HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Dec. 22, 2004 For any of you that have been able to stay awake while reading my frequent posts to this site, you may recall my frequent defense against charges of improperly criticizing another contributor’s writing. Based on the sheer quantity of those charges, you might assume my sin was greater than the three sentences I quoted in my last post (I Look Forward….Dotage), but it wasn’t. Those polite sentences are the only basis for those charges. But, being accused, I searched within myself for any evidence that I deserve these malicious attacks. My accusers seem like honest and good people in all their other posts, what did I do, other than those three polite sentences, to deserve their ire? Alas, other than defending myself more expertly than they lie, and counterattacking more viscously than their unprovoked attacks on me, I can find nothing. So, I asked an expert. Paula LaRocque is an Assistant Managing Editor and Writing Coach at the Dallas Morning News. She writes a regular column on writing for Quill magazine, the Dallas Morning News, and for the APME News. She has conducted writing workshops for scores of newspapers in the United States and Canada. A television special, The Writing Coach: With Paula LaRocque, premiered in Dallas in 1993 and airs periodically on PBS stations around the country. Below are the email I wrote her, and her response. Nothing monumental, but I thought I would share nonetheless. On Dec 19, 2004, at 7:52 PM, Ron Lewis wrote: Ms. Larocque, I am a huge fan of your column and enjoy learning about words and their usage. Thank you for writing. I have a problem and hope you may be able to help or make a suggestion. I have recently begun posting essays on several online editorial sites. Two of the sites have fairly proficient contributors and I enjoy reading everyone's work. A third site is less formal and the quality of writing varies greatly. I have this, perhaps, naive concept that one should strive to make their writing as grammatically correct as is reasonably possible. I do not expect perfection and my own work invariably has a misspelling, typo, or misplaced comma. However, several writers consistently have a dozen or more errors in a short (~ 500 word) article, often rendering their work almost incoherent. As you might guess, politely making a private suggestion to them that the use of Spell/Grammar Check would eliminate most of those errors invariably results in an angry reply. I now have been publicly vilified onsite as being extremely critical although my suggestion could not have been more polite without sounding sarcastic. I've tried to make an argument for good grammar based on leaving a proud heritage and respect for our language to our future generations. It fell on deaf ears. Do you know of any articles that present a convincing argument for improving one's grammar that I could share with those readers? Or, maybe you have another suggestion for motivating that result? I hate to think that my best choice is to simply accept that many do not care, even though a couple have literally made that statement, but I also do not want to affirm my title of Grammar Police by continuing to critique. Thank you, in advance, for any help you may offer, and again, for the wonderful column. Sincerely, Ron Lewis ----- Original Message ----- From: Paula LaRocque To: Ron Lewis Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 10:43 AM Subject: Re: grammar police When the small-minded or unwise are criticized, even justifiably and constructively, their technique is either to abuse the critics, or to try to discredit them. The logic seems to be "If I can discredit the critic, I can discredit the criticism." This reaction is allied to the "kill the messenger" response. Everyone would rather be praised than blamed, yes. But you can judge the soul of a person upon how he or she takes constructive criticism. Those with healthy and balanced egos also have healthy and balanced minds. And the enlightened mind considers criticism objectively, decides if it has merit and, if so, uses the criticism to improve. The diminished or vindictive mind is fearful and bullheaded, however; thus surrounding itself with yea-sayers, people who will endorse not only the error, but the refusal to call it error. We see this attitude every day from people in power. Your question. There are two helpful approaches. Call attention to the error gently and in private (face to face if possible). You've already tried that, and it didn't work. So the only thing left is the tone of the criticism. (I think you would do a good job there, too, judging from your note below, but it's worth thinking about.) If recipients suspect a superior "gotcha" attitude, they'll respond negatively. Acknowledge the writer's natural desire to shine, to do well. You can accompany the criticism by saying something like: ********* It's a pain in the neck, I know, to carefully police one's writing. But readers DO judge us on our polish and accuracy -- especially when our writing is all they see, as in Internet postings. And it's clear from readership studies that typos and errors in grammar, spelling, and structure DO damage credibility. So the strength and influence of our postings are destroyed by faulty mechanics. Spellchecking and grammar software alone would catch a lot of common errors, though. Most people find it hard to be grateful for even well-meant criticism, and you needn't respond. But I hope you'll appreciate my candor - - I offer it only to be helpful. ********* If I received such a note, Ron, I'd be ashamed to reply abusively, and I might consider the criticism instead of discounting it. My response might not be everyone's, though. That's their problem, finally, I guess. Hope this is helpful. Your problem is a tricky one and shared by many. Paula _______________ (Paula LaRocque's “The Book on Writing” and “Championship Writing” are available at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, and www.marionstreetpress.com.) Suffice to say, Ms. LaRocque nailed the drama that has played out on U-K between myself and my accusers. My slight and polite criticism of Mr. Ken Hughes was exactly in the tone that she recommends and anyone of strong character would have been ashamed to reply abusively. But no, Mr. Hughes went into “kill the messenger” mode and was soon joined by Mr. McCrae, Ms. Zieve, and to a lesser degree, Ms. Lloyd. On the other hand, I have throughout taken the proper approach described by Ms. LaRocque. When criticized fairly, I have responded by admitting my errors and apologizing to those I offended. And I have used their words to look at myself and improve. My accusers have yet to admit even the smallest error in their behavior and thus truly personify the “small minded and unwise” people Ms. LaRocque so astutely identifies. The truth is that a few contributors to this site are horrendous writers. I’ve not offered suggestions, except in one case, to those writers since suffering Mr. Hughes’ et al attacks, nor do I plan to although Ms. LaRocque restored my confidence. But, by all means, feel free to critique my work, in fact, I very much want you to. If you are correct, I will absolutely be thankful and gracious in my response. ------------ About the author: Ron Lewis is a software salesman extraordinaire, albeit habitually unemployed, with no significant accomplishments at age 47 other than two wonderfully talented children who take after their mother. All his friends note his keen insight, bad eyesight, doggedly jaded disposition, and rugged bad looks. A third person seems to recall that he talks too much. Email: grnacres@direcway.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
