ALT.FICTION.ORIGINAL -- The FAQ (v. 2.3)
(Effective July 1, 2004)
Though FAQ stands for “frequently asked questions,” the abbreviation has
come to include what amounts to general discussions of matters of
interest to anyone who visits the group. That is what this one is like.
Here are the contents:
I. Purpose and History of the Group
II. What is acceptable in alt fiction.original and what is not?
III. How to Write a Critique
IV. How to Post: Headers, Formatting, etc.
V. Etiquette.
VI. The Archives
VII. The “Who’s Who” Page
VIII. Questions and Complaints
Appendices:
I. Grammar and Usage Reference Do***ents
II. Copyright Law
I. Purpose and History of the Group
This Usenet newsgroup, alt.fiction.original, is solely a tool for
writers and readers. Writers are encouraged to post original works, as
defined below; readers, whether writers or not, are encouraged to enjoy
those stories and to write critiques of them so that writers will become
better writers.
Sometimes discussions of stories or writing problems arise, and they are
encouraged, as long as they are “on-topic”--that is, related to problems
of writing or to questions raised by participants that have some
relation to those problems. A limited amount of “chat” between
contributors also is quite acceptable, though long conversations not
about stories might be better carried on in e-mail.
“Original fiction,” as defined by this group, means fiction in which
writers use original characters and plots, not characters and plots
derived from television, movies, books, cartoons, or any other genre.
(See below: What to post.)
The founders of alt.fiction.original believed that such a group did not
exist among Usenet groups. Other groups accept work that is much less
narrowly restricted in nature--this group was restricted to “original
fiction” only because the founders recognized that numerous groups and
Web pages existed already for “fanfic,” poetry, and other kinds of
literary work, while a group devoted entirely to original fiction did
not exist.
The group was founded in May, 1997, by Ted Brock, Patrick Stewart, and
Michael Davis. By the end of that year postings had dwindled, probably
owing to the relatively small number of Usenet readers, and it was
receiving more advertising of various sorts than stories and critiques.
Despite an attempt by Katrina Templeton, who became FAQ Keeper in July,
1998, to increase use of the group, by the end of that year the group
was, for practical purposes, dormant. It was “resurrected” in March,
1999, by a group that included Jennifer Bigley, Gene-Michael Higney,
Jane MacDonald, Don Williams, Brian Willmott, and others, and it has
flourished ever since. -- J.M.
II. What is acceptable in alt fiction.original and what is not?
Basically, we are looking for two things: your original fiction and your
comments on or critiques of other authors’ stories posted to this
newsgroup.
Original fiction is fiction written by you, using your ideas, your
characters, and your settings. Collaborative stories are fine as long as
you give credit to everyone involved. Paraphrasing someone else’s story
is not original fiction. It has been suggested that there are only a
finite number of ideas and all stories are derivations of them. Perhaps
in some sense this is true, but you have the capacity for originality;
show us what you can do.
You should expect critiques and comments on your work; if you don’t get
any, ask why not. Bear in mind that shorter stories usually receive more
comments than longer ones, and comments on longer ones are slower to
show up. If you can spare the time, be sure to read the longer
stories--after all, you may want to post a long one yourself one day. If
someone comments on or critiques your story, please have the good grace
to respond, whether you agree with the critic or not. Do your own
critiques of the work others have submitted; they’d like feedback, too.
Try to be helpful; the golden rule applies.
Besides original fiction, discussions of writing techniques, grammar,
word usage, and story ideas are most welcome. Sharing your writing
experiences and asking for help are also encouraged. Be a good neighbor.
Now for some “don’ts”:
Don’t send someone else’s story.
Don’t retell old jokes.
Please don’t submit lyric poetry; an epic in iambic pentameter would be
fine. (“Hamlet” would have been eligible.)
Don’t submit fanfic; there are plenty of other newsgroups for that.
“Fanfic” is defined as stories using characters, scenes and situations
taken from contem****ary movies, comics, or any sort of stories by an
author other than the writer.
Seriously inflammatory stories (advocating genocide, rape, slavery,
pedophilia, and other socially questionable philosophies) are not welcome.
No Spam. Spam is defined here as unsolicited posts promoting a product,
service, or site (commercial or personal) without an accompanying story
for critique or critique of a story posted in alt.fiction.original.
Don’t submit “*** stories” or ***ually explicit material; the news group
alt.***.stories is the place for such things, and if you want critiques
of such stories, you can ask for it on alt.***.stories.d, the
corresponding discussion group. This is not to say we are Puritans;
stories involving *** are perfectly acceptable, but we don’t want
****ography. We are aware that the line is not easy to draw, so we ask
you to be discreet.
Don’t become embroiled in a long, interpersonal debate on the newsgroup.
That’s what e-mail is for. -- d.f., J.
III. How To Critique
Or: “If you don’t like my story I’ll rip off your lips.”
Critiquing another writer’s fiction is like criticizing someone else’s
children; at best it’s difficult to do nicely, and at worst it can cost
you a friend, if not a limb. The main thing to remember is a variation
on a rule so familiar to all of us I won’t be able to steal credit for
it: “Treat others’ work the way you’d like yours treated.”
For example, if it were your stories under examination, you’d want them
read carefully, thoughtfully, and (I’d hope) not with the desire of
getting blind praise and hosannas whether deserved or not, but with the
shared goal of arriving at the best work of which you are capable. So my
first suggestion is to read the work of other writers in the group with
an open mind, and an eye toward helping them produce, in the end, their
best work.
Sometimes that means praise, sometimes it means helpful (or
‘constructive’) criticism, which seeks to ‘build up’ and encourage
writers, rather than ‘destructive’ criticism, which does not help
writers but rather only serves to belittle them. It’s the difference
between saying: “The grammar in this story needs work,” versus “This
writer has as much knowledge of grammar as fish do of Freud.”
If you are a serious writer (and by that I don’t necessarily mean
professional, or even published) you will know the kind of effort it
takes to finish a short story. Until proven otherwise, assume that the
writers whose work you are critiquing put the same effort into their
work as you do your own. If examination of the story shows they have not
done so, as evidenced, for example, by: obvious carelessness in spelling
(rather than the occasional typo); obvious high crimes and misdemeanors
against reasonable grammar rules; a blatant disregard for proprietary
rights of others by filching characters and/or plot devices right out of
recent stories or movies or TV shows; then tactful reprimands might be
in order.
Other suggestions would be: try to gauge what the writer’s own goals
were, and review the story with what the writer intended to accomplish
in mind. In other words, don’t berate the writer of a romance story,
because he or she did not write a new “Gone With The Wind”. Maybe the
writer wanted to write only a literary string quartet rather than a
symphony.
Evaluate a story taking into consideration the experience of the writer.
You wouldn’t want to be as critical of a first time writer of a short
story as you might be of a twenty year writing veteran with ten
published novels behind her or him. Unless you are the God of Sinai (and
the chances against this are fairly staggering), your standards are best
left firm, but flexible.
Make a distinction between what you would like to have seen happen in a
story and what the writer chose to have happen. For example, if you like
happy endings, and the writer chose a tragic ending, don’t berate the
writer for it.
Take into account personal biases, acknowledge them and their possible
effect on your judgment of the story, and try to set aside your
preference to see whether the writer’s take might have been better after
all for that particular story.
It is easy to approach the stories of others from the POV (Point Of
View) of our own specialties, otherwise known as the “If All You Have In
Your Hand Is A Hammer, Then Every Problem Looks Like A Nail” Syndrome.
If, for example, you are a whiz at grammar, it is easy to pound heavily
on the toes of a writer’s grammatical errors.
Point them out, by all means, but please refer to the Golden Rule
knockoff above and do it as gently as you can. A story may have grammar
errors and yet still be praised if it has a strong plot line or evidence
of imaginative strengths elsewhere.
There are more elements to a successful work of fiction than textbook
perfect grammar, and struggling writers need to have our strengths
pointed out, as well as the areas in which we need work. In this respect
I am including all serious writers as “struggling” ones.
If you happen to be a writer to whom ‘plots’ come easily, don’t deride
another writer for wondering “what should happen next?” Writers who
can’t think what to write about eventually either discover something
they’ve wanted to say, or they decide they do not want to put in the
amount of work required to be serious writers. They may decide that
writing, for them, will just be a hobby or pastime. They may need other
writers’ help to make that decision, but they will not need us to make
fun of their dilemma.
Having said all this, I think the basic aspects of how to arrive at good
critiques can be summed up in our making our best efforts to balance
high technical standards with tolerance of miscalculations or misfires
if accompanied by honest effort at creating the best work of which the
writer is currently capable. It takes commitment on both sides: writer
and reviewer. Which is why in AFO it is good for us to trade sides
periodically, sometimes being the writer, sometimes the critic, so we
can learn, and then share the knowledge.
Serious reviewers put serious time and effort into reviewing the work of
others, and so have a right to insist that writers be equally serious in
the construction of the works to be reviewed. But all this can and
should be done with respect and a positive regard for the people who
love words as much as we do. -- G-M. H.
IV. How to Post: Headers, Formatting, etc.
A. Headers
Your header will affect the number of people who read your work, so it’s
im****tant to make clear what you’re posting. Among other things, doing
so will distinguish your post from advertisements and the other
off-topic posts that show up frequently.
When composing a header, try to imagine what information would be
helpful for those who might want to read or critique your story. A
header would, of course, include the title of the story (or, if you
haven’t chosen one yet, a provisional title, which will make it easier
for anyone who would like to refer to the story-- “untitled” is not a
good title). Include a word count if possible.
What kind of post is it? If it’s simply a story, you could indicate that
by preceding the title with “[Story].” Be sure to include the brackets.
If, for some reason, you’re reposting one you’ve posted before, put
“RP:” in front of that. Suppose it’s a chapter from a novel or an
extract of a long story that’s not finished: you might say, “[Extract],”
or indicate right after the title that it is “Ch. 1.”
Here are a few examples of what headers might look like:
[story] Big News (1,000 words)
[Extract] Novel: “Rain,” Ch. 1 (2,500 wds)
For posting in parts: [Story] Long Fable, Pt. 1 of 2 (3,000 wds)
[Jan Chall] My January Challenge Story (2,500 words)
[shop] How to punctuate
[pers] My novel got published!
For posting in parts: [Story] Long Fable, Pt. 1 of 2 (3,000 wds)
Using this format is not mandatory, but, in general, your potential
readers would appreciate something of the kind.
B. Formatting
1. How to Post Legible Messages of Any Kind
Alt.fiction.original is, like most newsgroups, text only. This means
many things, and may put an extra hassle or two into your postings, but
we feel that it is well worth it to have everyone using the same, simple
format.
All major word processing applications include formatting in the text.
This keeps your paragraphs where they should, keeps all of the sentences
wrapping around lines nicely, and generally makes the text look
presentable. Formats are not, however, universal. They sometimes
translate quite poorly into other “formatted” programs, so you can guess
what will happen if you paste a chunk of formatted text into an email.
It comes out looking all funny, with strange half lines and sometimes
gibberish characters.
Thankfully enough, you don’t have to rewrite your entire story in the
e-mail. Simply save your do***ent as a “text” do***ent (*.txt). This can
be done easily on your word processor. When you click “save as,” you are
given options as to type of file--choose “text plain,” “MSDOS text,” or
whatever similar label is available. After you save, close the word
processor file, then open the *.txt do***ent. This removes all
proprietary formatting and standardizes the characters. Before you post
it, however, you may need to go back through your story and put an extra
hard return before each paragraph. It places a blank line between the
paragraphs, and breaks up what would otherwise have been a large
formless mass. This is a highly recommended procedure unless you are
sure your word processor produces *.txt do***ents that include the line
spaces between paragraphs. Cut and paste only from *.txt do***ents.
Another problem that you can run into is HTML formatted messages. For
some people, this is on as a default. It can lead to, again, gibberish
characters, long strings of random text instead of simple punctuation,
or worse yet lines that do not wrap. The solution is easy: open the
“Preferences” dialog box, find the “Formatting” option, and click the
box where it says to send all messages as plain text.
Now there are some other, larger issues that should be addressed. Such a
beast exists known as the binary file, and it is discouraged wherever
found in newsgroups like ours. A binary file is any file that has been
encoded into binary format for display through plain text; in layman’s
terms, its an attachment. Please refrain from attaching programs,
graphics, animations, and even stories to your messages. Many of
alt.fiction.original’s residents cannot or do not wish to download
unnecessary files. Binaries are large, and consume space with a
voracious appetite. If you have a story to post, add it on to your
message in the body as plain text.
2. Posting Long Stories
For stories that are longer than 5,000 words, it’s recommended they be
broken into 3,000-3,500 word parts. Find a suitable place to break the
story, if possible at the end of a scene or part. Copy that block of
text and paste it into the message form. At the top place the title, and
alongside it put, for example, (Part 1 of 3). At the bottom, insert
this: (Continued in Part 2). In the subject blank on the form, use
headings as recommended above in “Headers” for each part.
Some people like to include the last paragraph of the previous part as
the first paragraph in the next posted part of a story.
3. What to include in your messages to AFO
Alt.fiction.original is a close-knit community. We welcome outsiders,
but would prefer if all newcomers had the courtesy to introduce
themselves. Either as a separate message or as a short introduction to
your first posted piece, let us know who you are and what type of writer
you are, so that we can more accurately review your pieces.
In addition, it should be noted that additional headings to your stories
are needed if your story does not rate a solid “G.” We are not prudes
and don’t mind the racier or seamier aspects of life. Some people,
though, prefer to know exactly what they are going to be reading, so
that they can decide if they feel like reading about heaving bosoms at
seven in the morning. A simple disclaimer will do, forewarning the
reader about the degree of wanton violence, ***, and/or profanity you
have included. Stories that include explicit descriptions of ***ual acts
should be posted in alt.***.stories rather than in AFO.
When you post a “reply” message the message blank you are offered
usually will quote the message you are answering in its entirety. Please
be sure to cut out any ****tion of that message that you don’t need to
make your point, particularly in a critique. For example, you may want
simply to make a few comments that will amount to a short paragraph or
two; in that case, cut out all but the name of the poster and the name
of the story, write your paragraph of comments, and send. Without this
cutting, your message may be extremely long for no reason, and that can
be hard on people who download that message. If you are making a
line-by-line criticism, obviously you will need to quote a great deal of
the story; even so, you can easily cut out those ****tions on which you
have no comments. -- K.W., J.
V. Etiquette.
AFO is a group for the honest discussion of original writing, and it is
in***bent upon us to do this in a civilized manner. If you take it upon
yourself to criticise any work submitted, then please do so
constructively.
As is explained in the first part of this FAQ, alt.fiction.original
functions through a cooperative effort of its members. It is proper and
necessary for participants in the group to share their thoughts and
opinions on each other’s works. Newcomers are strongly encouraged to
comment on stories by others in addition to posting their own stories.
Critiquing will help in your own writing, and the more you critique
other people’s stories, the more critiques you tend to get yourself. No
special skills or qualifications are required to comment on a story, and
helpful guidelines on the subject can be found in Part III: “How to
Write a Critique,” above.
Sometimes experienced writers encourage newbies by commenting on their
stories and asking them to rewrite and repost. We hope the mentors will
take seriously the responsibility they incur, and respond to the
rewrites, because recipients of this kind of attention usually look
forward eagerly to further comments. Again, courtesy is always a good
idea.
Every time we post a story on AFO, we are not only laying out our work
for all to see, we are requesting others to spend their time reading and
reviewing it. Along with these unspoken requests we incur an obligation
to respond to comments that are posted about our stories. A response
might only be, “Thanks for taking thetime to read and comment,” or it
might be a point-by-point discussion of the entire critique, or it might
be something in between.
If your work receives a less than favourable critique, then simply thank
the reviewer--do not retaliate. You asked for the critique by posting
here. This newsgroup is not here for the purpose of attacking others.
Personal grievances or vendettas are best left to private mail. The best
way to deal with insulting posts is to ignore them-- answering them only
pleases the person who posted the insult and leads to further
incivility. -- B.W., J., G.-M.H.
VI. The AFO Archive
The purpose of the archive website is to give readers access to stories
previously posted on the newsgroup. Included are alphabetical lists of
authors and stories, plus reviews and a copy of the FAQ.
This Archive was begun by Jennifer Bigley in April, 1999. Brian Willmott
took it over when she became unable to continue as Webmaster of the
Archive in October, 1999. In May 2001, other obligations forced Brian to
give up the job and JeffD took over. Rick LeBlanc then took over the
duties and did a wonderful job updating the Archive with help from
original graphics by Opus. Rick did this for over a year. In 2003,
Nativelaw took over as archivist and kept it going for another year.
Currently, Dave Allyn and Joel Crum are the archivists.
In general, stories posted to the newsgroup are included in the archive
provided that they fall within the guidelines for posting. There is,
however, no _per se_ right of inclusion in the archive nor guarantee of
its continuity in perpetuity. It is maintained strictly for the
convenience of readers. If any author does not want a story added, then
he or she should say so when posting. This can be accomplished by asking
that the story not be archived, and also by posting the following
notation at the header to the story: X-no-archive: Yes. If at a later
date an author wishes a story removed, or updated with a newer version,
a request by e-mail to the address provided on the home page of the
Archive will accomplish that. You can also at any time make a blanket
request to the archivist that your stories not be included and such
request will, of course, be honored. -- B.W., Nativelaw
VII. The “Who’s Who” Page
“Who’s Who,” kept updated by the current archivist, contains a short
biography and, in many cases, a picture of any poster to AFO who wishes
to be listed.
Quite a few regular authors and critics are responsible for AFO’s almost
unique atmosphere of community. “Who’s Who” gives any poster--author,
critic or discussion participant--an op****tunity to make available a
short biography, and a picture if he or she likes, so that people in AFO
can get to know each other a little better. We hope that this page also
will help any newcomer get a fair idea of the diversity of the group.
VIII. Questions & Complaints
If you have any questions about the group or its operation, contact the
FAQ Keeper at FAQ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I: Grammar and Usage Reference Do***ents
1. Introduction, Authority, Scope, and Contents.
1.1 Objective: This appendix advises AFO on reference books covering
spelling, punctuation, grammar, (ab)use of language, and elements of
style. Expressly NOT covered is advice on how to write fiction: anybody
who has read enough of those multitudinous publications to make an
informed choice is more than welcome to try! Most UK and US speech
differences disappear in good written English, leaving a few differing
spelling conventions, the odd bias in verb participles and occasional
inconsistencies of punctuation and syntax. Both UK and US publications
are included for local availability. Suggestions will be welcomed where
obvious works have been omitted, and where works enjoy authority in
other anglophone countries.
1.2 Contents: Advice is given on how to choose within the following
categories, and suggestions follow in each sub-section: 1. Introduction,
authority, scope, contents: 1.1 Objective 1.2 Contents 2. English
dictionaries 2.1 Conventional dictionaries 2.2 Learners/students
dictionaries 2.3 Writers’ and combined dictionaries 3. Punctuation and
presentation 4. English Grammar 4.1http://afoarc.tripod.com
Definitive
reference grammars 4.2 Day-to-day general and student grammars 5.
English Usage 5.1 Standard reference books 5.2 Shorter guides and
manuals 6. Vocabulary 6.1 Thesauri 6.2 Synonyms and Antonyms 6.3 Phrasal
Verbs and Collocations 7. On-line resources 7.1 Dictionaries 7.2
Grammars etc.
2. English Dictionaries.
This first essential is more difficult to choose than it first appears.
The diversity is huge. You must define what you require. A basic
dictionary provides spelling, meaning, pronunciation. The more
substantial the dictionary, the more words it defines, and the more it
will include of names, countries and cities, abbreviations, slang and
neologisms; and the more alternative meanings, alternative spellings
(for example Scots), etymology, examples of usage, common collocations
and cross-references. It is im****tant to know that dictionaries are
*not* guides to usage. They are collections of words that have been used
by somebody, somewhere, not arbiters of proper usage, taste or style.
“It’s in the dictionary” does *not* mean that word or spelling is
acceptable in proper usage. Some dictionaries do include notes on usage,
and that feature is invaluable. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea to own a
book on usage as well as a dictionary.
2.1 Conventional dictionaries
The most definitive conventional dictionary in existence is the
20-volume, full quarto Oxford English Dictionary. A CD-ROM version is
available, and a ‘compact’ full version is sold in one volume with a
magnifying glass (no joke) for enthusiasts. Amazing facts about it can
be found at www.oed.com, and there is a Y2K project to put it on line. A
two-quarto-volume Shorter OED is the more common (and cheaper) version.
The US equivalent to the OED is Webster’s Third International Dictionary
of the English Language (1961). The 1913 edition can be interrogated on
line at http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/
webster.form.html.
Bear in mind that it is thoroughly out of date.
Many editors prefer The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language (4th edition, 2000), which includes good notes on usage.
Concise dictionaries
The next size down, practical for the average bookshelf whilst remaining
comprehensive, is the CONCISE dictionary, usually measuring about 9”x6”x
3”. All major reference publishers produce one and almost all have
recently appeared in revised editions marking the end of the century.
Most contain appendices on related subjects which may cover grammar,
punctuation, abbreviations, math symbols, foreign alphabets, proper
names and so on, so choice is personal. Examples:
Concise Oxford Dictionary definitions - various appendices, punctuation
summary.
Chambers 21st Century Dictionary - various appendices include ISO paper
sizes!
Alternative to above, favoured by publishers. Houghton Mifflin: The
American Heritage College Dictionary - also on CD-ROM with spoken
definitions.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary (US) - definitions - also on
CD-ROM and on line; style handbook, synonyms etc., see www.m-w.com.
There are also Oxford Dictionaries of similar size for American,
Australian and Irish English, for all the post-colonialists! Concise
dictionaries have tended to be revised every ten years or so, and
rapidly become shabby in paperback.
Next size down is Pocket Oxford size: the Websters New Explorer series
includes a 70K dictionary, with the useful appendices of the main
publication. If size or price is an issue, there are many smaller sizes
in paperback, down to miniatures of say 20K words. The American Heritage
Dictionary, 1995 edition in paperback, offers almost 1000 pages for
under $5 from Amazon! If your interest is only for spelling, see next
section.
2.2 Learners/students dictionaries
These are compiled for schools or for the study of English as a foreign
language, but may provide an appropriate mix for the writer with sketchy
knowledge wanting an all-round work. They range from pure spelling
dictionaries, which divide the words into their components for learning,
to advanced learners dictionaries integrating extra instruction on
grammar, usage and so on with the vocabulary. Examples: Oxford Advanced
Learners Dictionary - what it says, worth looking at. Collins ‘Cobuild’
series, designed expressly for students - (an integrated range of
reference books) Houghton Mifflin, The American Heritage Student
Dictionary - 65K entries, photos, all sorts.
2.3 Writers’ and combined dictionaries
Writers’ dictionaries are intended to provide a single source for
punctuation, grammar, usage, style and vocabulary. They are more
advanced than student dictionaries, and are for the more accomplished
English speaker. For those reluctant to invest in more than one
publication, they are recommendable. Examples:
Oxford Writers Dictionary - sections on punctuation, usage, etc.
included within alphabetical listing.
Oxford Dictionary and English Usage Guide - A two-in-one with substance
on usage, grammar, punctuation, vocab., cliches, word formation.
[Need US example, if anybody knows of one.]
3. Punctuation and Presentation
Many AFO contributors need to remind themselves of the basic rules of
punctuation. Most punctuation books also deal with more advanced style
issues, or even with publi****ng standards (not included here). The rules
may be found in many of the dictionaries above without buying a separate
work. Grammar and usage publications contain summaries and explain
common errors and subtleties.
There are a few slender publications such as the Penguin Guide to
Punctuation and Strunk & White (see section 5.1), but if you are going
to spend, get something fuller at little extra cost:
Chambers Guide to Punctuation - compact but comprehensive.
Merriam-Webster: Pocket Guide to Punctuation and style. Complete
Punctuation Thesaurus of the English Language - Branden Publi****ng Co.,
Boston, USA. - substantial, elegant; covers author****p and publi****ng.
4. English Grammar
There is no convenient dividing line between grammar and usage - works
on the one deal to some degree with the other. The following books deal
with grammar either thematically, or as alphabetical dictionaries, and
most also cover punctuation.
4.1. Definitive advanced reference grammars: Hard cover publications
(large, but paperback versions may be available) of equivalent size to
the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
Oxford English Grammar, Sidney Greenbaum - substantial, thematic grammar
by well-known expert; UK and US English, formal and informal registers.
My personal choice.
Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar - comprehensive alphabetical
reference.
4.2 Day-to-day general and student grammars: These are all published as
paperbacks of normal size (I have seen some hard cover versions). There
are hundreds of ordinary grammar books. This is a small selection.
Elementary students’ grammars are really too basic for writers in AFO.
Choose intermediate.
Oxford Pocket English Grammar - compact, thematic. [NOTE: There is a
companion Pocket Basic English Usage.]
Chambers Guide to Effective Grammar - slender, thematic. [NOTE: There is
a fatter companion Guide to Grammar and Usage]
NTC, Guide to Grammar Terms (US) - alphabetical.
The Grammar Book, Irwin Feigenbaum, (Oxford university Press; US
Edition) - thematic.
5. English Usage
Whilst grammar can be more or less fixed at a given time, usage is about
the best that current convention permits, and is a lot more subjective
and complicated. Abusage includes common errors of phrase & vocabulary.
Reference books began with Fowler’s, original compiler of the OED,
dealing with abuses in a personal manner with many examples; his
equivalent in the USA was Strunk. Both have acquired the status of
standard reference. Books are arranged thematically or alphabetically,
and I find complementary uses for each. Editions frequently have grammar
companions.
5.1 Standard reference books: The pair of Fowler books are without
equivalent in style - all others are presented neutrally - and they
require a good level of comprehension of the reader. The US offerings
and the various dictionaries on the market set high standards and are
simpler to read.
Oxford, H.Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage. - alphabetic,
unrivalled advanced English usage. Idiosyncratic, humorous, surpassing
erudition.
Oxford, H. Fowler’s The Kings English - companion to above, thematic,
grammar supplement on good English style. Difficult & enlightening, it
will reduce the best of writers to humility.
Wm. Strunk, Jr., and E.B. White, Jr., (4th edition, 2000) (US), The
Elements of Style - more than usage, a top general reference book.
(Called outdated by some, but still by far the most used reference book
of its kind in the US. The first edition is on line, but don’t use it.
The paperback is easily available and very cheap.)
Allyn & Bacon (US), Scribner Handbook for Writers - thematic. -
Single-source all-round handbook of grammar, punctuation, usage,
spelling, vocabulary, style.
The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, K.G.Wilson.
5.2 Shorter guides and manuals
There are innumerable works on good English, common errors and so on,
but the following are good cheap all-round paperback editions:
Penguin, The Complete Plain Words, Sidney Greenbaum - thematic - A
leading grammarian, author of the Oxford English Grammar, 15 years as a
US professor; standard paperback format.
The Macmillan Good English Handbook, G. Howard - alphabetic - ‘Fills the
gap left by dictionaries . . .’
6. Vocabulary
Vocabulary reference works are described generically here with few
examples since all the major publishers produce a good variety.
6.1 Thesauri: A thesaurus is a collection of words arranged by meaning,
providing a source of words related to the writer’s initial concept. The
title Roget’s Thesaurus is now generic. Most people find difficulty
understanding the arrangement of the headings, and will wish to compare
these carefully before making a choice. More is better: there is no
point in buying a small one telling you what you have already thought
of. An alphabetical index is useful, and the presentational quality will
be a factor. My own choice, based on internal appearance, is the
Bloomsbury Thesaurus.
6.2 Synonyms and Antonyms: These are words with the same or opposing
meanings. Dictionaries of synonyms and antonyms are usually arranged
alphabetically, and tend to be large in order to beat the competition in
comprehensiveness. There are many pretty volumes to choose from:
Merriam-Webster publishes one, Oxford, Cambridge, Chambers etc. Collins
also publish a similar volume called a Word finder - same idea.
6.3 Phrasal Verbs and Collocations
The phrasal verb combines with an adverb to give meaning, one classic
example being the verb ‘to get’ - get up, get out, get off and so on. It
is the power of English, and a great source of error for writers in AFO:
do you compare to or with, for example? The major publishers produce
substantial dictionaries of phrasal verbs. They are examples of
collocation, and a Dictionary of Collocations also includes non-verb
combinations such as ‘no one’.
7. Online Resources
There are a considerable number of reference resources on line. Just
page through the indexing systems of the main search engines such as
Yahoo or Alta Vista. The following are a few to get you going, and are
linked to others. The on-line time and effort are not worth it in my
opinion: I’d rather buy the publication.
The best listing resource I have found is Garbl’s Writing Resource
On-line. This lists other sites, good ones, for all the above headings
and more. Go to: http://www.garbl.com/
or
http://pw1.netcom.com/~garbl1/writing.html
Other resources below may or may not be included in Garbl.
7.1 Dictionaries:
Oxford English Dictionary http://www.oed.com/
- On-line project for Y2K
Webster Search - a complete 1913 version
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/
webster.form.html
Merriam-Webster OnLine - Dictionary - Thesaurus etc. http://www.m-w.com
- on-line service Thesaurus.com http://www.thesaurus.com/
- on-line
thesaurus
Cambridge International Dictionaries On-line
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/elt/dictionary/
7.2 Grammars, etc.
Guide to Grammar and Writing
http://webster.commnet.edu/HP/pages/darling/grammar.htm
Jack Lynch’s Guide to Grammar and Style
http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~jlynch/Writing/
On-line English Grammar http://www.edunet.com/english/grammar/index.cfm
Common Errors in English http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/errors.html
7.3 General reference
The Encyclopedia Brittanica http://www.brittanica.com/
--J.A.
APPENDIX II. Copyright Law
The comments below are not written by an attorney, but are simple
explanations. If you want real legal opinions, go to the URL listed below.
In a nutshell, anything you write and save to disk is copyrighted under
international law. In other words, when you post to Usenet, whether it’s
a story, a critique, or simply a comment in a discussion, it is
copyrighted by you.
Many writers like to post copyright notices on stories they post. This
is merely a reminder to people who might decide to steal your work; it’s
copyrighted whether you post such a notice or not.
If you think your work might be stolen and used by someone else for
profit, and you want to be able to recover damages, you have to fill out
a copyright form and send it to your home government. Suits may recover
prior damages only if this is done.
For serious legal discussion, and other links to copyright articles, go
to:
http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/
http://www.benedict.com/info/info.asp
-- J.M.
NOTE: Contributors to this revision of the FAQ are as follows:
James Acton
Peter Balfe
docfarquar
Gene-Michael Higney
Jane MacDonald
JeffD
Kieran Wheeler
Brian Willmott
Bart Hopson
WindRiver (Sue)
|
