I read through this and I agree and disagree. Yes, there are a lot of unhelpful reviews here, but I don't think the grammar ones fall into that category. I find that I am sometimes unable to focus on what I am reading if the grammar & structure is consistently a problem. So what I try to do is go through the entire post with specific grammatical suggestions, and then at the end of the post make a quick summary about what I think of the content, characters, and the world. If there are fewer grammatical mistakes, my content section tends to be longer. I don't think its fair to say that a grammar review is useless - how do you expect writers to get anywhere if their technical writing skills aren't polished?
For what it's worth, I think the review policy on this site is pretty cool. But in all sincerity, I'm not used to being critical, just to being criticized. However I find it does help me personally when I do offer my POV because it makes me look for things I might not have noticed otherwise and also apply it to myself. I guess I should learn to get more in depth in my analysis, it seems to help all around, done in a positive manner that is...
That was well said. I respect your opinion, and I think you described how reviewers should generally operate. I myself couldn't in good conscious(?) not review a piece, but apparently, that's just me. I think we'll just continue to do things differently. Thanks for the comments though! I humbly depart.
I agree in totality. The ONE thing I RARELY ever comment on when reviewing is grammar, because I'm generally reviewing a rough draft. It could easily be a typo, an oversight, something written at three in the morning. It is very unlikely that the writer does not know that he accidentally spelled 'htis' wrong, or that his sentence is a run-on. When people ask for reviews, they are rarely asking for critique on spelling mistakes, and I think it is more detrimental to nitpick than it is helpful. Sometimes, you can discourage a person by continually pointing out his trivial mistakes that would undoubtedly be self-corrected at a later time. I noticed that a lot of people are saying, "If the writing is horribly put together, grammatically shot, the writer lacks the ability to spell and doesn't know what punctuation is, should we still ignore the grammar and spelling?" Um. . . no? Why does this need to be pointed out? I don't understand why this question is being posed. We are discussing the rule, not the exception. I will never understand the inability to see the forest because the trees are in the way. If his writing is so unconscionable that you are unable to wade through the myriad spelling and grammatical mistakes, then he OBVIOUSLY needs more help on that than anything at the time. It is so obvious that there is no need to pose the inquiry. It's a mute point.
How rough a draft should be posted for review? I believe it's less than respectful to put up a draft that isn't reasonably free of SPaG errors and oter mistakes you are capable of fixing yourself. It's like showing up to an interview wearfing a stained tee shirt and with messy hair. You're asking people to help you figure out what you can do to improve that piece of writing. So if you leave in skajillions of trivial mistakes, you can hardly be indignant that the reviewer targets those and chooses not to waste time on a deeper analysis. So, do I get annoyed when I see a piece prefaced with, "I trew this together in twenty minutes after downing a couple six packs and some jello shots. Tell me what you think." You betcha.
Except that the prospect of someone doing and writing that is amusing enough to dispel most of the anger.
If a person posts a story littered with SPaG errors, can you give me one good reason why anyone should wade through it looking for a story amongst the chaff? If it can be cleaned up at a later date, it can also be cleaned up now. It's a matter of taking pride in your writing and ensuring that it is devoid of any glaring mistakes before posting. You aren't going to get them all, but at least it will look like you've put the effort in. Regardless of what anyone may say, SPaG is the fundamental part of writing. Without it, a good story becomes mediocre, and a mediocre one abysmal.
Also, some people classify usage errors as SPaG. They aren't always clearly SPaG, the sentence may parse correctly in terms of te placement of parts of speech, but have flawed semantics. For example (sorry Atari) the sentence: is perfectly legal from the standpoint of subject-verb-adjective-object, and the spelling and punctuation are correct. But the usage is wrong. There is no such thing as a "mute point." The sentence should be: Chances are, te person who mixes up the usage won't know it unless it is pointed out. Furthermore, if te rest of thr writing were littered with genuine SPaG errors, pointing out the usage error stands a good choice of going unnoticed. So it is most assuredly to the writer's benefit to clean up the writing as mucj as he or she can before posting it. If there is still a gaggle of spaggle to wade through, then the writer really does need to focus on that first.
I do that nearly every time I write that phrase. I know the difference, I just make the error. I usually catch it though.
Well, the word 'moot' means moot >adjective subject to debate or uncertainty The word 'mute' means: >verb 1 deaden or muffle the sound of. 2 reduce the strength or intensity of. 3 [muted] (of color or lighting) not bright; subdued. I purposely did not use 'moot' because that wouldn't make sense. I wasn't saying it was open to debate, I was saying it is NOT open to debate. I was saying it was a silly point, irrelevant; mute. To say, "What if the writing sucks horribly?" Is a 'DUH!' point. That's like me telling you that you can build a house upon a foundation that has a little sand on it, and then you say, "But what if there is ONLY sand?" Well, yeah, point taken; but that was obvious. If we chased every rabbit and kicked every dog, we would be arguing a single point for years. Mute does not literally mean what I said; I was using a figure of speech. (Perhaps one that I just invented) (Cop-out-ish as it may seem, it's the truth.)
Sorry, but "mute point" really is incorrect. If you aren't familiar with Paul Brian's Common Errors in English (book or web site), I highly recommend. This is what he says about mute point.
On the general topic here... I'll say my piece, then probably ignore this thread. Cogito has my sympathy, as he has to read all of it... I think that so far this best represents my own view. I take pride in my writing. I know it's not great yet. I know it's not publishable. But anything I post here is something I'm proud of, (why bother if not?) and as such, I make certain that it is my very best effort before I hit the paste button. In fact, I give it another quick going over before clicking the post button. It's not difficult, and doesn't take long unless you're posting 10k words at once (which you probably shouldn't). With that in mind, there may be a goofy error or two, such as a missing period. But generally speaking, if there are any SPaG errors in my writing then I expect someone to point them out if they notice. There shouldn't be many, so if there are, then... don't leave me in the dark! If all a person does to critique my writing is to point out a few SPaG errors, I'm grateful. I will learn something, or at the very least, clean up the piece for the next person who sees it. This hasn't happened yet... so this entire thread seems like an exercise in tedium and arguing over nothing. If a single person can critique my writing line by line, commenting on SPaG, story, characters, dialects, similes, metaphors, offer rephrasing, point out all of the stuff that just isn't working, or unclear, or too detailed - WOW. This HAS happened. So again... why is this thread here? The alternative is that you will most likely get your amazing review from numerous responses rather than a single person. This is how the review system is designed. It's great when one person can point out virtually everything, but it's just plain silly to expect all reviews to be this efficient. I recently received an incredible review, I think, partly because I posted something reviewable, and partly because the reviewer was just awesome. Kudos to Iaevich! I respect the reviewers who take the time to look at my writing and give me a helping hand. And I respect my writing. Why would you do any less, or post something half-hearted? Since I aim to be published some day, I'm very serious about what I post here. Why would you hand in a paper that is anything less than perfect, in your eyes, unless you're just being lazy or you are unconcerned about grades (don't care about getting published)? If you don't have the time to post something refined, perhaps it is best to delay until you do have time. If it takes longer than a few minutes (10-15 for longer pieces) to clean up most of the issues, then I'd say you've got a problem. SPaG should be automatic. You shouldn't have to go back and rewrite every line because you never put a comma in the right place the first time. That's a problem. And the story can just hold tight and wait while you address your present handicap! As many have mentioned SPaG is an absolute requirement to getting published. So if you're having problems with that... be very grateful to those who have the patience to help you with the most boring, tedius, mind numbing, teeth grinding exercise known to writers. Man, give those folks a medal. In conclusion I'll just say that I thought it was funny when this thread opened... The newbie tells the 13k post count super mod how things should be? ehhm... Sorry to insult anyone with generalisations, but I have noticed that most of the people agreeing with Chad are relatively new compared to those who argue against. There are a few seniors who take up Chad's point, but they seem to be the exception (like me). The site is terrific as is, and this is about as good as it gets. What really annoys me is that threads like this take a lot of time away from actual reviewing... I highly doubt that anyone will change their reviewing style upon reading this... Incidentally... When I got that excellent review, the first thing I thought (after joyously rewriting) was: "Well... now I simply have to give someone else a review just as good." So I did that. Got very wrapped up in the piece, and I think I wrote more in comments than the guy wrote in content. psst.... c'mere.... I think it goes back to - Show, don't tell
That's a great attitude to have, Kas. It will get you far here and you will notice a marked improvement in your writing. Kudos. gar
I know that it 'really is incorrect'. I was using it as a figure of speech, but if you can't handle improper grammar for the sake of an argument, then allow me to correct myself: It is an irrelevant point. Moot, however; is NOT the word I wanted to use, regardless that it is proper for the expression, period. -_-
Actually, that is only one possible meaning for the word. The one that seems to fit what you were trying to say is: From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant. See the bolded word(s)?
When I review, I feel that my review could be better. The problem is that I don't know how. A lot of what I review, I enjoy, and don't tend to see a lot of problems. So, I turn to posting what I liked. I may not be as articulate as I'd like to think, but when I like something I've read it takes me a while to pick out what exactly I liked about it. Perhaps this is a good thing. Aside from this, I'm not all that confident about my own work, and if you've seen what little work I've posted for reviewing, it's easy to conclude that I'm not that great of a writer myself. In general, I feel a bit lost when reviewing, even after the various guides in this section of the forums.
I agree. The reason most editors don't spend much time on spelling, punctuation and grammar is that they will just throw the piece away if it has those types of errors or is poor in its sentence structure. However, I agree that discussing character, plot and dialogue is far more interesting than punctuation.
Just for clarification purposes, namely my own: Are we, as a community, on this forum going to overlook SPaG when it comes to replies to posts? I'm certain to be guilty as well, but I find it ironic that many pronounce on the expected correctness of SPaG while making linguistic errors themselves.
I think there are two sides to this issue; what's the urgent issue with the piece, and what elements of a critique benefit the writer? With any piece I look at, here or on other fora, the first thing I consider is whether, in my opinion, it works, and then I'll crit on what I think doesn't work. If someone has written a good strong piece which works, but which is littered with SPaG issues, I'll tell them that I think it's strong but it needs a bloody good edit. I won't edit it for them, because that isn't my place. If the piece is lacking something - emotion, passion, imagery, pace, etc. - I'll concentrate on that, because it's more urgent than the final edit. There's no point in polishing a turd, after all! If the piece is flawed, well ... I'll get to that in a second. Essentially, I won't rewrite for people, I won't correct errors and I won't add my own words to theirs. Many people do, and I think it doesn't really work. The piece has to retain the character of the author. Many moons ago, I did think I was helping someone with a rewrite. They liked what I did. In fact, they liked it so much, they decided the work was no longer actually theirs and gave it up. I regretted it immensely. No, what does the writer benefit from? I personally only really care about what people don't like, what doesn't work for them, what stinks. I want to see my work's flaws through the eyes of an outsider. I can't improve if people tell me they love it, or that it moved them, or it made them laugh, or whatever else they might say. I want it opened up to expose the bits that need putting right. If I had a big growth on my head, I wouldn't trust a doctor who told me it suited my hairstyle. I'd want it cut out and quick. However, there is way too much effort expelled into not offending people. They seem to think that telling them something doesn't work, and showing them why, will result in a bad review back! There are some truly flawed pieces of work on here and they get glowing reviews, so the reviewer can then get glowing reviews back. Are we here to make friends or to learn something? I knew a bloke once who painted horses. Everyone told him his paintings were first class. They weren't, but he accepted the praise and took it as affirmation of his skill. I saw the pictures and laughed. He got angry, but I had to insist there was a certain humour in cows racing at Ascot. He said they were horses but they looked more like cows. To prove the point, I got people to be honest and the consensus was that his horses looked a lot like cows. Last time I saw him, he was painting farmyard scenes and making money. Sometimes the truth is what we need most, whether it be to give us a reality check, or whether it be to spur us on. I hate to say it, but sometimes we need it so we can stop wasting our time and accept we can't cut it without considerable amounts of work. I accept it hurts at times when you read someone slating your work, but if they have a valid point, you'll get over it and learn. However, all too often, the reaction seems to be that the reviewer has gone over the top, or is wrong. No one, in a review, can be wrong. It's their opinion, and that's what you're asking for when you post in a review section. So, in a nutshell, I think reviews need to be more than edits, they need to address the fundamentals first, and people need to be a bit more honest in these forums when dealing with work that doesn't cut it. It shouldn't be about mutual support, there's places for that, it should be about learning what others think of your work. After all, those readers out there won't accept bad work just because the writer cares about it.
Casual posts, by their conversational nature, tend to be rather less than great literary works... With that said, this is one of the best forums around (from my experience) when it comes to casual posting. At least no one is using l337 speak for every other word. The problem is when people treat their literary offerings like casual posts...
I've recently doled out a sizable chunk of my hard earned cash to have my novel of 95,000 words reviewed. I received the editor's feedback a couple of days ago and am currently digesting her comprehensive, honest, constructive, no punches pulled, report. It's exactly what I needed. Without her professional approach, I would still be unaware of elements I need to revisit to bring my work to a publishable standard. We don't know how lucky we are on this forum. We receive 'free' reviews of our work! Sure, some members haven't much experience and can only give what they can, but others most certainly go out of their way to provide quite a detailed and comprehensive service we would otherwise have to pay for. The opportunity to analyse work and construct a review, while having many other reviewing samples to learn from is invaluable to us as aspiring/emerging writers. We need to appreciate what we have instead of carping on about the varying methods of members. Everyone's different, thank goodness. Be honest and constructive in your work and appreciative in what your receive.
