. . . when subliterate grups write blurbs for their own self-pub books:
“thriller that will have you bolted to the edge of your seat”
#gagamaggot
Just One More Reason to Deplore the “New Truckers’ Version”
I’ve seen a few citations of John 3:16, as mistranslated by the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV), in the run-up to Xmas:
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
I deplore the “New Truckers’ Version” (NIV) in part because of rather gross mistranslation like this. My only gripe with this is that “monogenes” does NOT mean “one and only son” but “only begotten son”. The two are rather profoundly different.
“One and only” is easily impeached by other scriptural passages, even without simply translating “monogenes” correctly. Adam is called a son of God; Israel is called sons of God, Jesus calls peacemakers sons of God; the resurrected, those who have faith in Christ, etc.: all “sons of God” according to scripture. Jesus is the only BEGOTTEN Son of God: unique, no other like Him.
Yes, I know more and more commonly illiterate folks nowadays might stumble on “begotten,” but that’s just another reason for Xians to be more literate, so we can explain things like the virgin birth, the miracle of the Incarnation.
Or heck, give ’em a dictionary.
Don’t Trust; Verify
Every time I hear someone–especially medical professionals who should know better for many reasons–mispronounce words such as “tinnitus” I bemoan the state of “edumacationism”. (Many medical “professionals” mispronounce “tinnitus” to rhyme with “artritis,” an inflammatory condition, hence the “itis” suffix. Medical professionals, of all people, should know better in the case of tinnitus. Just sayin’.)
When one runs across professionals in a field who aren’t even literate in their own field, turn around and walk away.
Trad-Pubs Just DGARA, Now
I’m used to seeing execrably poor editing from ~80% of self-pub books. I can almost understand lone writers either eschewing the expense of paying for good editing (content, line editing), because it’s expensive. Almost. Some, relying of “beta readers” from among their friends and acquaintances (or merely from semi-random tightwads who want a free read) think they can substitute such beta readers’ comments and observations for decent editing. They’re almost always wrong, since most of their acquaintances are no more literate (well-read) than they are, but sometimes they get a wee bit of help that way.
OK, I can almost understand that mindset, almost tolerate it. I can’t excuse it, though.
But what is worse is that books by established authors from traditional publishing houses are starting to read more and more like sloppily edited (or UNedited) books from self-pubs. Seriously, what’s up with that? Purchasing a book from a tad-pub should come with the expectation of value added in editing, at the very least! The last two hardcopy books I read by [a well-established bestselling author who shall go unnamed] had me wondering if the publisher had simply eaten its editorial staff. In the past, this writer’s books had far, far fewer errors of fact (stupid errors that kick suspension of disbelief off the rails in police procedurals/mysteries), grammar and word mis-usage than I ran into page after page after page in these last two books.
Seriously, is trad-pub simply giving up or does it expect readers to just swallow the crap anfd keep buying its over-priced, value-subtracted offerings?
Baffling, Massive Illiteracy
I don’t get people who say “calvary” when referring to “cavalry.” I mean, hello! One refers to horseback-mounted soldiers, and it ain’t “calvary,” because that has nothing to do with horses. Cavalry, however, entered English via the Norman French cavalier, from cheval (HORSE!), etc.
Of course, it takes a minimal literacy to get this, beyond simply reading the word and learning how to pronounce it from that. Confusing “cavalry” with “Calvary,” the famous location of Christ’s crucifixion? That takes both a failure of basic, extremely minimal literacy and a MASSIVE historical/cultural illiteracy as well.
Oh, self-made morons who make this astounding error do NOT get a “bye” because they mislearned it by hearing another self-made moron saying “calvary” when meaning “cavalry.” Nope. Even there I sneer at their empty braincases, because they are so very poorly read (no excuses; that’s their bad choice) and too butt lazy and self-enstupiated to remedy that problem.
OK, someone with an innate IQ under 70 might well get a bye. All others (and they are legion), nah.
Stupid Errors in English Usage: Profoundly Stupid Misuse of “I”
I/me: I just cannot get my head around people who can’t figure subjective/objective case and consistently use “I” improperly. This is not one of those confusing or difficult English rules; it’s really extremely simple to keep straight. The most common misuse is something like, “The dog followed John and I to the door.” Simple to see how very stupid that is: just take “John” out of the sentence. “The dog followed I to the door.” See? Really dumb.
In days of yore, when “literate” had a chance of connoting “well read,” this problem was at least uncommon in published works, but today? Nope. Writers and editors nowadays are, well, let’s be generous here, less than literate, and certainly NOT well read.
A Reader’s POV
I read a lot of books, by most folks’ measures. In the last few years, the mix has skewed more strongly toward fiction, partly as a result of reading so many articles and blog posts online–a real mixed bag of (mostly) non-fiction. I do still read non-fiction books, though, although the mix there is tending more toward DIY books of various kinds, now, with fewer and fewer sci-tech, philosophy, history, and suchlike.
How many is “a lot”? Generally more than one/day, a little more than twice as many as the average American reads each year,* according to some, but nothing to brag about. The only reason I say as much is that I think–perhaps–I have some sort of feel about what’s being published nowadays, both from “traditional” publishing and “indie” publishing, and I have to say, it’s mostly crap.
You read that right. I read more than a book a day, but I start and “circular file” at least 2 more that aren’t worth my time. And what makes them not worth my time?
- jejune plots, characters, dialog, and narration that could be better done by the average lobotomized fifth grader
- execrable English: everything from words misused (MANY of them!) to grammar apparently straight from a reference titled, “Stupid English for Stupid People”
- an insulting lack of homework/research done and overall dumbfounding ignorance about topics keyed to plot or characterization (example: when a writer doesn’t know the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and a revolver but is writing a character whose weapons proficiency is key, it’s insulting)
- baffling, completely, totally and absolutely stupid lack of internal agreement: Hey! That truck the character is now driving was a mini-van on the previous page!
And that’s just considering the fiction. On non-fiction, consider instructions in a DIY book to do things on a project in a way that WILL NOT WORK, CANNOT WORK, ARE COMPLETELY STUPID. Insulting the reader or targeting stupid people as the writer’s intended market? Either way, crap.
And no, let me repeat: these issues are not limited to “indie” books. The standards for both text and editing in books being published–by whatever means–is in the toilet nowadays.
But. . . of the books I give a shot at my eye time, one in three is still worth reading, so there’s that. *sigh*
Still, that’s slightly better than the one in five or six links to new (to me) voices on the Internet that are worth reading. That’s ~16%-20% of the links I follow from articles, searches, etc. Not bad, really, when talking about the interwebs. So, why I expect better from published (by whatever means) books? Because these writers expect to be paid for their writing. If they’re going to be paid, they ought to make sure they have the chops to write well and they ought to do their homework and PAY FOR LITERATE copy editing and line editing, since few writers are capable of performing those tasks themselves. (I have read advance reader copies–pre-editing–from a few writers that are remarkably clean, well-edited already by the writers, but such writers are few and far between.)
Note to writers: LEARN how to write. If you want to write in English, LEARN THE LANGUAGE. No, growing up speaking it doesn’t count. READ a LOT of well-written text. Concentrate on writers who can really write. No, not writers who write like you do. (In another recent post, I suggested a couple of writers whose command of English exceeded that of 99% of writers today. That sort of writer.) From there, proceed to writer who really challenge you, but STAY AWAY FROM SUCKITUDINOUS FICTION! After a few years focused on well-written text, then try writing again. Next: Find editors/proofreaders outside your circle of friends and acquaintances, editors/proofreaders who are more literate, better-read than you are. Pay them what they’re worth to fix your crap.
That might make an otherwise bad piece of dreck worth reading, IF you do the rest of your homework and either have an interesting story to tell or a useful skill to impart.
Maybe.
One of the funniest/stupidest things I’ve seen in a recent “slush pile reject” was a repeated misuse of “ridden,” as in “the bullet-ridden car” referring to a car that had been thoroughly riddled with bullets. A sure sign of an a-literate writer whose exceptionally weak verbal vocabulary exceeds that of his reading vocabulary. The rest of the thing wasn’t any better, but I did waste 20 minutes on it, just to be as fair as possible.
*Excluding those who claim to have read no books, the average read (by those who have read any books at all) is generally reported as ~7. Oh, no reference/link? Use your search-fu, Grasshopper. 😉
Signs of Subliteracy
Writers, especially those who self-publish, should always have someone who’s literate proofread the promo copy they write. After all, if the promo copy is well-written, it reflects well on the writer and if it’s not. . . Here’s an example of a writer who didn’t do that.
“Together, they find evidence of alien life, and set off in search of what maybe [sic] their only hope for survival. . . ”
Wrong. “Maybe” is an adverb meaning “possibly.” What the writer in this case either doesn’t know or was too lazy to proofread his own copy for correction (more difficult than it might seem) is that what he was groping for was “may be”–two separate words: “be” and the auxiliary “may”. Errors like this just scream “Subliterate!” when they happen more than once. . . and so it was in this case. *sigh*
Of course, “subliterates” aren’t incurable. The cure simply involves doing the “hard work” (which for a writer should be pure pleasure *heh*) of reading a LOT of well-written text. And, another “of course” *sigh*. . . of course, people who are poorly-read usually have no idea they are, and are all too often resistant to reading well-written books.
I have a prescription for such folks: Edgar Rice Burroughs and P. G. Wodehouse, to start. Neither one have any “message” to convey and both aim “merely” to entertain. Yeh, Burroughs’ books are almost boringly predictable, and Wodehouse’s books all follow the same story arc, and so can be a bit predictable as well, but they do entertain. And while entertaining, they do so with literate writing that is grammatically correct (apart from reproductions of dialect) and replete with words used properly and well. Finding a mistake of usage in one of the books written by either of these writers and it’s likely the fault of a modern transcriptionist (and missing in older versions). There are other writers who could aid in combating a subliterate’s faulty vocabulary and grammar (books by C.K. Chesterton, C.S> Lewis, and even Edith Nesbit spring to mind as easy, enjoyable literate reads), but the contrast between Burroughs and Wodehouse would be a good way to awaken literacy.
After some vocabulary building and exposure to good grammar, the subliterate student could then proceed to works by other literate writers, and thus begin to correct bad habits built from reading poor writing and begin as well to develop a vocabulary that can discriminate between “backseat” and “back seat,” between “maybe” and “may be,” etc.
End. Yeh, the rant goes on, but I’m too tired to give the voices in my head any more cooperation from my fingers. Here, let ERB stand in:
(Readers of Sci-Fi will recognize the recipient of the letter.)
Gone. . . and Mostly Forgotten
A recent article, “A Thoughtless Age,” by David P. Goldman, contemplates what has been lost from our culture.
This paragraph reminded me a bit of extended family gatherings when I was growing up. . . just a bit.
“The last place where literature is read closely by a non-specialist public might be the Orthodox Synagogue, where the Hebrew Bible is examined through the eyes of ancient as well as medieval and modern commentators. It is read not as literature but as family history, and its readers have an existential interest in the result. The Hebrew Bible, to be sure, is not all of literature, but it is the best of it (nothing in Greek or Latin compares to the grandeur of Isaiah). Most of all, it is the continuing concern of a living community which has read it together for thousands of years.”
A bunch of Baptists gathering together, talking family, current events and scripture might not be an Orthodox Synagogue, but it used to be similar. Notsomuch nowadays. . . But real questions about our place in God’s creation were at least on the table, and considered in light of the “great literature” of The Bible, literature that compasses the whole of human experience and as much of divine transcendence as can be contained in the words of men.
“As long as the ambient culture runs from the existential questions brought forth by religion, and as long as the religious public contents itself with the pap of popular culture, we will be shut off from access to the great works of the past.”
Déjà vu All Over Again
The problem with reading fiction is that there is a limited number of plots, and I’ve read them all many, many times, in so many combinations and permutations that I invariably think, “Déjà vu all over again,” when reading a novel. Characters, descriptive narrative, and minute plot variations are the interest points I read fiction for anymore. Well, that and a writer’s deftness (or lack thereof) with a story arc, etc. *shrugs* There’s enough left to feed the addiction. Re-reading exceptionally well-written fiction is quite often much more interesting than most new material available.
Non-fiction? Different criteria in many ways.