Comments on: Fred’s Distilled Writing Wisdom, Part 1

By: Anne K Gray

Anne K Gray — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:25:09 +0000

I have to say, Gary, I pretty much completely disagree with your thesis that spell checkers cause more problems than they solve. I’m a professional proofreader, and I use them all the time. (Partly because almost no one can completely proof their own writing — you read what you meant to write, regardless of what’s there).

What you do need to do, of course, is use a spell checker intelligently, without assuming it will correctly guess what word you want — and I advise *against* having your word processor do any autocorrecting as you type — in that, it is likely to be wrong and, worse, you might not even notice while you’re typing that it just changed your sentence. But using a spellchecker to highlight words it doesn’t recognize can be invaluable. And if you have a long manuscript and nonstandard names, telling it to “ignore all” on the correct name spelling is also an excellent way to check to make sure you’ve been consistent throughout – variations will stick out like a sore thumb.

By: Rimmerstern

Rimmerstern — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:43:50 +0000

You would think that I points 1-4 goes without saying. But they don\’t, I guess. Stephen King lists them also in his \"On writing\".. He also says something that I then will dare add here, that if you truely wants to write and get paid for writing, you need to go about it as you would any other job. Which means you should schedule your writing, at least 2-4 hours a day, and this even if you haven\’t got anyting to write about. For training purposes and for getting into the habit, sitting and staring at a blank piece of paper for hours straight is absolutely priceless.

@Gary Farber – you\’re right, I would go for a human proofreader over a spellchecker, anytime. Also, if a story is otherwise good, the spelling needs to be really, really bad for it to get ejected on that account.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:45:15 +0000

“And if you can figure out how to number the manuscript pages then you’re probably also smart enough to find and use the spell checker.”

Which if you rely on it, will lead to homophone errors; you need to proof by eye to avoid all the errors a spell-checker will leave you with anyway, or which the spell-checker will even helpfully generate for you if you follow its suggestions, and you’re better off practicing your proofing by eye so as to increase your practice.

People who are dyslexic, or with sight problems, of course, don’t fall in the category of people who might benefit from this advice.

Spell-checkers are an example of techonology that frequently cause far more problems than they solve. Train your own brain and eye to proofread, and if that’s not sufficient — most folks aren’t at all consistently up to professional level — and seriously wish to avoid errors, find a fellow human who is.

If you want to be almost sure to have errors, just use a spell-checker, and skip using a competent human proofreader.

By: Tina Black

Tina Black — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:26:27 +0000

“If you are a good-looking woman, do not include pictures of yourself in a bikini. Make it as brief as you can.”

Less, eh? I have to get rid of that visual.

By: John Murphy

John Murphy — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:22:36 +0000

I wish I had read this yesterday — I just sent off my first story to a magazine this very morning and it never occurred to me to paperclip the stamp on the SASE. I will have to remember this in the future, because that does seem like a very considerate thing to do!
(Thankfully, I did indeed remember to number the damn pages, but I have to admit that I only thought of it just before printing the final copy)

By: EdS

EdS — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:10:53 +0000

And if you can figure out how to number the manuscript pages then you’re probably also smart enough to find and use the spell checker.