Category: Literacy

I’ve been reading an eARC by invitation today (the invitation consisting of a request to not[e] (Thanks Colin!) errors that “might have slipped by” editing/proofreading, and submit them via email before final publication). Most of the errors have been either homophonic (such as “peak” for “pique”) or mistakenly writing compound words as two separate words, with only a few actual word misuses not attributable to homophonic errors.

Almost all the mistakes are likely due to the writer having a larger _verbal_ vocabulary than is available in written form to the writer. This can really only be mended by more reading of well-written text by the writer. Until then, the writer is at the mercy of editors and proofreaders whose (and that was one: using “whose” when “who’s” was required) literacy may well–as seems to be the case with this eARC–be no better than the writer’s own.

Oh, and LOADS of misplaced commas, as well as just plain old everyday missing commas. VERY few comma splices, though. That’s nice.

Now, there are likely a number of problems I have not made note of for the writer, since I am NOT line-editing this book but just noting things that jump out at me. Line editing is demanding work, and I’d have to charge for that.

I have seen this several times, including in Mass MEdia Podpeople Hivemind “reports,” and while I celebrate what folks are trying to say, I find it distressing to see such widespread evidence of subliteracy that apostrophe abuse like this demonstrates. Think it through. “Apostrophe + s” indicates either possession or a contraction of the noun with a verb e.g. is, has, was). The former is nonsense here. If this were to indicate the latter, then it would still be nonsense, because not only would it be nonsense, but IF the possessive form of the plural of “Bundy” were used, it would be be the proper plural form (Bundys) followed by an apostrophe: Bundys’.

This is just basic literacy. Writing nonsense English indicates a stunted ability to understand written English. But, of course. . .

. . . in English, at least. One stand-out giveaway that some wannabe writer is both pretentious and a lazy subliterate: using subjective case pronouns as objects, rather than using the proper objective case.

Typically, these sorts of poorly-read, poorly-educated boobs use I, she, and he in place of the correct me, her, and him as objects of verbs or prepositions, apparently thinking it sounds “classy” or at least that it is correct. Some even rationalize it, when confronted, with an argument of an assumed subsequent verb that would convert the object into a subject, but that’s just a back-formed excuse.

There are many such examples of simply execrable grammar, syntax, and word misusage that are hallmarks of subliterate pretensions to literacy, but this one is a dead giveaway. Such wannabe writers should–and would, if they had any worthwhile ethics whatsoever–enroll in remedial English classes, and keep taking the classes until they are able to at least pass the course.

Saw a “meme” calling for the tearing down of a statue of Lenin, because he was responsible for “starving five million Ukranians in one year!” *sigh* Boggled my mind. I related that to my (librarian) Wonder Woman and she had the same reaction I did: “Get your facts right!” Yeh, in 1921, Lenin had grain shipped from Ukraine to Moscow (food shortage in Moscow was the stated reason) for a while, but relented when Ukranians experenced a drought. Eight years AFTER Lenin died (1932) STALIN began his program of deliberately starving Ukraine into submission. Low end estimates of deaths: ~7,000,000. Stalin, not Lenin.

Gee, I thought EVERYONE knew this stuff. . . but I mistakenly attributed a higher level of literacy to “everyone” than I should have.

This kind of stuff ain’t rocket science. Folks have to work really hard to be this ignorant.

One of the problems I see and hear in the speech and writing of contemporary native (ab)users of English is a baffling lack of an ability to grasp simple tenses. Example: Writing about an event in the past of a character,

“If he knew, he probably would think twice.”

#gagamaggot

No, “If he had known, he probably would have thought twice.”

OK, even that construction is a wee tad stupid as a statement, but at least it would have properly reflected the circumstances the writer attempted to convey. (Better: “In hindsight. . . ” but the writer’s vocabulary didn’t seem to stretch that far, if other text is any indication.)