HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Carefull, studied splatting
From: Dion_Murphy@kcbbs.gen.nz (Dion Murphy)
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:20:54 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Seems to me that I do a combination.
I think about what I'm going to write and the style, mood and point 
of the next piece I am putting down.

I will sometimes rehearse little bits in my head for the start of the 
next section and then when I have got the intro right I start the writing 
bit.

I use either a word processor, or dictaphone. Longhand is only for notes 
or individual words.
I then get it down as fast as I can, forget the typos and other mistakes 
and then come back through it next day and sort and edit and correct.

I suppose it all comes down to that old chestnut

Whatever works for you; go for it.
From: Petch@gvg47.gvg.tek.com (Chuck Petch)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Usage: To try and find the answer.
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:32:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: oboe.Petch-141092133507
Followup-To: misc.writing
Organization: Grass Valley Group

In article <Bw2ros.GFv@news.iastate.edu>, bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E
Bible) wrote:
> 
> 
> 	I recently finished reading Larry McMurtry's _Lonsome Dove_, which I
> enjoyed, but I was distracted by his frequent use of the expression 
> "... to try and <verb> ..." instead of "... to try to <verb> ...".  

According to the American Heritage English Dictionary (1992), "try and"
occurs commonly in speech but is considered too informal for use in
writing. That agrees with what I was taught in graduate school (in English)
about fifteen years ago. Apparently the times haven't changed that much.

Chuck Petch
From: Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Long hand.
Date: 7 Oct 92 18:11:35 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I find writing in long hand restrictive.  I get all those wonderful feelings
of joy and control when I'm writing on a keyboard.  The more unforgiving the
medium, the harder it is for me to write.
--
Alan Barclay


alan_barclay@mindlink.bc.ca
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: finding time to write
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:16:18 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

Christopher Conn asks how much time we spend writing, and wisely compares it
to an exercise program. It is indeed a matter of habit.

Except in those cases where the writer possesses an extraordinary metabolism
and no family or friends, a couple of hours a day ought to be plenty. If you
know what you're doing, you can use that time constructively, without
spinning your wheels and wasting your efforts.

Ideally, you pick a regular time of day and build it into a routine. Your
family gets used to your absence (or doesn't even notice it, if you pick the
early morning or a time when you're not normally underfoot at home). You use
chore time for "controlled daydreaming" about your writing, instead of the
usual futile fantasies of unlimited sex and wealth.

You also exploit "dead time," when you're trapped somewhere with nothing
better to do than read an old newsmagazine in some dentist's waiting room;
you bring along a "bible" of notes and outline and blank paper, in which you
can jot down a few lines or even pages of rough draft. (A lot of my first few
novels emerged in a looseleaf binder during faculty meetings--now that's
*really* dead time!)

If you produce as little as 500 words in 2 daily hours, you'll have a novel
of 100,000 words in 200 days.
Newsgroups: misc.writing,alt.usage.english
From: BGRISSOM@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Subject: Re: Who wants to sell Van Leunen?
Organization: University of Kentucky
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 20:01:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.080828.5434@fys.ruu.nl>
boogaard@fys.ruu.nl (Martin v.d. Boogaard) writes:
 
>
>For quite some time I've been looking for a copy of Mary-Claire van
>Leunen's `A Handbook for Scholars', published by Alfred A. Knopf,
>New York in 1979. It appears to be out of print. Would anybody who
>cares to sell me her or his copy be kind enough to drop me a line?
>
>
>Martin.
>
>Martin J. van den Boogaard                 |        boogaard@fys.ruu.nl
 
 
     This is now available in a revised edition (1992) from
     Oxford University Press for ca $30.
 
     brad grissom
     bgrissom@ukcc.uky.edu
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox)
Subject: Re: Semantics of "to be"
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 07:38:36 GMT

In article <16093@mindlink.bc.ca> Alan_Barclay@mindlink.bc.ca (Alan Barclay) writes:
>You are correct, it isn't passive.  However, the use of was is still an
>excellent indicator of the passive.

	Passive voice is used with respect to action verbs, not linking
verbs.  All forms of to be are linking verbs, which is why the question of
voice--active or passive--is as irrelevant to a discussion of 'was' as a 
discussion of tense would be with regard to pronouns.  

	Some claim that an excessive number of linking verbs spoils prose--
renders it flaccid, perhaps, or passive in some non-grammatical sense.  They 
advise that the writer use action verbs and keep them in the active voice.

	Thus, not, "The cat is on the table" but "The cat lies on the table."
(A passive voice verb--"The cat was laid on the table"--simply won't carry
the meaning intended by either linking verb or active voice verb in this 
instance.)

	Passive voice verbs become problems in constructions such as, "It was
decided that all your income will go into my pockets," which beg the obvious
question of *who* decided.

	Formations such as "The bridge was built in 1912" are, however,
unexceptionable--given that we almost certainly neither know nor wish to 
make an issue of who built the bridge when speaking or writing this
sentence.

	Joseph L. Williams advises, in _Style:  Ten Lessons in Clarity and
Grace_:

	"(1) In the subjects of your sentences, name your cast of characters.

	 (2) In the verbs of your sentences, name the crucial actions in which
	     you involve those characters."

	These seem to me good principles for writers of fiction and non-fiction
alike.


-- 
				Tom Maddox
		    	    tmaddox@netcom.com
		"The Reptoids eat humans like we eat chickens."
				Alex Alexander
From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: re: longhand
Date: 11 Oct 92 04:11:40 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada

Leanne Richard brings back fond memories...I was fortunate enough to marry a
wife who can't stand the sound of a typewriter, so my first several novels
started out in longhand; the transcription to typewriter waited until I could
get her out of the house. Leanne's right; revision is easier when you're
going from longhand to typescript. Now that I'm pathetically
computer-dependent, though, I find I still prefer scrawling a rough outline
in longhand rather than using all the bells & whistles my word processor
offers in outlining.

But hang in there, Leanne...the flexibility of the computer makes it almost
as good as a scratch pad, and when pen-based computers come into their own,
you'll be poised to exploit them!
From: oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Technical Writing...need advice
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:28:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BvrBwv.HGw@unx.sas.com>, saslpo@stevens.unx.sas.com (Len Olszewski) writes...
> 
>In article <Bvpw5G.IJ@acsu.buffalo.edu>, oispeggy@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Peggy Brown) writes:
>|> I've been reading the responses about Technical Writing and hope
>|> more technical writers will respond and give me advice on how to
>|> get started.  I may wish to be self-employed for awhile, but
>|> would like to hear about contract agreements, and how to land a
>|> full-time job too.
>|>
> 
>You may want to review some literature, or take some coursework, in
>technical communication. It's a good deal different than what they teach
>you in English Literature. There's an entire set of principles,
>practices, theories, techniques, and rules you need to know about to be
>a good technical writer. At the very least, before you solicit contract
>work or apply for jobs, you should be able to articulate whether a
>particular piece of technical writing is good, and then clearly outline
>the reasons why or why not. That's fair, isn't it?
> 

Thanks for your comments.  Can you recommend any books that deal 
with techniques of technical writing?

- Peggy -
From: cb522@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Cathy Atwood)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: re: longhand
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:39:04 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1bkru8INNv6
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


Hi!  I just jumped into this area when a nice person re-directed
my question from alt.prose.  (this would be message number 4990)
I've had some interesting responses to the posting, and have 
profited from the discussion on longhand vs. computer already
going on here.  I'm posting this as a response to message 4948,
becausof the mention of poetry.

So, do you think that the genre being created has something to do
with choice of writing in longhand or on a word processor?  If I
generalize that poetry is shorter than prose, and that the choice
of any single word might be re-worked more in poetry than prose,
does this make it more likely to be composed on a piece of paper?

I was alsolooking at the thread on managing notes.  If people
are tending to store ideas on the computer, then it would seem
they would use a word processer to write, and pull their ideas in
from the database.  Is this activity happening more with long
fiction, any length fiction, or equally with poetry!

Thanks for your time and thoughts.
Cathy Atwood
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E Bible)
Subject: ThoughtPattern info
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:52:35 GMT

Diane Olsen writes:
>
>My question is, does anyone have any experience with Thought Pattern?
>Also, does anyone know the company well enough to know
>if version 2.0 will really come out next month?  I am holding off
>buying Thought Pattern, even though I'd like to have it now, because
>I'm not about to pay its already high price of $99 for the current
>version (1.3) only to have to pay for an upgrade after just a month
>or two.  
>

	I bought 1.3 a couple months ago with the understanding that when the
new upgrade came out I would get it "free".  Free means something like $5.00
for shipping and handling.  I do not know if they still have that deal
available or not.  You might want to check since they might raise the price on
the next version.  (That is not a prediction, just noting a possibility.)
	I have not spent too much time with ThoughtPattern yet, but it seems to
be rather clever.  Someone else noted that it was not a stable piece of
software (several crashes), and I encountered that a couple times when I used
the demo.  As to whether or not 2.0 will be better, I am clueless but hopeful.
	I believe there is a demo for ThoughtPattern 1.3 available via
anonymous ftp from sumex-aim.stanford.edu in the /info-mac/demo directory.  You 
might check into that.


>If anybody's interested, I'll try to dig up an address and phone
>number for Bananafish.  I think they've even got an e-mail address,
>but I can't find it right now because I'm so disorganized (sob!).
>

     Bananafish Software, Inc.
     730 Central Avenue
     San Francisco, CA 94117

     Internet: bananafish@applelink.apple.com
     AppleLink: bananafish
     Compuserve: 72567, 44
     Voice: (415) 929-8135

This is from an old file, but I think it is probably still accurate.

	Sorry to hear you are so disorganized, but it does make me feel a
little better to know I am not alone.


Regards,
tony
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Work in Progress
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:13:35 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian) writes:

>The fun part will come in showing that the
>Exteca, for all their horridness, are also attractive, likable and maybe onto
>something about the human condition.

Writing USENET into the novel, Crawford?

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms

    I wanna drive the zamboni! I wanna drive the zamboni, yes I do.
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: ed@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ed Stastny)
Subject: Re: online poetry 'zines
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:16:34 GMT

elle@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher) writes:

>wizard@wixer.cactus.org (John P Onorato) writes:
>>Does anyone out there in net.land know of any online poetry magazines?  I have
>>quite a bit of work on hand, and would like to get it out into the world.
>>I would also like some criticism on it.

>From "List of Active Newsgroups" in news.announce.newusers:

>   rec.arts.poems          For the posting of poems.

SOUND News and Arts has poetry available and accepts submissions
(writing of any kind, for that matter).
 
...e

--
 ____                     + Editor, SOUND News and Arts magazine
|____                     + PO BX 31104, Omaha,NE 68131 (lg SASE for copy)
|____ D@CWIS.UNOMAHA.EDU  + SOUND FTPable: quartz.rutgers.edu(pub/journals) 
(Ed Stastny/UNO/Omaha,NE) +                141.214.4.135(docs/zines/sound)
From: tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Academic publishing questions
Date: 11 Oct 92 21:11:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: hellgate.1992Oct11.151103.20245
Organization: University of Utah, CompSci Dept


  Hi, here are a few questions about academic publishing...

1) What is a "position paper" for a conference, as opposed to a "research
 paper"?  I suppose a research paper is novel research, but a position paper
 would include what sort of discussion?

2) I am interested in publishing academic ideas in non academic journals,
 to disseminate knowledge (specifically, about computation and information
 theory)  How would I go about finding places to publish in?

Thanks a lot
From: lightnin@bernoulli.WPI.EDU (Paraaaaaaaaade of Shoooooooooes)
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject: Re: Long hand.
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:05:34
Organization: DeityCo: Major and Minor Deities Placement Agency
NNTP-Posting-Host: bernoulli.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: Jon L. Campbell's message of Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 08:09:58 MST

>>>>> On Tuesday, 6 Oct 1992 08:09:58 MST, Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET> said:


Jon> At the time, I thought that there was something unique about
Jon> writing stories in long hand first.  Now, I'm not so sure that
Jon> there isn't a kind of mystic enchantment that flows through my
Jon> hand and creates a purposeful story.  One that seems to be less
Jon> flawed.  With a clarity and purpose that I found interesting and
Jon> yet, I can't seem to bring the exact writing over to my computer.

Jon> Has anyone else experienced this when they attempt to write a
Jon> story in long hand first?

Well, for the longest time, whenever I tried to write anything, whether I
did it long hand, or on a computer, I would never finish.  A couple of years
ago, I took a year off from school for financial reasons.  I was working
third shift at a local hospital, and just to keep my sanity both because I
was seperated from all my friends, and just being bored on the third shift, 
I started writing, in long hand.  Since then I've kept a notebook with me
at all times, and whenever I get an idea for something to write, I pull out
the notebook and start writing.  Later I transcribe it to the computer, and
do a little refining on it as well. 

I have at least three stories going now, and I'm considerably saner.

I haven't published anything yet, but then of course, I haven't tried.


-lightnin
Derek G Bacon        | "But his bosses didn't like him, so they shot him into 
lightnin@wpi.wpi.edu |  space."     - MST3K Love Theme
Gadaiyio Takeimienei |=========================================================
Writer of USFP       | "Oh Fluffy, I never knew." -Earth Girls Are Easy
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu (EDWARD CRAIG HYATT)
Subject: Re: Teaching writing
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:26:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.134317.12404@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> David.B.Haseman@dartmouth.edu (David B. Haseman) writes:
>I agree with Bonita.  I work with students and instructors all the time
>and it is always an amazement for me to see capable teachers who cannot
>do well that which they teach.  On the other hand some of the best
>radiologists I work with have no insight as to why they are so good at
>it.  As I said, a constant amazement

I'm interested in this effect myself--and from a couple of angles.
First, I've always been able to write, and now I write professionally,
but I've never had any specific schooling in how to go about it.
When I look at what I've written, I often get a "where did *that* come
from" feeling.  It's magic to me.  On the other hand, I've always
thought that I'd like to take more english and writing courses--but
one degree at a time!!

My second thought is that I've found that most of the technical textbooks
I've studied are much too hard to understand.  It seems to me that they
are purposely cryptic.  The computer science books that I study are
full of long proofs that usually have a fairly simple basis.  I can
stare at a proof without getting the idea, and when a friend explains
the thing in simple english, I say *ohhhh* that's all it is!  Why didn't
it say so?

One thing I have found to be true is this:  when the explainer (or writer)
really and fundamentally understands a topic, the explanation is usually
concise and crystal clear.  If the explainer half-understands a topic,
the explanation is long, tedious, and hard to understand.

-Craig
-- 
--------------------
Craig Hyatt
NCSU@Raleigh, NC USA
echyatt@eos.ncsu.edu
--------------------
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: jdm@Cadence.COM (Joe Mastroianni)
Subject: Re: Agents:  Where Do I Go?
Keywords: screenplay
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:43:00 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.184531.22810@panix.com> jimoates@panix.com (Jim Oates) writes:
>
>I know, I know: I sound like 90 million other people.
>I've written a screenplay, and I think it's pretty
>good.
>
>Now I want to find an agent, someone to represent
>me on a non-exclusive basis. What do I do?  
>
>Any suggestions?
>
>Thanks in advance,
>Jim
>
>jimoates@panix.com
>
>
>-- 
>Admit Nothing
>Blame Everyone



   A rather successful author I know suggested talking to successful authors
and convincing them to give you the name of their agent. Better yet,
get a successful author to recommend you.

   This is extremely difficult.  Most authors are busy doing their own work
and don't want to be bothered by every newbie on the block who wants to be
like them.  It's difficult getting an agent, and it's difficult getting 
published without an agent.  So what can you do?

   Be good.  You'd better be good and be able to convince someone else you're
good.  And what is does it mean to be "good?"  "Good" means you're going
to make somebody money. It seems to this entry-level writer that getting
and agent and getting published has less to do with being the next
Hemingway than with being the next Clancy.

   To get an agent you have to convince one you are going to make her money.
She's not going to spend time with you if she doesn't see green every time
she looks at a manuscript you send to her.  She doesn't want to waste her
time having to sell you either.  She wants the easy sell.  She wants an
editor to look at your stuff and say, "Hey, this is going to make me some
money."  

    Everybody wants the fast buck.  Get that into your head, figure out how
to market yourself so agents and publishers see a fast buck in your work,
and hit the street.  It is possible to get what you want if you're willing
to get real about it.

    This part is not art.  This part is blood-and-guts-yuppie-blasting business.



    Joe
-- 
Joe Mastroianni          AKA: AA6YD  AA6YD @ N6LDL.#NOCAL.CA.USA.NA
Cadence Design Systems
Santa Clara Ca.          "Up the airy mountain;down the rushy glen; we
jdm@cadence.com           daren't go a hunting; for fear of little men "
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Wednesday, 14 Oct 1992 08:08:04 MST
From: Jon L. Campbell <KVJLC@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: misc.writing
Subject:    It, re-post, oops!


Sorry folks.  I canceled the previous posting because of all the
grammatical mistakes.  Guess I should have edited my writing before
posting, but I was lazy.

Fred brought up a good point about the use of 'it' as a subject in
a sentence and I bow to his superior knowledge of the english language.
You know how hard it is to critize someone else's grammar when yours
is not much better?  Damn hard.  I am constantly reminded to take a
refresher course in english grammar.

Well, back to the drawing board.


Jon  -  I thought the end of the world was supposed to have happened
        already?
Newsgroups: misc.writing
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Usage: To try and find the answer.
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 18:39:11 GMT

In <Bw2ros.GFv@news.iastate.edu> bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E Bible) writes:

>	I recently finished reading Larry McMurtry's _Lonsome Dove_, which I
>enjoyed, but I was distracted by his frequent use of the expression 
>"... to try and <verb> ..." instead of "... to try to <verb> ...".  (I've also 
>frequently seen this form used in less formal writing including post to this 
>group.)  Now, a *lot* of effluent has passed under the bridge since I was a 
>young man studying English grammar, so I can not put a label on this form, but 
>I'm reasonably sure it is incorrect -- or was at one time.  
>[....] does current usage accept, for example, "to try and find" in lieu of 
>"to try to find"?  

I generally find the "try &" phrasing awkward, but no less
authority than Fowler's _Modern English Usage_ says that,
"It is an idiom that should be not discountenanced, but used
when it comes natural."  According to Fowler, "It is ...
colloquial, if that means specially appropriate to actual
speech; but not if *colloquial* means below the proper
standard of literary dignity.  Though *try to do* can always
be substituted for *t. & do*, the latter has a shade of
meaning that justifies its existence...."

Of course, Fowler came out in 1926, so I'm not sure it
qualifies as "current usage."  It may be old enough to count
as history.  
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com