here is the story: Our vicar is always raising money for one cause or another, but he has never managed to get enough money to have the church clock repaired. The big clock which used to strike the hours day and night was damaged during the war and has been silent ever since. One night, however, our vicar woke up with a start: the clock was striking the hours! Looking at his watch, he saw that it was one o'clock, but the bell struck thirteen times before it stopped. Armed with a torch, the vicar went up into the clock tower to see what was going on. In the torchlight, he caught sight of a figure whom he immediately recognized as Bill Wilkins, our local grocer. 'Whatever are you doing up here Bill ?' asked the vicar in surprise. ' I'm trying to repair the bell,' answered Bill.' I've been coming up here night after night for weeks now. You see, I was hoping to give you a surprise.' 'You certainly did give me a surprise!'said the vicar. 'You've probably woken up everyone in the village as well. Still, I'm glad the bell is working again.' 'That's the trouble, vicar,' answered Bill. 'It's working all right, but I'm afraid that at one o'clock it will strike thirteen times and there's nothing 1 can do about it.' 'We'll get used to that Bill,' said the vicar. 'Thirteen is not as good as one ,but it's better than nothing. Now let's go downstairs and have a cup of tea.' and here is my remark: The vicar didn’t care about the damaged church clock.That was figured out from two facts: First, the priest raised a lot of money, but he never used the funds to repair the clock. Second, Bill Wilkins ,the local grocer ,fixed the clock without being able to deal with the wrong striking, which is a very annoying noise, yet the vicar didn’t see the problem as a big deal.
My thoughts: What were the funds that had been raised being used for? There are a lot of things out there more important than a clock. The grocer had tried to do a good deed so why criticise him for his attempts. Thirteen strikes could be seen as a tribute to the good in people.
In terms of spelling, punctuation, and grammar, the response is mostly acceptable. The phrase "wrong striking" is marginal at best, but the rest of it does not violate SPAG rules. That's not to say the response is well-written, though. Although a review is not appropriate in this thread, the phrase "That was figured out from two facts" is entirely superfluous, and written in passive voice for no good reason. Likewise, the phrase "which is a very annoying noise" either should be removed, because it weakens the second assertion. If you feel it is necessary, separate it from the sentence that the vicar was unconcerned by the imperfect repair.
your 'remark' is only your opinion, which i find flawed, as you assume things you can't know... thus, i'd have to say no, it isn't 'correct'... now, if you only meant 'correct' as in how it was written, and not the conclusions you jumped to, then your second sentence is a bit awkward, could use a rewording... plus, you didn't leave any space between the two first sentences and your commas are misplaced in a couple of sentences...
The quick answer? Practice, the more the better. You'll make plenty of mistakes, but the key is to learn from them. Get help from others to point out the mistakes, and don't expect to get every mistake ironed out in one pass.
and, along with practice, READ... read and study good writing by the best writers, to see what it looks/sounds/feels like... to be a good writer, one must first be a good and constant reader...
