad, you've been a member for two months. Are you telling me that you've seen enough reviews to make generalisations like this? I don't mean any offence, but this site has been here before you came, and I'm pretty sure it'll still be here if you ever decide to leave. I think it's doing pretty damned good, to be quite honest." What can I say? Sorry? How many written pieces and reviews do you think you see in a day? Guess. Double digits. Let's say fifteen, to be on the low side. That's not even looking at everything. (I read a lot. Like I also said earlier.) Now...multiply that by 30 days...by 30 days...that's about. A lot. even if I only read less than a tenth of that, that would still be enough for me to get a general impression. Do you think I would just come in throwing wild accusations if I didn't think I had seen a good deal of proof about what I'm saying? I'm not saying the site is bad. I find it amazing. (AS I HAVE ALSO SAID NUMEROUS TIMES!!) (P.S.: No one is calling into question how well the site is doing....-_-)
You can certainly call any review bad if you like. Just as I can call a piece of writing with a comma splice, seven spelling errors, 5 misplaced modifiers, 2 tense changes, and a dangling participle -- all in the first paragraph -- bad. (Actually, I'd probably just call it "not well written.") It's not your message, Chad. It's the assumption that if people don't review according to your standard they are doing it wrong that have raised hackles. I suppose it doesn't even concern me since I don't do online reviews anyway. Just out of that thing that caused the demise of the feline, why does it matter so much to you? You have stated you are happy with the reviews you have received. Life is a much happier thing when you accept that most people are going to do things their way, whether you approve of their methods or not. Namaste, Rose
If you find a piece of writing with seven spelling errors, 5 misplaced modifiers, 2 tense changes, and a dangling participle--all in the first paragraph, what do you say to that person? That their work needs to be re-written. According to "your" standard they are doing it wrong. This thread is no different from a thread entitled "I'm annoyed at bad grammar" and the reply's are all: You can't force your way onto other people's writing. What this is, is a general review of reviews. It's constructive criticism, and everyone is being incredibly defensive about it. I'm done. Peace.
The problem is, you're being incredibly condescending by saying that one person's review is better than another's. Everyone has their own way of doing a review. There are no right and wrong ways, and what you're failing to remember is that you should be glad to get any review. If you want specifics on plot and character issues, ask for them when you post a piece of work. Otherwise, just accept what you get like everyone else does.
*le sigh* I know I said I was done...but I can't help it. Maybe i meant I'm not writing any more long posts.* Is it condescending to say one piece of literature is better than another? No. People do it all the time. And unless you're the glowing golden boyscout, I'm pretty sure you've done it too. Why am I so wrong, and you're so right? Give me a reason why it doesn't apply both ways? You can't just say, because reviewing is based on opinions. So is writing. So is everything. There are still rules. You can review however you want, but rules still have to be followed in order for a review to be good. The same rules have to be followed for a poem or story to be good. (Like you all have been saying.) Saying that you should be glad for any review is naive. It's a writing/critiquing site. Reviews will come. That's the whole point. Once again, you have a double standard. (I guess a short way to put that would be to say-Why? Why is there no right and wrong way to review? Because there is definitely a right way for writing, is there not?) Edit: Might I add that no one is presenting anything new? Everyone is focusing on the obvious and basic things to write in response. "Reviewing is other people's opinions." "Grammar should come first." "You should just accept what a reviewer says and move on." I have made very clear arguments to every one of these points, but no is answering my arguments. you just keep recycling what you have already said. Hell, in some cases, certain people have taken one, singular sentence out of my "paragraphs" post to respond to, and they weren't even summary sentences! For example, Daedalus, my dear fellow, if you look back a bit, I answered that exact same question, in fairly good amounts of detail. And instead of proving me wrong, you just re-iterate what you, and the person before you said in the first place. Which would be fine---but you are not addressing my points. Not even acknowledging them. I've tried my best to address everything. If you think a point is bad, tell me. Give me a reason other than--"It just is." Maybe I'll see the light. But right now, this debate is going nowhere. Quickly.
Sadly, it seems like only one way of reviewing is in place here. People tend to ignore the questions sometimes, one occasion someone said "I couldn't answer your questions because the SPAG was so bothersome, when you fix I'll help you out on the questions" How is that helping? Or they won't review it at all when you put I'm not worrying about the SPAG. People have different ways of reviewing just like people have different ways of writing. Some people just like writing it the whole entire story and then edit later. And so you shouldn't just ignore someones request for some comments or some sort of help. Reviewers just as well as writers have to be flexible. And clearly I don't see that.
Leaka - this is precisely the type of thing which I would object to reviewing. The time it takes you to check your own work for SPaG should be minimal (if it isn't minimal then SPaG really is the area you should be focussing your effort on). To not attempt to correct the SPaG yourself before posting it for others to read/review is essentially lazyness. I teach (albeit not english) and regularly get kids bringing me scrappy, messy work full of errors. My first response is pretty much always to send them away and come back with something tidier. In the process they usually a) learn something from looking at it fresh b) identify and fix their own problems c) develop a better idea of what needs improving Then when I see them again we can usually have a much more interesting and constructive dialogue about what they have down. They have their own ideas more thoroughly developed and I can see much more clearly where they need assistance. If they don't have something 'clean' for me to work with then I can't tell the difference between where they have made silly errors or are genuinely in need of support. Their job, as with an author wanting work reviewed, is to make their genuine needs as plain as possible. Frankly if they don't come at it with that attitude in mind then I'm not interested in opening a dialogue with them about it.
I never said anything about my work in particular. But there are other people who can easily pick up SPAG more then I. But I still think there should be some more attention to the focus of the story and where it's flow is going. I don't think it should be just one thing. My English teacher goes over both with me, even when it's SPAG messy. He helps me with both flow and SPAG. And I think that is what we need on writingforums. And for me sometimes it is really hard for me to look at the grammar fresh and clean. I get really mixed up, [cause English has the weirdest rules on the planet], For me I want both. For someone else it may just be SPAG or Content they want. And reviewers have to be flexible with what they the writers are asking.
If you don't want people to find SPaG errors in your work, here's a thought: Do your best to make sure there are little or none in it! It doesn't take long to run your eye down a page and pick out mistakes. Also, so many people copy work straight from Microsoft Word (or whatever word processor they use) and paste it here with paragraph breaks indicated by tabs. Understand this: This website (along with many others) cannot distinguish what a paragraph break is in regards to tabs. So, for that reason, a new paragraph should have a complete new line preceding it. When those two issues are dealt with before posting a piece of work, it makes the reading process so much more enjoyable for the person. Now, I understand that all writers aren't prolific at picking up on errors. That's where reviewing helps. By reading another person's work, you learn to adapt your eye to pick up mistakes. On average, and depending on the size of the work, a review can take anywhere between ten minutes to two hours. The fact that people are getting reviews from others and then going and complaining about them ... well, I'm sorry, but that's bad form. The person has taken time out of their writing schedule to attempt to help you. The least you could do is thank them, even if you don't agree with what they've said. Again, if you want a review that focuses specifically on a storyline or a plot issue, ask for it! Failing that, PM a reviewer. They've been specifically chosen because they offer helpful, insightful reviews. Give them a PM and ask them to look at whatever particular part you're interested in. And, for Godsakes, stop complaining. Do you know that some people have to pay for the services everyone here gets for free?
People have different views on how a review should be done. Some are so bold as to assert that there is no justification for a reviewer to do it any other way other than what that individual suggests. It is apparent that those individuals who feel that reviews should focus on more than the basics of SPaG first, haven't convinced others with their arguments and assertions. I am among those that have not been convinced. Bottom line, fix up the SPaG (or learn to fix it from reviews that assist in that area) and then the other areas of content will follow, no matter if one focuses on SPaG first or attempts to focus on both SPaG and story content--flow, characterization, plot holes, etc. Learning to properly employ the rules of grammar and spelling and such may not be the most fun or or easy or as exciting as creating stories and characters and getting to an end product, such are the tools needed to write a story effectively--unless the writer can get someone else to fix all of those other parts for them. A reasonably close analogy: It's like someone aspiring to be a carpenter, but they haven't mastered the basics, such as measuring. They design and then cut the wood and piece together a child's tree house, which ends up being far far from a professional end product. No right angles, leaks from the roof, doors won't shut, the floor isn't safe to step on in places, etc. Then the aspiring carpenter says: I know I don't know how to measure and cut properly, but look beyond that and tell me what you think of the tree house’s overall quality and cool features I've included--even if they don't work so well. Look and comment on the potential of what I intended to create, and tell me how it's working out. Terry
Okay...I've wasted quite a bit of time reading this exercise in nitpicking. There is NO right or wrong way to conduct a "free" review. Whatever the reviewer chooses to offer is entirely up to that person who is donating time. If the reviewer was being paid to be a "copy editor", then it's a different matter entirely...the difference is that money creates obligation; an obligation that does not exist for the freebie-reviewer. That said, I do not believe comprehensive (free) "reviews" are constructive. Reviews should be completed in steps so that the writer has time to absorb and consider each set of suggestions before complicating the matter with the next group of issues. For example, I might choose to remove SPaG problems before tackling specific plot devices. Why? Because the refinement process needs to be structured if the writer is to benefit fully from each element along the way. A reviewer might read a story and notice several SPaG issues, some unrealistic plot devices and an underlying plot defect. If all those suggestions are made at one time, the writer can be overwhelmed. On the other hand, each area can be cleaned up individually, and you end up with an improved piece and a happy writer. For me, the order of review is: 1) SPaG 2) Plot devices and storyline (scenes that don't work for some reason) 3) Plot failures (for example, a plot that uses an untenable theory at its core) One more rule...for me only...I do not review any submission that obviously did not get a pre-screening spell check or grammar check. If the author does not respect other peoples' time enough to invest a few minutes in an electronic screening, then my interest ends right there. On the other hand, I have no problem with "herd" vs "heard" that might slip through a spell check. Finally, reviewers have different areas of expertise and comfort. There is NO universal format that accommodates "most" reviewers. It is a personal decision based on personal issues for each reviewer. And, it is NEVER acceptable to criticize another reviewer's effort or perspective. (Chad, that statement is not directed at you; it is my general opinion.) We're all volunteers.
I started a much longer reply, but changed tack. I guess that the differences in opinion here are coming about because people are trying to achieve different things from the same review system. For myself I believe that the review process should be about making the writer a better author rather than the story a better piece. It should also be a staged development, working on limited elements to develop at a time. Helping the author learn how to improve their writing is far more beneficial long term than correcting a plot flaw in one particular piece. I believe that both the author and the reviewer should be coming with that aim in mind. For that process to be effective the author should be continually trying to improve on what they have written before. This means that when a flaw has been identified by a reviewer in one piece they should actively attempt to eliminate that flaw from everything they write. A sports teacher here told me that when drilling a new skill it needs to be repeated 100 times. Only after that amount of practice do you develop the muscle memory needed to make it automatic. From my teaching experience I strongly believe that the same is true for written skills. When I have corrected myself 100 times I should have eliminated my blind spot for semi-colons. Until I reach the point where I can place them automatically I'll be striving to apply them properly in every single scrap that I write; this includes casual forum posts as well as pieces I want reviewed. (did I get that one right?) I don't make a distinction between the two types of writing. When I commit my time to reviewing I want to know that my time isn't being wasted so I want to know that the author is actively trying to learn from the reviews. Dismissing advice on SPaG (enduring from piece to piece)for the sake of plot issues (one off advice, unlikely to be helpful long term) seems to me daft. Leaka - you seem to have a very different objective to me when you post stuff to be reviewed. Indeed your forum posts in this very thread have indicated to me that you are not attempting to improve your SPaG on a day to day basis. If you were, you would be using full paragraphs rather than what amounts to bullet pointed sentences sans bullets. Correcting that on a routine basis, while a drag for the first 100 times until it becomes automatic, would make you a better writer. I'm sure that your would also find more careful construction of paragraphs a benefit in your ordinary writing. Now this isn't intended as a dig, just a observation based on your comments here. I may be way off the mark; if so, please forgive me! (did I get that one right?) Given that I perceive a disregard for, or reluctance to improve, SPaG I would probably feel that my time would be wasted reviewing a piece of your work. It could be much more profitably spent helping someone who is trying to eliminate those errors from their work. Now usually I comment on SPaG, structure and style in a review but I would tend to do that where I feel it is most valued. Hmm... I feel that I have rambled a bit. (correct use of ellipsis? I only learn about them last week on here!) I guess I strongly feel that the both the writer and author should work together to pick the metaphorical low hanging fruit. If the author decides to ignore the low hanging stuff and go for the apple right at the top of the tree then I, as reviewer, reserve the right to walk on by and give my time to the person at the next tree. **** I tried to illustrate what I meant in my own post. Actively practising the SPaG bits I'm unfamiliar with. I'd hope that anyone asking for a review would take on board advice in a similar way and apply what they have learnt to their own writing. Voilà... learning occurs
Funny how this topic excited so much angst. The choice of review "fruit" should simply be up to each reviewer, as he or she sees fit.
Thanks for the links. I am, apparently, not using ellipses correctly. My own quote above should be: Voilà . . . learning occurs More correctly still, the ellipsis apparently implies a hesitant or confused break in thought or speech. A dash is prefered when the break is assertive or confident. Voilà - learning occurs I think I will bow out of this thread now.
^ You forgot to put "Voila" in italics. The word is taken directly from French, so it should be in italics. (I know I forgot the little accent symbol over the "a." Sorry, I have no idea how to add that stuff.) Also, I was always taught that elipses have no spaces between them ("..." not ". . .") and there can be four of them ("....") when they're placed at the end of a sentence. The fourth is like a period and can also be replaced with other punctuation if the sentence is a question or exclamation ("...?" or "...!"). See, even SPaG can be subjective at times.
I cringe at the idea of rules or judements being put forth on the reviews done here at the site. Not because I agree or disagree with any particular camp, but because the average member of wf.org is rather young. Nothing wrong with that at all. In fact, I think it’s great. My point is that the general membership is just coming into the world of writing, reviewing, and discussing the concepts of writing and reviewing. I think that pressure placed on the members to adhere to one way or another is only going to lower the frequency of reviews that do occur. This point has been hashed time and again. A quick search would have evinced the fact.
I read this entire thread. It seems people on all sides are having misunderstandings with each other. As far as I can tell, no one is completely in the right on all issues. So, I'm going to give my response to this thread as a single cohesive whole, detailing what methods I think work, and why some work where others don't. And why no method is always right one-hundred-percent of the time. Here goes: If I had the time to spend four hours a day with a single person talking about a single story, I would use it. Why? Because, honestly, that's what it would really take for me to address each and every issue, and then explain to the writer why those issues are issues. Each and every aspect of writing is bound up with all the others when you are considering a single story. This is the weakness of the "review/critique" system. Unfortunately, the review/critique system is all we really have to work with under the present circumstances. To that end, I will address all my points towards the pros and cons of different "styles" of review that fit within that system. First point: SPaG is the most fundamental and necessary aspect of writing. Without SPaG, we would have a whole mess of unreadable, illegible gobbledygook that no one could use to communicate effectively. That is why I consider SPaG the foundation on which good writing is built. When a piece is written using proper SPaG, it is clear, simple, and easy to digest. The corollary to this is that a clear, simple, and easy to digest piece of writing does not necessarily contain a good story. The story itself is independent of SPaG. But the way you tell it is not. And as writers, we should be more worried about telling the story well. Plenty of people can come up with an idea for a good story. But how many of them can sit down, write it out, and get it accepted by a publisher? Not many. Second point: The real reason why correcting SPaG may not be useful to a writer presenting a story for critique is that if the story is full of plot holes and has a fatal flaw or two, no amount of good SPaG will fix it. Correcting the SPaG in such a story is essentially useless. The story will most likely be rewritten, and all those wonderful corrections you have made will cease to be applicable and therefore they will cease to be useful. Why? A writer does not necessarily remember every little thing you have pointed out, and if (as often happens in online reviews) you do not bring them to an understanding of why the mistakes you fixed were mistakes in the first place, they will be no better off than they were before you swooped in on the SPaGflak 4000 and shot all those nasty little SPaG errors to bits. "Aha!" you say. I was right. There's no reason for the writer to sit there and be humiliated by all those obnoxious grammar Nazis and spelling obsessives. And from one perspective, you are right. But then you have to remember my first point. SPaG is the foundation of all good writing--whether you use it properly or intentionally to subvert expectations. The benefit of a volley of SPaG reviews is not that they teach the writer proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar. (Though they might!) It is that they drive a big spike of "Learn your ****!" through the writer's thick skull and into their brain. Eventually, the writer will get the message, right? If not... Now we get to look at this from the perspective of storytelling: What is and is not to be gained by the so-called "content" critiquing? Well, let's first remind ourselves that there is one more aspect to writing than "content"(story) and "SPaG"(mechanics). What is that other aspect, you ask? Why, it's "style"(all those little techniques the writer uses to make his (or her) writing descriptive and engaging). We're talking figurative language, diction, syntax... etc. This stuff often gets divided, with some parts--like syntax and diction--lumped in with SPaG, and others--figurative language, for example--fobbed off on content. Even though "style" as a concept is often considered part of "content". Yet really, those things belong in their own special category(see aforementioned label). The first thing we need to do is to answer the question: "What is 'content'?" Well, content is an amalgamation of a whole bunch of stuff. It includes images, setting, plot, pacing, exposition, info-dumps, scenes and sequels, action, meaning, characters... The list goes on. Basically, it's everything that makes up the actual "meat" of the story. In terms of storytelling, content is king. But since we're talking about writing, let me explain why there's more to "good" written stories than just the "content" pieces themselves. First, let's talk about the way a piece of writing is constructed. In order to get the effect you want, you take your goal scene (or image, or chapter, or single sentence, whatever!). Then, you decide how you want it to come out on paper. Next, you look at what method of writing would best achieve your goals. Maybe short, compact sentences will give you that rip-roaring feeling of a good ol' fast-paced chase scene. Guess what? You've slipped over the border into Style-land. Now, guess again: Where do you think you're going next? That's right; you've got it. The next step is to look at mechanics. SPaG here we come! Now that we've established the linear path of planning a scene, let's look at how you get from your basic mechanics back to that beautiful scene you've got racing around inside your head. Obviously, we're in the SPaG section at the moment, trying to move back towards style. You know you want short, compact sentences that move the reader through the action quickly. First step, short words. Second step, short clauses. How do you make a clause short? Maybe you use one of those poor reviled fragments, or a comma splice. After all, full stops stop the reader; full sentences take longer to read. The style goal here is short compact sentence structure. The grammar tools to use are short clauses with few pauses, and incomplete sentences. The problem is, "proper" grammar doesn't approve of these things. Shocking, I know. But it's true. Yet many authors use these tools, and they use them all the time. Just like I did, a few sentences ago. This is where that common complaint comes from: "I can't critique this story unless you get the grammar and spelling right." Painful, isn't it? I think so, too--when I'm on the receiving end. It will be less painful to you once you understand where it comes from. It comes from the difficulty of understanding which "mistakes" are actual mistakes, and which are intentional subversions of the rules to produce a certain effect. When a story is full of real SPaG errors, this becomes even more difficult. Would you want to wade through all that red-penning, only to find that what you assumed was a mistake was a valid stylistic device, and that great pun you complimented was just an accidental homonym? I know I would find that frustrating. Or you tell the writer an image or line confused you, and they come back with a comment about how they misplaced a comma. It's not necessarily that people are that obsessed with grammar for its own sake. It's that their time is very valuable, and a situation like those I have just described is a waste of that valuable time--at least if the author shrugs it off as a non-issue. If they thanked the reviewer for the correction or the question, then it might be considered a good use of time. The goal of the writer is to communicate effectively. SPaG helps that along immensely. Finally, we get to the move from style to content. We have fast-paced writing, emotion-heavy sequels. All this has been built up to play into the reader’s love of excitement, and to partially demonstrate what the character is feeling during the story. They're scared, the adrenaline is pumping... Basically, we're doing characterization. And these effects are built on style, which in turn is built on a proper use and understanding of grammar. As I said earlier, it's all connected. To wrap this up, sometimes it pays to concentrate on SPaG, sometimes on content. More often, it pays to concentrate on SPaG, because many writers have not yet mastered that part of the craft. Seriously. In all my experiences doing online critique, this is the area I have found most misunderstood. Maybe the writer is good at plot. Maybe not. But you couldn't tell that from some of the stories they post. You can't really tell anything at all some of the time. But once these issues with SPaG begin to clear up, the other issues come into focus. "Okay, that fragment there is to speed up the pacing. it's not some dumb mistake." That's when you get to ask questions about whther the content is working or not. Hey, no one ever said learning was easy. There's a reason so many other disciplines focus on the mechanics first, and the product second. As referenced by so many of the metaphors and analogies in previous posts. A note to those who think those metaphors support content more: You are not the person bringing in their car for a tune-up. It is not the job of this site or the people on it to make your story good, or even okay. That's your job. You are the mechanic; and I'll wait for someone to tell me that the mechanic didn't spend a whole lot of time learning the nuts and bolts before he got to assembling and fixing engines. The same applies here, to the writer and the mechanics of writing. P.S. And just as a note, I myself constantly go back to look at the changes people have made on their stories since receiving critique. That's what the lovely "Subscribe" feature in the User CP is for. P.P.S. In the spirit of cooperation, feel free to tell me I'm wrong. If you can back it up, you can bet I'll concede the point.
