spelling in stories

[4glory6]

I do have (him)her on ignore, because of (her)his abusiveness primarily, and partly because of the provably false statements (s)he made when (s)he first joined. I have never commented on the quality of (his)her editing, because I know nothing of how (s)he edits, save that (s)he seems to think that CMS is holy writ for the entire world, which is also false.

No, I will not cite chapter and verse on the false statements because I don't want to be dragged in to a pointless "Tis" "Tisn't" argument with (her)him or (his)her surrogates. Others are free to worship as they please.

If you don't want to argue with him or his surrogates, you might stop sniping at him. And you are an ass for your occasional swipes at what he might have posted but you're not sure because you have him on ignore.

Your opinion on what he ever posted is just yours--and your opinion isn't worth much to me at the moment.

Also, for publishing in America, what exactly is your objection to the use of a standard like CMS? Do you really think that competent editors fly on their own opinions when editing someone else's work? Are you that arrogant?

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... Also, for publishing in America, what exactly is your objection to the use of a standard like CMS? Do you really think that competent editors fly on their own opinions when editing someone else's work? Are you that arrogant?

Each publisher has their own standard; some use CMS and some do not. If they are paying me for my work, they set the rules.

If I am publishing for free, then I set whatever standard I like, and I spell words I write the way my standard requires.

As to using CMS exclusively on Literotica, that is simply US extra-territorial arrogance. Literotica are not publishing in the USA, they are publishing worldwide, and you should be accept that there are authors on here from far more than one country.

 

[sr71plt]

As to using CMS exclusively on Literotica, that is simply US extra-territorial arrogance. Literotica are not publishing in the USA, they are publishing worldwide, and you should be accept that there are authors on here from far more than one country.

Ahem. If you actually read my posts, you would see that I try hard to separate the standards and do not claim that CMS is the standard for British writing either in the market or here on Literotica (although many British publishers do use CMS as their basic authority). CMS is the overwhelming authority for U.S. publishing, though, so if an author/editor asks a question about U.S. usage, it is the natural authority to use in giving guidance.

This is in contrast, by the way, to you, who invariably give the British standards or just your own personal quirks to whoever is asking no matter what their market is.

I think the bottom line here is not the standards I use but your snootiness in not recognizing any form but the British--and your own personal opinion--on what is predominately an American author/reader site.

As for the period in which I started weighing in on this part of the forum, it was a period in which you and two others were giving imperial judgments that did not respond to the market in which the writer was writing and were quite often both just your made-up views and were flatly wrong by any acceptable publishing standard. I just think you have your nose out of joint for no longer being able to sit on your throne comfortably and with having to face someone who actually cites an authority when giving advice--and for having been shown out to be wrong so many times.

Not that you'll read this, since you feel free to comment on my posts and advice given without actually reading them, but others will, and I hope they will look for the balance in advice given as it affects their own writing and writing questions.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

Ummm, no they aren't. They are capitalization and punctuation errors. Capitalization is presentation, not spelling. And punctuation has nothing at all to do with word spelling.

But, regardless. Anyone who doesn't use capitalization isn't taking editing very seriously.

i don't use cap. in lit speak meself.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

i frequent Literotica.com about daily and read stories from about all the categories.
As i read i tend to correct/want to correct spelling in a lot of the stories. I use English UK as i grew up with this.
i'm available to help with this if required.
please submit or contact me on my email as registered.

there are a couple of threads scattered around here somewhere where the writer doesn't use english as their first language; i don't have time to link their position at present, but when and if i manage to find any i'll pass them on. quite often they are pleas for just this kind of help.

 

[sr71plt]

i don't use cap. in lit speak meself.

But are you advertising as an editor or proofreader? Don't you think it makes a difference?

You don't make a point of writing expertise by not following basic writing norms on a literary site--especially when you are claiming you can help other people's writing.

 

[4glory6]

"If I am publishing for free, then I set whatever standard I like, and I spell words I write the way my standard requires."

Your own words. I think this is central to why you snipe as you do. And I think it is quite telling of you as an editor. I can see why you feel threatened when someone cites a written authority here.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... The trick is, I think, to be consistent and always write consistently to the convention one knows best
... British [conventions are] in "Fowlers Modern English Usage" and the OED. ...

"If I am publishing for free, then I set whatever standard I like, and I spell words I write the way my standard requires."

Your own words. ...

As ishtat said, those of us fortunate enough to have been educated at a decent school in the UK use "Fowlers" as our standard. I did not mean that I made it up as I went along, as so many authors here seem to do.

... I think this is central to why you snipe as you do. ...

The verb "to snipe" meaning "to make a contribution to a discussion"?

... I can see why you feel threatened when someone cites a written authority here.

I only feel threatened when I am told that to write "properly" I must conform to CMS although I write in the Queen's English as opposed to the US version. As I said before CMS is not Holy Writ to be used world-wide, however much Americans may believe they own the whole world.

 

[sr71plt]

As ishtat said, those of us fortunate enough to have been educated at a decent school in the UK use "Fowlers" as our standard.

Well, that certainly is snotty. And it says so much about you.

The verb "to snipe" meaning "to make a contribution to a discussion"?

If you choose to decide that was the contextual meaning, that says a lot about you too.

I only feel threatened when I am told that to write "properly" I must conform to CMS although I write in the Queen's English as opposed to the US version. As I said before CMS is not Holy Writ to be used world-wide, however much Americans may believe they own the whole world.

And no one has told you that. You write (or maybe you do. There's no evidence on Lit. that you write at all) in the UK. The advice on the CMS has been given to those writing in the U.S.--and was given because writers writing in the U.S. and on a predominately U.S. story site asked for best practice.

I myself try--when I haven't forgotten to--to determine what system the writer is writing in before giving the appropriate advice for the system.

But, of course, you don't know I try to do that, because you have me on ignore and couldn't possibly intelligently comment on the advice I give here (although not reading my advice doesn't stop you from commenting on it, now does it?--which also says a lot about you).

 

[ishtat]

As ishtat said, those of us fortunate enough to have been educated at a decent school in the UK use "Fowlers" as our standard. I did not mean that I made it up as I went along, as so many authors here seem to do.
.

If you preface a comment with "as Ishtat said" the implication is, even without quotation marks that I said the words that followed. In this instance I did not and am happy to advise readers that the extra emphasis is all yours.

 

[sr71plt]

For the record, I have and use Fowler's also (the 1983 edition, reprinted in 1996. Editions after that are by a different group of people and have come under considerable controversy). I consult it as well--and cite it when I find useful application to a current issue. The older Fowler's is used as a standard by U.S. fiction publishing houses alongside, but not superseding, the CMS. Publishers like to have clear, definitive choices made for them, and, on the whole, CMS does that for the U.S. market. Fowler's tends to just ignore anything that's a real conundrum (the CMS does this itself to a lesser extent) and is known for long, convoluted, sometime incomprehensible discussions given imperially with nose in the air, though (So I can see why Snooper likes it). It isn't the first source consulted when an editor is in a hurry for clear, objective guidance.

I think the difference here is an appreciation for the different markets and not being imperial and caprcious with personal, unsourced, quirks in giving advice.

Professional editors are trained not to look down their noses at the authors, or to be imperial or provincial with them, and to work with them in their own writing environment. If professional editors choose to do free work, they also aren't the type of people who deny their free clients the same authority-sourced help they would give a paying client. They don't change their standards based on their paycheck.

 

[ishtat]

Having read sr71plt's previous post I thought I would include the attached book review of the 3rd edition of Fowlers As the reviewer notes it is a complete re-write of Fowler's book and whilst Burchfields 3rd edition is not as much fun as the older Fowler it is a much more reliable reference.

Henry Fowler was extraordinarily successful partly because appealed to his countrymen by promoting the prejudice that British English was superior. Brilliant marketing, not so brilliant scholarship.

http://www.lexscripta.com/pdf/fowler.pdf

 

[sr71plt]

Having read sr71plt's previous post I thought I would include the attached book review of the 3rd edition of Fowlers As the reviewer notes it is a complete re-write of Fowler's book and whilst Burchfields 3rd edition is not as much fun as the older Fowler it is a much more reliable reference.

Henry Fowler was extraordinarily successful partly because appealed to his countrymen by promoting the prejudice that British English was superior. Brilliant marketing, not so brilliant scholarship.

http://www.lexscripta.com/pdf/fowler.pdf

Hmmm. I'll have to give the new edition another look. When the Non-Fowler edition of Fowler's first came out, I was working as the managing editor at an academic press and all of the editors were coming in with complaints on sloppiness and inconsistencies in the book and we decided--as other presses were doing--just to keep our old Fowler's. Perhaps they've gotten those issues ironed out now.

 

[ishtat]

Hmmm. I'll have to give the new edition another look. When the Non-Fowler edition of Fowler's first came out, I was working as the managing editor at an academic press and all of the editors were coming in with complaints on sloppiness and inconsistencies in the book and we decided--as other presses were doing--just to keep our old Fowler's. Perhaps they've gotten those issues ironed out now.

You will find there are still some issues but it was high time some of Fowlers rather antiquated ideas were shown the door. Trouble is we were so used to them (myself included) that even the faults had become old friends.