wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (06/24/86)
In article <1452@ihuxn.UUCP> gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >No, you *don't* teach writing. I'm not sure I agree with you. I've worked with a programmer on manuals, taking his first draft, suggesting corrections, and explaining _why_ I made those fixes. Whether I actually taught him to write or not is unclear. But both he and I _think_ there was a causal relation between my nit-picking and a notable improvement in his writing. I do agree with most of what you said. Standard punctuation and grammar cannot make bad ideas good, but they can prevent the loss of good ideas in a fog of ambiguity. But if, when I creep line by line through someone's text, suggesting ways to make their ideas stand out more clearly, I'm not teaching writing, what _am_ I doing? We both thought I was doing _something_! STella Calvert Love is the law, love under will! Guest on Account: decvax!frog!wjr
gadfly@ihuxn.UUCP (Gadfly) (06/26/86)
-- > But if, when I creep line by line through someone's text, suggesting > ways to make their ideas stand out more clearly, I'm not teaching > writing, what _am_ I doing? We both thought I was doing _something_! > > STella Calvert You're teaching thinking. At least that was my experience when I was writing and editing for a living (not much of one, I admit). Snappy sentences, active voice--it gets the author to realize that she has something to say. Net.nlang has had a much-too-long discussion about whether "hopefully" and terms of that ilk are correct usage. Wrong question. The question should be, and it will depend on the particular instance, "Is 'hopefully' being used as a hedge, a diffusion of responsibility, instead of the more forceful 'I hope'?" I used the pronoun "she" up there not to demonstrate what a nifty feminist guy I am, but to underscore a problem with meek writing. I've found that meek people, most often women, write meekly (surprise). When they start to write more assertively, they become more assertive. A person who writes "I hope" has a stake in the outcome, and is someone you'd better think twice about letting down. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 26 Jun 86 [8 Messidor An CXCIV] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
co20wta@sdcc3.UUCP (Bruce Jones) (06/27/86)
In article <921@frog.UUCP> wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >I do agree with most of what you said. Standard punctuation and >grammar cannot make bad ideas good, but they can prevent the loss of >good ideas in a fog of ambiguity. > >But if, when I creep line by line through someone's text, suggesting >ways to make their ideas stand out more clearly, I'm not teaching >writing, what _am_ I doing? We both thought I was doing _something_! > > STella Calvert You were doing something -- calling for a finer focus on the ideas, which in a sense is what writing is all about. I don't know if this should be considered "teaching writing", which I always thought of as the business of grammarians. I might call it teaching thinking if it weren't such an awkward and presumptuous phrase. What did/would _you_ call it? Bruce Jones
wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) (07/03/86)
In article <3450@sdcc3.UUCP> co20wta@sdcc3.UUCP (Bruce Jones) writes: >In article <921@frog.UUCP> wjr@frog.UUCP (STella Calvert) writes: >>But if, when I creep line by line through someone's text, suggesting >>ways to make their ideas stand out more clearly, I'm not teaching >>writing, what _am_ I doing? We both thought I was doing _something_! > >You were doing something -- calling for a finer focus on the ideas, >which in a sense is what writing is all about. I don't know if this >should be considered "teaching writing", which I always thought of >as the business of grammarians. This bothers me. There is a large body of grammatically correct text in any journal aimed at grammarians. _Very_ little of it is _readable_. Identifying good grammar with good writing (the generalization that most of the engineers I've worked with make) is as silly as identifying having an erection with marriage! Admittedly, good grammar makes it easier to express your ideas, and if a sentence doesn't "work" there may well be something wrong with the grammar. But it's as likely that there's something wrong with the ideas, their expression, or the order in which the material is presented. Reducing all the elements that contribute to making a piece of writing effective to "good grammar" not only doesn't satisfy me, it seems to misdirect would-be good writers from other areas that could help them improve. The Watergaters usually used tolerably good grammar. But that doesn't mean you could tell what they were trying to say (or not to say!) Reread a segment of the tax code -- grammatically correct, most likely. >What did/would _you_ call it? Working on the documentation, writing. Neither of us realized that I was "teaching writing" until we noticed that later documents needed much less revision than the first in the series did. STella Calvert Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea, it's the law! Guest on Account: {cybvax0|decvax}!frog!wjr