

Show HN: Improve Your Writing – Grammar and Writing for Creators - richardofyork
https://grammarandwritingforcreators.com

======
sloak
The first bullet point reads "Learn all the important elementary to advanced
rules and errors."

How many of you had to re-read it at least once, or rescan mid-sentence, to
understand?

I won't even discuss the second bullet point: "Write skilfully, and write
powerful and eloquent blog posts, books, and more."

It's quite disturbing to see this language in a guide that is all about
grammar, writing, and the importance of being well-understood.

Or am I just a grump old man?

~~~
sgdesign
I agree the first sentence is a bit awkward (I would suggest something like
"Learn all the important rules and errors, from elementary to advanced"), but
what's wrong with the second example?

~~~
seanmcdirmid
The rhythm is all messed up. Not eloquent at all.

~~~
janderson77
Perhaps we should take a moment and remember that Grammar can be fun (or so
they tried to convince us between Saturday morning cartoons)
([http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NkuuZEey_bs](http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NkuuZEey_bs))

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Writing can be fun, grammar is just one constraint we leverage during writing,
and easily bent to meet primeval rhythm requirements. Writing is like
composing music, it is written conversation that flows as if you were talking
through the paper, with additional constraints to match the medium.

The best way to become good at writing is to do it a lot and receive lots of
critique. Style and grammar guides aren't very useful.

~~~
hkmurakami
The best example of this that we're all likely to know is "Think Different" vs
"Think Differently".

> The best way to become good at writing is to do it a lot and receive lots of
> critique.

Don't forget to read a lot! (and from a diverse set of writers too!)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
If we are talking about technical blog style writing, only a few people write
well at all, even out of those that have actual readers; in academic writing,
it is even more depressing. Better to develop a critical eye that can
recognize good and bad writing.

------
ztratar
I dislike things like this. There are _tons_ of FREE, valuable resources
online about grammar and writing.

Why pay for this book? There is no reason. There isn't anything special about
writing for "creators" \-- and if there is, this author hasn't shown
capability. Just look at the bullet points. They all end with a semi-colon.
While that can be grammatically correct, there are many accepted versions here
and a semi-colon won't do anything but simply confuse most users.

Follow best practices from the big players' splash pages. This book looks
unworthy of a reading even if it was free.

~~~
bpackard
You mean...'even if it WERE free.'

~~~
macintux
Better: 'even were it free'

------
richardofyork
I am the author, and I will try to address some of the comments:

1\. First, if you buy and read the book, your writing will definitely improve.
You will write better than you ever have. I am confident you will. Those tiny
grammar books on amazon.com wouldn't help much because many don't cover the
crucial topics for writing well. I read nearly all of them.

2\. Language is instinctual, so arguing about grammatical rules is pointless.
Take this passage from my book: "I agree with Steven Pinker, as he describes
in his book "The Language Instinct," that humans have an instinct to learn and
use language, and some nonstandard grammars and dialects perceived to be
unsophisticated and ungrammatical (Appalachian English Vernacular and Black
English Vernacular, for example) do, in fact, follow sophisticated grammatical
rules.

I will not hurl even a pebble of criticism to anyone who uses English grammar
to his or her own inclination. Instead, this book helps people who want to
improve their Standard American English and Standard British English grammar.
By “standard,” I mean the form used in academia, mainstream businesses and
books, and formal and informal writing aimed at the general public or educated
readers.

3\. For the first bullet, I combined two similar bullets into one, hence the
possible oddity. I constructed it for brevity, not for eloquence. No need to
niggle over a bullet; it's a peccadillo. Incidentally, I wrote an entire
chapter on how to write eloquent prose.

4\. Ztratar, I presume you would agree that books are not useless. While
anyone can probably learn anything online, books are still usually more
organized and better researched than disparate articles and blog posts spread
across hundreds of websites. In fact, to my knowledge, about half of the
content in my book cannot be found online. I have devised some new grammatical
constructions and techniques for writing skillfully.

5\. Icambron, you should definitely read my book. You will learn a lot. For
example, you will learn that all those things you pointed out are actually
grammar myths (aka superstitions). I have an entire section on myths that many
people believe are legitimate rules of grammar. Many such myths abound even in
schools, including college. You should read the following article, a section
from my book; you may find some of the cool sentence constructions quite
different from the prosaic and formulaic constructions taught in schools:
[https://grammarandwritingforcreators.com/Creative_Powerful_W...](https://grammarandwritingforcreators.com/Creative_Powerful_Ways_to_Start_Sentences.pdf)

5\. Seanmcdirmid, I wrote an entire section on the rhythm and euphony of
sentences, another topic rarely found in grammar books. You can read this new
figure of speech that I have devised (unrelated to rhythm, but all the
examples employ rhythm):
[https://grammarandwritingforcreators.com/Conceal_Reveal_Arti...](https://grammarandwritingforcreators.com/Conceal_Reveal_Article_FINAL.pdf)

~~~
nekopa
I read through you new figure of speech, and I don't see why you class it as a
figure of speech. Wikipedia defines a figure of speech as "A figure of speech
is the use of a word or a phrase, which transcends its literal interpretation.
It can be a special repetition, arrangement or omission of words with literal
meaning, or a phrase with a specialized meaning not based on the literal
meaning of the words in it, as in idiom, metaphor, simile, hyperbole,
personification, or synecdoche." From what I read in your explanation of your
idea, you've just creates a phrase with a literal meaning. Would you care to
explain further why you regard it as a figure of speech?

------
sgdesign
By the way, Richard is also the guy behind JavaScript Is Sexy
([http://javascriptissexy.com/](http://javascriptissexy.com/)), a great blog
about JavaScript (I always recommend his "How To Learn JavaScript Properly"
post: [http://javascriptissexy.com/how-to-learn-javascript-
properly...](http://javascriptissexy.com/how-to-learn-javascript-properly/) )

------
janderson77
Perhaps you are indeed a "grump" old man, as both those cited sentences are
grammatical.

~~~
macintux
Many awkward sentences are grammatical.

------
zachshallbetter
This book was written by one of my favorite programmer bloggers. His blog
javascriptissexy.com is sincerly a consistant reference for me. Don't knock it
until you've read it.

