Why don't people use professional copy editors?

[William Campbell]

I'm just looking at the Serenity thing now. Ye gads, clunky interface is right. I'll need to click a few brain cells together on this one. I got one run on a sample, and yes, it looks like some good intelligence. It doesn't like 'like' though, as in an informal use for 'as if.' 'As ifs' are okay, but for colloquial narration and dialog, most people say 'like.' Not a big deal, but funny. Lots of other good warnings, though. Not all needing change without violating my established style, but good to have them called out. Knowing where you stand sort of thing. But a disaster if you just take every suggestion without consideration. I'll have to spend some time with it. Thanks for the link. Well worth having a look.

[William Campbell]

It's smart, if you can stand the interface. Too bad they don't make it more seamless.

But the smarts, yeah, I like it. I use fragments a bit, so there's a few message about that, but one thing I really like is its intelligence with commas. Very nice. I'm pretty good with my commas (formal in my use though casual with lots else) and the software seems to like most of my uses. What is cool is that a few places where I slaved over comma or no comma, it comes along and says, "hey, where's your comma?" I like that. No more agonizing over it. The software gets to play tie-breaker in the contest between me versus myself.

What was that line by a famous author? About taking all morning to put in a comma, and all afternoon to delete it. Something like that.

Anyway, already in a short sample I'm testing, it also caught a lit/lighted, and a was/were error. Very nice. Clumsy to use, but I guess you just have to get used to it. I'll play with it more over the weekend (editing book 3 as we speak).

EDIT: Oh yeah, and like I was saying earlier, how I don't like "and then," and make many cases simply "then," the software isn't complaining. Someone else agrees.

[WPotocki]

Originally Posted by William Campbell

Right on. But the real question is, is it really garbage? That's the thing I'm learning -- these 'weird' ways of writing things, that happen to feel "right" as we record them, are not garbage. And they're not incorrect once one delves deeper into the subject of grammar.

Fascinating stuff, and I suspect like me, your "garbage" is actually effective prose. I'm proud of my crap, too.

(SMILE)

Totally love your examples and will check out the link.

As for the garbage reference, it's tongue in cheek, but makes the point. I think it's good to claim the word back from other's tossing it around. It's all good.

The thing is that using language in a unique way confuses people. They're like, "Well, I know she's not smart, so this must be wrong." Consequently, the entire book went down the old toilet. I think the other confusing thing is people thinking that what you write, is what you agree with. They attach the character's mores or morality to the writer, which ain't true! It's like you have to stop the action and include an aside that you do not approve of the behavior your characters are exhibiting and would have stopped it with a call to 911 if you were there.

I remember a friend reading a Dean Koontz book about a serial killer. She said she stopped reading it because he did such an effective job getting into this killer's head that she couldn't tell if Koontz himself were like that. We both quickly agreed that if he were, that we would have heard about it by now. Therefore, he was doing a remarkable job of writing, but it's just an example of what I'm talking about. Again, it wasn't the subject matter that was disturbing to her - it was the possibility that he thought what this psycho character was doing was alright. Giving it a stamp of approval.

To get back to the subject, language to me is like clay. I get to mush it up, put it in any position I want, poke it, prod it and shape it to my will. Language does not control me - I control it - at least in the realm of writing. I respect it because t's a tool, like a computer. A very useful tool since it gives me the means to communicate, but I'll do what I need to do to it to tell the story.

[DavidRM]

I posted a short note about my test of Serenity Software's Editor last night:
Found a Useful Editing Tool Today


One of the co-developers of the software actually spotted the post and has left a couple comments. Cool stuff. I'm a big fan of indie software developers (and, yes, I am one ).

-David

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WPotocki

Totally love your examples and will check out the link.

As for the garbage reference, it's tongue in cheek, but makes the point. I think it's good to claim the word back from other's tossing it around. It's all good.

The thing is that using language in a unique way confuses people. They're like, "Well, I know she's not smart, so this must be wrong." Consequently, the entire book went down the old toilet. I think the other confusing thing is people thinking that what you write, is what you agree with. They attach the character's mores or morality to the writer, which ain't true! It's like you have to stop the action and include an aside that you do not approve of the behavior your characters are exhibiting and would have stopped it with a call to 911 if you were there.

...

To get back to the subject, language to me is like clay. I get to mush it up, put it in any position I want, poke it, prod it and shape it to my will. Language does not control me - I control it - at least in the realm of writing. I respect it because t's a tool, like a computer. A very useful tool since it gives me the means to communicate, but I'll do what I need to do to it to tell the story.

I'm sorry to disagree, but no matter how much you may like to "mush up" language, putting an apostrophe on the word "others" as you've done in this post is just plain wrong, and seeing that in a book would instantly make me think "this author can't write", no matter how good the story is.

[kcmay]

Originally Posted by William Campbell

it also caught a lit/lighted, and a was/were error.

I chose to ignore the lit/lighted flags because lit is a legitimate past-tense form for the verb, to light. Maybe it's the company I keep, but most of the people I talk to use lit as the past tense form rather than lighted.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry to disagree, but no matter how much you may like to "mush up" language, putting an apostrophe on the word "others" as you've done in this post is just plain wrong, and seeing that in a book would instantly make me think "this author can't write", no matter how good the story is.

What about Jane Austen?

She was practically illiterate.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by kacir

Recently I talked to an author of technical book and the editor practically destroyed his book. The book wasn't in English. That moron (editor) was even translating acronyms like SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol) into original language, as if the SOAP was the thing you use to wash your hands.
And the author was helpless, because the editor was hired by publisher and had priority.
After the edit, the book was beautifully grammatically correct, but compete nonsense from programmers point of view.

I wish I could say that this was a rarity, but it isn't. No editor I know is capable of working in all fields. As I have said before, I specialize in medical and education. What that means is that I not only have extensive experience in those areas but that I work to maintain my knowledge skills in those areas. Perfect, I'm not, but good I am -- in those areas.

Ask me to edit fiction and I'm a fish out of water. I know this, so I don't accept such work. OTOH, I can identify many of the failings in a work of fiction because those failings are similar to the failings that would appear in any work, plus it isn't difficult to apply the experience gained from general reading over the years.

Yet, I would not "edit" the work of fiction; instead, I would read it and give an overview of problems.

This is the failing of editors; they do not recognize their limitations. The failing of publishers is that they believe one editor is as good as another, which isn't true. A second failing is that they are guided/governed simply by cost, rather than quality. Low cost does not always mean low quality, but too often does.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

What about Jane Austen?

She was practically illiterate.

She was indeed. But she was living in a very different world; one in which women were, generally speaking, poorly educated.

[ThePage]

Flouting is the word, not only misspelled but with an extraneous n added.

[WPotocki]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry to disagree, but no matter how much you may like to "mush up" language, putting an apostrophe on the word "others" as you've done in this post is just plain wrong, and seeing that in a book would instantly make me think "this author can't write", no matter how good the story is.

Harry -

As would putting a comma outside quotation marks as you've done.

Physician heal thyself.

Seriously, I don't really proof my posts and you're being a doofus in commenting on my poor typing skills.

It's nice to see you got caught with your pants down as there should be a comma after the word 'post' also.

Sloppy.

[ThePage]

Wes - would like to try, if you like - I was pretty nearly force-fed the Webster's Unabridged while in school - every time I asked what does this word mean, I was told:

GO LOOK IT UP!

I can offer a sample of my efforts for your inspection if desired - it's an exhaustive proofreading, with minor corrections of a favorite by Porter (the author of Freckles)

I have before and after files on hand.

[DavidRM]

others' - still proper, but now considered dated. others's is now valid.

"quoted text with comma inside," - proper American style

"quoted text with comma outside", - proper British style.

NOT for "Stuff," he said, BTW. I'm referring to having "quoted text within a sentence like this". Whether the full stop (period) is inside the quotes or outside...who effing cares? But in the US, it's supposed to be inside.

-David

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WPotocki

Harry -

As would putting a comma outside quotation marks as you've done.

Only if I were American, which I am not.

American English always places full stops and commas inside quotation marks. British English only does so if they form part of the quoted material, which, in my post, the comma does not. This is a difference between British and American English.

Wiki, for example, has the following to say on the subject:

With regard to quotation marks adjacent to periods and commas, there are two styles of punctuation in widespread use. While these two styles are most commonly referred to as American and British (and some style sheets provide no other name), some American writers and organizations use the British style and vice versa. Both systems have the same rules regarding question marks, exclamation points, colons and semicolons. They differ on the treatment of periods and commas.

In the U.S., the standard style is called American style, typesetters' rules, printers' rules, typographical usage, or traditional punctuation, whereby commas and periods are almost always placed inside closing quotation marks.[10] This style of punctuation is common in the U.S., Canada, and in the U.K. in fiction and journalism.[11]

The other standard style—called British style or logical punctuation[12]—is to include within quotation marks only those punctuation marks that appeared in the quoted material, but otherwise to place punctuation outside the closing quotation marks.

Examples

When dealing with words-as-words, short-form works and sentence fragments, the styles differ:

"Carefree," in general, means "free from care or anxiety." (American practice)
"Carefree", in general, means "free from care or anxiety". (British practice)

[WPotocki]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Only if I were American, which I am not.

Thank God!

Originally Posted by HarryT

American English always places full stops and commas inside quotation marks. British English only does so if they form part of the quoted material, which, in my post, the comma does not. This is a difference between British and American English.

Really? I thought there was only one form of language - yours! And it doesn't explain the omission of a comma. It's wrong on all counts. Hard walking with your pants 'round your ankles? Or are you used to it? Definitely easier to spank someone this way.

Just a thought, but how many ways are there to spell the word manners?

By the way, you are hijacking this thread with your incessant nitpicking, but then methinks you like being the center of attention.