Writing Matters

Treasure Trove of Writing Resources

My Proofreading Tips for Finding Errors in Your Own Writing post keeps generating feedback. Most recently, Cate Newton sent me a link to the writing resource page  she compiled for the Guide to Online Schools website. 

Cate wrote: “We are trying to build up useful resources for students of all ages…. We’ve compiled a list of the most useful grammar, proofreading and writing style guides on the Internet into one, easy-to-navigate article.”

Her writing resources are indeed a treasure trove. Among the gems on her list:

BBC Proofreading
Proofreading tips, practice exercises, and quizzes to test your skills. I aced the Level C (Superstar) proofreading test. But I admit that the question prompts and the multiple-choice format helped me catch errors I might have missed. 

The Online Grammar Guide 
The comprehensive guide to English grammar created by Jack Lynch, associate professor at Rutgers University, provides an alphabetic listing of grammar and word choice issues. Lynch offers this consoling take on the difference between that and which.

“Many of the best writers in the language couldn't tell you the difference between them, while many of the worst think they know. If the subtle difference between the two confuses you, use whatever sounds right. Other matters are more worthy of your attention.” He then offers a clear and pithy explanation of the difference. 

The University of Ottawa 
An online grammar course that covers the parts of speech, punctuation, pronouns, verbs, modifiers, clauses, sentences and spelling. This course lets you brush up on English grammar in the privacy of your office or cubicle. 

The Ultimate Style Guide Resources for MLA, APA, Chicago, and CSE
A list of good Internet style guide links. If The Chicago Manual of Style is your style bible, you’ll love the CMS Crib Sheet that summarizes the manual’s most important topics and rules.

School House Rock 
And finally, if you need a break from the rigors of correct usage, head over to Grammar Rock for animated music videos that teach the rules and make you smile. Busy Prepositions makes sense of the confusing rules for prepositions. You’ll spend the day humming the tune (guaranteed!). 

--Marilynne Rudick

Wikipedia: A Bold Experiment in Community

I’m a big fan of collaborative writing. So no wonder I found Andrew Lih’s book about the world’s largest collaborative writing project fascinating: The Wikipedia Revolution: How a Bunch of Nobodies Created the World’s Greatest Encyclopedia.

Wikipedia is often my first read when I need a quick explanation or overview of a topic. I knew that Wikipedia was user generated, but I hadn’t given much thought to how it came about or just how many users it took to generate more than 13,000,000 articles in more than 260 languages. Turns out, what was started by a group of hackers now counts more than 75,000 Wikipedians as active contributors. In his book, Lih tells the story of  Wikipedia’s unlikely conception and its phenomenal growth.

 I found Wikipedia’s vision even more awesome than its size: “Free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” The concept of free extends far beyond not paying to access the content. Wikipedia embraces the concept of “copyleft.” Anyone is free to copy, modify and redistribute content.

Wiki technology pre-dates Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales, one of Wikipedia’s founders, thinks that Wikipedia's genius is not technology. Wales sees Wikipedia as a social innovation: a way of creating community. Anyone can become part of the community and create, edit, or verify content.

Surprisingly, the Wikipedia community operates with few rules. (One of the rules is “Wikipedia does not have firm rules.”) Its underlying principle is grounded in the computer hacker culture which embraces sharing and assumes good faith: “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.”

A few core policies reinforce Wikipedia’s purpose:

• Neutral point of view. It's an encyclopedia not an editorial.
• Verifiability. Wikipedia articles are heavy on citations.
• No original research. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia’s goal is to summarize existing writing and scholarship.

Does the Wikipedia community work? For the most part it works astonishingly well. While errors occur in content, and there are turf wars, the massive number of contributors and users assure its accuracy. The more popular an article, the more likely it is to be accurate, since the large number of eyeballs policing it ensure that errors are quickly fixed. Because each article contains numerous references, it’s easy for users to check the source of the information to determine credibility and accuracy.

Like me, you might find the idea of contributing to the world’s largest encyclopedia intimidating. What if I screw it up? Since Wikipedia tracks each change, it’s hard to mess up: you can always revert to the previous version. (To see the log of changes for an article, click on the history tab.) Afraid of committing a grammar offense? A battery of volunteer editors corrects usage errors.

 If you are still feeling timid about clicking the edit tab, you can start small. The Help Out section of the Community Portal page contains a list of tasks you can do. (For example, expand an article, copy edit, verify sources). Still not ready to become a full-fledged Wikipedian? Play around with the editing functions in the Sandbox.

One warning about getting involved in the Wikipedia community. Lih recounts how many people become addicted or even obsessed. (More productive than frittering away time with online solitaire or poker). Forewarned!

--Marilynne Rudick

How to Give Chocolate-Worthy Writing Feedback

One morning last week I opened my front door to find a basket of Godiva chocolates. It was sent by a colleague who had asked me to critique his film script. A note said that my feedback had helped him complete a successful revision.

This was a first. A writing critique more often induces distress, not dark chocolate. Who hasn’t reeled from the trauma of getting back a school or work document riddled with cross-outs and comments by the reviewer? A paper may have earned a failing grade. But worse is the work document emblazoned with the dreaded word: rewrite.  

Receiving and giving feedback have their own pitfalls. If you are on the receiving end, it’s hard not to take the criticism personally. You’ve given it your best shot. Revise? What? How?

If you are the reviewer, it is disappointing to get a draft that doesn’t meet your expectations. You are annoyed at having to spend your time reviewing and editing. So maybe your comments are a little curt. The tension escalates if there is a deadline or if the revision is still inadequate.

So how do you give (and receive) feedback that garners Godiva? And most importantly, how do you get the results you want—a good piece of writing produced with as little blood, sweat, and tears as possible?

It’s Not Personal, It’s Business
Remember you are discussing a document—not a person. If you are the reviewer try: This section doesn’t seem logical. Not: You’re not logical! If you’re the writer try: I thought the purpose was to. . . . Not: You said you wanted. . . .

Think Fix, Not Failure
If you are the reviewer, give actionable feedback. Instead of marking a section and scrawling Fix! Tell the writer what to fix:  Support your main point with relevant examples.  Instead of Wrong tone, tell the writer what’s wrong: Too much jargon.  Rewrite a sentence or two to illustrate the tone you want.

Message First, Typos Last
It is so satisfying to find a spelling or grammar error in someone else’s writing. It’s hard not to immediately correct these errors as you give the document a first read. Resist the temptation. Focus on the document's message first. If it is off message, you’ve wasted your time correcting mechanical errors on a section that might be rewritten or deleted. After reading for message, focus secondly on organization and structure. Then finally focus on mechanical issues—wordiness, typos, spelling and grammar errors.

Giving useful feedback trains writers. (I believe that good writers are made not born.) It might seem easier to just rewrite the damn thing—especially if a deadline looms. But if you do that it is difficult for the writer to improve; it's likely you'll be rewriting his next document, too. 

If you are the writer who gets a document from a reviewer with vague or unhelpful comments, ask to meet in person and press for actionable feedback.

You can diffuse the tension in a writer-reviewer relationship if you think of writing as collaborative. (See my post: Enlisting Reviewers, Editors, and Cold Readers as Writing Collaborators.) Both the writer and reviewer are working together to produce a piece of writing that serves the reader.

--Marilynne Rudick

Enlisting Reviewers, Editors, and Cold Readers as Writing Collaborators

I spent a number of years writing and trying to sell screenplays to Hollywood. Scriptwriting is a collaborative process. Before a movie finds its way onto the screen, it has gone through  multiple rewrites. In addition, producers, directors, actors, editors, cinematographers, and musicians have provided input and changed (improved!?) the original script.

Screenwriting is intentionally collaborative. But I believe that all writing should be collaborative. While you are the sole author, your writing can benefit from collaboration with readers, reviewers, and editors during all steps of the writing process.

First off, writing is a two-way process. Unless you are writing diary entries, you are writing for readers. That implies collaboration. Your job as a writer is to answer your readers’ questions. You may know their questions. But many times, because you are so entrenched in the subject, you may not come at it from the readers’ point of view. So brainstorming questions with potential readers is a good way to start the writing process. This seemingly extra collaborative step can save you time down the pike. It gets you headed in the right direction, so you spend less time rewriting.

The answers to readers’ questions provide the framework for your first draft. Now it’s time for the second tier of collaborators—reviewers. Your organization may have a formal review process. Perhaps colleagues or your supervisor provide comments and feedback.

But outside of the formal process, consider an informal review. Find someone unfamiliar with the subject matter and uninvolved in the project who comes to the review cold. Can your “cold reader” understand what you’ve written? What unanswered questions does he have? If your document is technical or scientific, your cold reader might not understand the details, but he should grasp the message and main points. If he doesn’t, work at simplifying and honing your message so that you don’t need a PhD to get the essence.

At this point, you're ready for editorial collaboration. I’m surprised at how many people have a friend or a family member—child, parent, spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend—review and edit their writing before they submit it. Often these aren’t professional editors but people who “are good at” finding chinks in the structure, fine-tuning grammar, and spotting typos.

People are often reluctant to acknowledge this unofficial editorial support. But there is nothing unprofessional about it. I’m lucky to rely on my E-WRITE partner Leslie O’Flahavan to review my writing. By the time I’ve gotten to the final edit stage, it’s hard for me to spot grammar and usage errors. So I welcome the fresh eyes of a good editor. It also helps that I’m married to a fifth-grade spelling bee champion.

If you’re not lucky enough to have family or friends to collaborate on a final review, it’s worth “friending” someone with the editorial skills you need—a person whose writing you admire or who always catches errors in grammar.

Enlisting editorial support throughout the process will improve your written product. When it is ready to submit or publish, you'll feel confident knowing that your document has been thoroughly vetted.

--Marilynne Rudick

 Look for an upcoming post on how to review a document and give useful feedback.