I found Substack via a Bari Weiss piece so now trying to learn about it and how I can use it. Any tips? Your comment included a request for feedback that led me to the "Homo for Cuomo" piece. If you're on www.quora.com, you might have run into my answers (over 1,000) or comments there, though I also write comments to articles around the Internet, often rather verbose comments in fact (still working on that).
Goody-Two-Shoes" has been around forever, though I've never seen it in writing. It's the heroine of a 1934 children's story and a term some might have applied to me and some friends back in HS. We wouldn't smoke in front of the guys because we thought it looked sluty, and we were the "real" good girls, unlike the girls from the Catholic girls' schools who only pretended to be good . . . LOL. The term is usually used when someone appears "too good" in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable as in a bit "less than," and no one likes that, of course.
I hope you don't view my comments as criticisms in the negative sense. I offered the suggestions 'cause I seem to be good at it, though goodness knows why. I'd much rather my gift be a voice like Celine's, JLo's or Adele's or a talent for coding so I can create the "advanced" word processing and database capability we had with the original word processing programs that were cursor driven/controlled, but, since I don't and K-12 education has been inadequate since around 1970, I feel I owe it to my fellow Americans to share what I know, what a superior K-6 education sans homework can give a developing child.
The value of good language skills has been lost, but that's something we cannot afford to lose because the extent of one's mastery of language directly affects and determines the degree to which one can engage in complex, in-depth thinking. If given the necessary foundation in K-6, one's mastery of English becomes second nature, as it should since it's our native language.
If interested in working on your writing, a good way to do that is to use the suggestions to help you re-write the essay. Just know I covered only the beginning of the piece, not all of it, so you may have questions; otherwise no response is necessary unless you want to take my head off for something : - ) Ciao`
Hi David: Am I too sheltered or too old to know what "good two shoes sterility" is and what it means? Is it "good, two-shoes sterility" or "two good-shoes sterility" or "two-good-shoes sterility" or even "too good-shoes sterility"?
View it as one views "trial by media spectacle." The spectacle isn't a "trial spectacle" nor a "media spectacle," and it isn't a "trial and media spectacle." Instead, because all three words have to be used together to describe spectacle, it has to be a "trial-by-media spectacle." Using the hyphens tells the reader that the three words form and work as a unit to describe "spectacle," so use of the hyphens is about clarity. When several adjectives can be joined by "and," then they would be separated by commas.
You expressed interest in feedback. I don't know whether I can be of any help, but, for what it's worth, I found this piece confusing, although I'm not sure I'm clear on why. It's likely a combination of factors. I was never sure where it was headed or what point it intended to make. Given the reference to the Kennedys, I thought it was trying to say that Cuomo's current scandal involving sexual harassment isn't a big deal in view of the antics of other politicians, but it also talks about farmers and the homeless and $ given to each, then it flips to senators and talking heads having "so much fun attacking a guy when everyone else is" when the phraseology was leading me to expect it to say it's more fun to attack when no one else is.
I describe writing as a thinking [wo]man's game because it requires thinking about both the combination of words in a phrase and where they're placed in the sentence. This is why I've been pushing for educators to re-implement sentence diagramming in K-6 education. For comprehension, it trains the brain to look for the subject and verb first, very handy for comprehending long, complex sentences on standardized tests and sales contracts.
For writing, it trains the brain to connect meaning to location in a sentence in relation to other phrases and clauses in the sentence. Something I've been practicing is being more direct by using fewer words, so, instead of the "cruel phenomenon of slavery," it's the "cruelty of slavery." AIDS didn't just flood over "like" a biological tsunami. It was a full-blown, [consuming] biological tsunami. So, maybe it's " . . . did more for gays than Ed Koch who spit on us as our community was drowning in an [AIDS biological tsunami] [AIDS tsunami]."
In the paragraph that beings with "Today, few women . . .," every "they" refers back to women, so "whatever the women were saying" works better as "whatever they are saying." Since "evaluation" and "assess" are synonyms, "observing" each witness to "assess" makes more sense. "Chorus" is a musical term, so it doesn't really fit with "Greek Tragedy." The "hard-assed real politick" can probably do without the "real." When you have one good adjective, sometimes it's best not to muddy it or dilute with another one that's probably less effective anyway.
In English, we have pairs of words that work together like "either-or" and "neither-nor." There's a chance to use one of those pairs in the paragraph after Hitler, as in "the press in general, and New Yorkers specifically, adored Cuomo. (Hint: New Yorker liked Mario but do not like Andrew)
Sometimes when I come up with a great phrase like your "biological tsunami," I'll twist my writing inside out in an effort to hang onto it until finally courageous enough to admit I have to let all or part of it go. At times, that's the hardest part about editing, willing to be brutal about cutting out and rearranging your own writing.
I always read my writing aloud 'cause it helps me find areas that don't flow or read smoothly. For instance, Bella's location seems like an interrupter that would read better at the beginning or end and/or possibly rephrased, as in "I vividly recall being [at 6th and 8th Avenues] [on the corner of 6th and 8th Avenues] when Bella came along to . . ."
Did Bella just "tell" women or "convince" them? The adjectives used to describe her later might be good in that first sentence. "I can still see Bella [in her most assertive, inimitable way] [using her inimitable manner] convincing every woman who passed by 6th and 8th Avenues that voting for Ted Kennedy was the only reasonable option" or "I can still see the inimitable Bella using her most [assertive] [persuasive] self . . ." Once you start playing around, the possibilities can be nearly endless.
Lastly is the matter of which word or phrase conveys the clearest meaning. For instance, Cuomo being "better for gays" isn't as clear as "did more for gays" or "did less to hurt the [rights] [cause] of gays."
RE: Profanity --- If that's your style or something your readers like, just be mindful of not overusing a word like f*** because it will become less effective and sound like you can't think of anything better to say. Also, those born after 1960 or '65 use the "P" word to express anger as if as benign as puppy, but it's still one of George Carlin's seven dirtiest words. I've never uttered the word even once 'cause I find it so offensive. Helps to know these little details in case you want to reach a different or broader audience. Also, keep in mind there are many ways to refer to different things and people, like the mistresses in these men's lives, without being blatantly demeaning or crass.
Unless needed for a special kind of emphasis, avoid using the same word twice in the same sentence or too often in the same paragraph, so the "[a]lthough his father (lower case). . . and although his brother needs only the first "although."
Note, too, past v. present tense. It's very common for writers to use past tense not realizing what they're actually saying. For example, my friend Joe said he was Jewish. He was but isn't any longer? So, is it that some people [once] fame a damn about poverty" or that "some people, such as Bernie . . . give a damn, but Andrew is or has been dead set against . . ."
Following the "less is more" principle,"Andrew makes liberal noises for the camera, but once the media is gone, he's just one of many fat cats living off wealth redistributed from middle and working class workers to the [vampirish] [greedy] [bloodsucking] [ghoulish] elites. Always use a dictionary . . . "vampirous" is not a word, neither is "impactful" or "majorly," and it's incorrect to use "impact" as a verb. The only reason you hear all this incorrect language is because reporters and journalists stopped using a dictionary about 30 yrs. ago., assuming they already knew everything. That's what happens when ya tell little kids they're "special" instead of "unique" and give them awards and trophies for showing up instead of for doing exceptional work.
Keep a thesaurus, dictionary and usage guide nearby and use them often. You'll find your writing improving. I've always been technically proficient and accurate, but after answering over a 1,000 questions on Quora and using my trusty guides, I've improved in ways I didn't realize had room for improvement. Translation: There's always room for improvement for all of us. To that end, take the time to play with this piece applying whatever suggestions work. Start with a few basic sentences that state clearly the message you want the piece to convey, then begin adding to that phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence. Good luck.
Good two shoes was a typo. I meant to type goody two shoes. This term characterizes prim and proper behavior that zealously abides by all the edicts of the dowagers of etiquette without managing to be the least bit good, moral or wise. I got this term from my uproariously funny friend Mark Y.
I will address your other criticisms if and when I have the time.
How did you find this newsletter. Did someone refer you to it. Do we know each other. You seem quite familiar.
I found Substack via a Bari Weiss piece so now trying to learn about it and how I can use it. Any tips? Your comment included a request for feedback that led me to the "Homo for Cuomo" piece. If you're on www.quora.com, you might have run into my answers (over 1,000) or comments there, though I also write comments to articles around the Internet, often rather verbose comments in fact (still working on that).
Goody-Two-Shoes" has been around forever, though I've never seen it in writing. It's the heroine of a 1934 children's story and a term some might have applied to me and some friends back in HS. We wouldn't smoke in front of the guys because we thought it looked sluty, and we were the "real" good girls, unlike the girls from the Catholic girls' schools who only pretended to be good . . . LOL. The term is usually used when someone appears "too good" in a way that makes others feel uncomfortable as in a bit "less than," and no one likes that, of course.
I hope you don't view my comments as criticisms in the negative sense. I offered the suggestions 'cause I seem to be good at it, though goodness knows why. I'd much rather my gift be a voice like Celine's, JLo's or Adele's or a talent for coding so I can create the "advanced" word processing and database capability we had with the original word processing programs that were cursor driven/controlled, but, since I don't and K-12 education has been inadequate since around 1970, I feel I owe it to my fellow Americans to share what I know, what a superior K-6 education sans homework can give a developing child.
The value of good language skills has been lost, but that's something we cannot afford to lose because the extent of one's mastery of language directly affects and determines the degree to which one can engage in complex, in-depth thinking. If given the necessary foundation in K-6, one's mastery of English becomes second nature, as it should since it's our native language.
If interested in working on your writing, a good way to do that is to use the suggestions to help you re-write the essay. Just know I covered only the beginning of the piece, not all of it, so you may have questions; otherwise no response is necessary unless you want to take my head off for something : - ) Ciao`
Hi David: Am I too sheltered or too old to know what "good two shoes sterility" is and what it means? Is it "good, two-shoes sterility" or "two good-shoes sterility" or "two-good-shoes sterility" or even "too good-shoes sterility"?
View it as one views "trial by media spectacle." The spectacle isn't a "trial spectacle" nor a "media spectacle," and it isn't a "trial and media spectacle." Instead, because all three words have to be used together to describe spectacle, it has to be a "trial-by-media spectacle." Using the hyphens tells the reader that the three words form and work as a unit to describe "spectacle," so use of the hyphens is about clarity. When several adjectives can be joined by "and," then they would be separated by commas.
You expressed interest in feedback. I don't know whether I can be of any help, but, for what it's worth, I found this piece confusing, although I'm not sure I'm clear on why. It's likely a combination of factors. I was never sure where it was headed or what point it intended to make. Given the reference to the Kennedys, I thought it was trying to say that Cuomo's current scandal involving sexual harassment isn't a big deal in view of the antics of other politicians, but it also talks about farmers and the homeless and $ given to each, then it flips to senators and talking heads having "so much fun attacking a guy when everyone else is" when the phraseology was leading me to expect it to say it's more fun to attack when no one else is.
I describe writing as a thinking [wo]man's game because it requires thinking about both the combination of words in a phrase and where they're placed in the sentence. This is why I've been pushing for educators to re-implement sentence diagramming in K-6 education. For comprehension, it trains the brain to look for the subject and verb first, very handy for comprehending long, complex sentences on standardized tests and sales contracts.
For writing, it trains the brain to connect meaning to location in a sentence in relation to other phrases and clauses in the sentence. Something I've been practicing is being more direct by using fewer words, so, instead of the "cruel phenomenon of slavery," it's the "cruelty of slavery." AIDS didn't just flood over "like" a biological tsunami. It was a full-blown, [consuming] biological tsunami. So, maybe it's " . . . did more for gays than Ed Koch who spit on us as our community was drowning in an [AIDS biological tsunami] [AIDS tsunami]."
In the paragraph that beings with "Today, few women . . .," every "they" refers back to women, so "whatever the women were saying" works better as "whatever they are saying." Since "evaluation" and "assess" are synonyms, "observing" each witness to "assess" makes more sense. "Chorus" is a musical term, so it doesn't really fit with "Greek Tragedy." The "hard-assed real politick" can probably do without the "real." When you have one good adjective, sometimes it's best not to muddy it or dilute with another one that's probably less effective anyway.
In English, we have pairs of words that work together like "either-or" and "neither-nor." There's a chance to use one of those pairs in the paragraph after Hitler, as in "the press in general, and New Yorkers specifically, adored Cuomo. (Hint: New Yorker liked Mario but do not like Andrew)
Sometimes when I come up with a great phrase like your "biological tsunami," I'll twist my writing inside out in an effort to hang onto it until finally courageous enough to admit I have to let all or part of it go. At times, that's the hardest part about editing, willing to be brutal about cutting out and rearranging your own writing.
I always read my writing aloud 'cause it helps me find areas that don't flow or read smoothly. For instance, Bella's location seems like an interrupter that would read better at the beginning or end and/or possibly rephrased, as in "I vividly recall being [at 6th and 8th Avenues] [on the corner of 6th and 8th Avenues] when Bella came along to . . ."
Did Bella just "tell" women or "convince" them? The adjectives used to describe her later might be good in that first sentence. "I can still see Bella [in her most assertive, inimitable way] [using her inimitable manner] convincing every woman who passed by 6th and 8th Avenues that voting for Ted Kennedy was the only reasonable option" or "I can still see the inimitable Bella using her most [assertive] [persuasive] self . . ." Once you start playing around, the possibilities can be nearly endless.
Lastly is the matter of which word or phrase conveys the clearest meaning. For instance, Cuomo being "better for gays" isn't as clear as "did more for gays" or "did less to hurt the [rights] [cause] of gays."
RE: Profanity --- If that's your style or something your readers like, just be mindful of not overusing a word like f*** because it will become less effective and sound like you can't think of anything better to say. Also, those born after 1960 or '65 use the "P" word to express anger as if as benign as puppy, but it's still one of George Carlin's seven dirtiest words. I've never uttered the word even once 'cause I find it so offensive. Helps to know these little details in case you want to reach a different or broader audience. Also, keep in mind there are many ways to refer to different things and people, like the mistresses in these men's lives, without being blatantly demeaning or crass.
Unless needed for a special kind of emphasis, avoid using the same word twice in the same sentence or too often in the same paragraph, so the "[a]lthough his father (lower case). . . and although his brother needs only the first "although."
Note, too, past v. present tense. It's very common for writers to use past tense not realizing what they're actually saying. For example, my friend Joe said he was Jewish. He was but isn't any longer? So, is it that some people [once] fame a damn about poverty" or that "some people, such as Bernie . . . give a damn, but Andrew is or has been dead set against . . ."
Following the "less is more" principle,"Andrew makes liberal noises for the camera, but once the media is gone, he's just one of many fat cats living off wealth redistributed from middle and working class workers to the [vampirish] [greedy] [bloodsucking] [ghoulish] elites. Always use a dictionary . . . "vampirous" is not a word, neither is "impactful" or "majorly," and it's incorrect to use "impact" as a verb. The only reason you hear all this incorrect language is because reporters and journalists stopped using a dictionary about 30 yrs. ago., assuming they already knew everything. That's what happens when ya tell little kids they're "special" instead of "unique" and give them awards and trophies for showing up instead of for doing exceptional work.
Keep a thesaurus, dictionary and usage guide nearby and use them often. You'll find your writing improving. I've always been technically proficient and accurate, but after answering over a 1,000 questions on Quora and using my trusty guides, I've improved in ways I didn't realize had room for improvement. Translation: There's always room for improvement for all of us. To that end, take the time to play with this piece applying whatever suggestions work. Start with a few basic sentences that state clearly the message you want the piece to convey, then begin adding to that phrase by phrase and sentence by sentence. Good luck.
Good two shoes was a typo. I meant to type goody two shoes. This term characterizes prim and proper behavior that zealously abides by all the edicts of the dowagers of etiquette without managing to be the least bit good, moral or wise. I got this term from my uproariously funny friend Mark Y.
I will address your other criticisms if and when I have the time.
How did you find this newsletter. Did someone refer you to it. Do we know each other. You seem quite familiar.