Tish, this is about editorial services that the authors hire before the book is sold. Freelance editing that's commissioned by the publisher is a wholenother thing. Scammers tell wanna-be authors that nobody'll look at a submission that hasn't been "professionally edited", then bunco-steer them into the hands of expensive book doctors who pay the scammer a kickback. The line about how "Nobody will look at a manuscript that hasn't been professionally edited" is practically a genetic marker for "fraud in progress".
-
Guest please check The Index before starting a thread.
I worked as an editor, too. Mostly non-fiction (business/technical stuff). Like Tish said, most SMEs are very good with their subjects but don't know a thing about writing. A few months ago I helped an IT expert on his 100-page book on global outsourcing. He had really great ideas, but he couldn't write. He knew it. That's when editing services are invaluable.
Sometimes needed
I'm a freelance editors. I never intended on doing that, but while doing book reviews I noticed very poor editing, especially among those that publish with a publishers that charge for editing. I agreed with what one person said; wanting their writing to look good.
Just because someone can't edit their own manuscripts doesn't mean they aren't a writer. I just finished editing a ladies manuscript. She's already published a book, written screenplays and won awards. But, it was always recommended that she get her work edited, and she was even in a critique group.
I'm not saying she's an awful writer but I did understand why she needed her work edited. She had a great story line and she was really in tune to her characters, but her weakness was shifting from writing a screenplay to writing a novel. That's what made it so difficult. :head
I do understand about those unscrupulous book doctor's and/or editors. When I researched my market, I was amazed at how much some charge and how much publishers charge for in house editing. And, I guess that's when I decided to offer editing and proofreading, and at an affordable rates. I'm not like other professionals that just want to make money, I actually want to help them improve. When I edit, I also offer critique and suggestions on how to improve.
One more thing, a lot of people can't edit their own work to save their lives. It's really difficult to be objective on your own work. Even seasoned authors tell you that. Myself, I'm a perfectionist and its a weakness when it comes to my own writing, as than I over edit and never get anything substantial accomplished. :smack
Just my thoughts
Kim
I'm a freelance editors. I never intended on doing that, but while doing book reviews I noticed very poor editing, especially among those that publish with a publishers that charge for editing. I agreed with what one person said; wanting their writing to look good.
Just because someone can't edit their own manuscripts doesn't mean they aren't a writer. I just finished editing a ladies manuscript. She's already published a book, written screenplays and won awards. But, it was always recommended that she get her work edited, and she was even in a critique group.
I'm not saying she's an awful writer but I did understand why she needed her work edited. She had a great story line and she was really in tune to her characters, but her weakness was shifting from writing a screenplay to writing a novel. That's what made it so difficult. :head
I do understand about those unscrupulous book doctor's and/or editors. When I researched my market, I was amazed at how much some charge and how much publishers charge for in house editing. And, I guess that's when I decided to offer editing and proofreading, and at an affordable rates. I'm not like other professionals that just want to make money, I actually want to help them improve. When I edit, I also offer critique and suggestions on how to improve.
One more thing, a lot of people can't edit their own work to save their lives. It's really difficult to be objective on your own work. Even seasoned authors tell you that. Myself, I'm a perfectionist and its a weakness when it comes to my own writing, as than I over edit and never get anything substantial accomplished. :smack
Just my thoughts
Kim
i hate to be the one to tellya, kim...
...but you overlooked some pretty basic goofs in your post!
...go back and take a good look, and see if you can find 'em all... or, i'll mark it up for you, if you want... we're none of us perfect, are we?... darn it all!
g :head :cry
love and consoling hugs, maia
...but you overlooked some pretty basic goofs in your post!
...go back and take a good look, and see if you can find 'em all... or, i'll mark it up for you, if you want... we're none of us perfect, are we?... darn it all!
g :head :cry love and consoling hugs, maia
Re: i hate to be the one to tellya, kim...
Hapisoft,
I must say, with complete sincerity, that I found your post wonderfully apropos.
Hapisoft,
I must say, with complete sincerity, that I found your post wonderfully apropos.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
As a long-time freelance editor and copy editor (Jim and Victoria, among many others, can vouch for me), I have to say that post from the "editor" above was embarrassing. Please, folks, she's not a member of my tribe.
That said, I must respond to something Victoria said, upstream, though:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I totally agree, Lynn--but I also feel that if the author can't produce a properly copy- and line-edited ms. herself, she shouldn't be seeking publication.<hr></blockquote>
Um, ever heard of Andre Norton? I have a secret for you: She's never been able to write a coherent sentence. Does she write kick-ass books? Yes. But can she copy- or line-edit herself (or even spell correctly)? Hell, no. She can't write a sentence that can find its own butt. But her novels, her characterization, her plots are fantastic. They're well worth having someone like me dig through them and make them into English. (Ask TNH about this sometime; she's line-edited Andre, too.)
I could name about half a dozen other top-notch authors who can't spell or edit their way out of a paper bag, but whose books are so well crafted otherwise that it's well worth it to the publisher to have them heavily copy- or line-edited. Just sayin'.
I might add that in the last ten years I've taken on a few mss. to edit pre-publication, working for the author rather than the publisher. I can also count those mss. on one hand -- they were special pieces that would clearly sell (and did), but with new authors who were in the same boat as the established authors I noted above. Less than five in ten years' worth of inquiries from authors who wanted me to "fix" their books, mind you. I talk the rest of them out of it, and hope they really listen to me and don't go off to find a less scrupulous person to "edit" their mss.
Scammers galore live out there, alas. My favorites are the ones whose claim to fame was that they once proofread their high school literary magazine, and now, ten years later, they have decided to be "editors" because they're stay-at-home-whatevers and have time on their hands. Puleeeze. Some of us have crafted our talents and hard work in this industry professionally for several decades and still hope that we are somewhat good editors.
(Please forgive any typos -- am writing with a wrist brace on and some pretty bad nerve pain in my left hand. Long story.)
As a long-time freelance editor and copy editor (Jim and Victoria, among many others, can vouch for me), I have to say that post from the "editor" above was embarrassing. Please, folks, she's not a member of my tribe.
That said, I must respond to something Victoria said, upstream, though:
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I totally agree, Lynn--but I also feel that if the author can't produce a properly copy- and line-edited ms. herself, she shouldn't be seeking publication.<hr></blockquote>
Um, ever heard of Andre Norton?
I have a secret for you: She's never been able to write a coherent sentence. Does she write kick-ass books? Yes. But can she copy- or line-edit herself (or even spell correctly)? Hell, no. She can't write a sentence that can find its own butt. But her novels, her characterization, her plots are fantastic. They're well worth having someone like me dig through them and make them into English. (Ask TNH about this sometime; she's line-edited Andre, too.)I could name about half a dozen other top-notch authors who can't spell or edit their way out of a paper bag, but whose books are so well crafted otherwise that it's well worth it to the publisher to have them heavily copy- or line-edited. Just sayin'.
I might add that in the last ten years I've taken on a few mss. to edit pre-publication, working for the author rather than the publisher. I can also count those mss. on one hand -- they were special pieces that would clearly sell (and did), but with new authors who were in the same boat as the established authors I noted above. Less than five in ten years' worth of inquiries from authors who wanted me to "fix" their books, mind you. I talk the rest of them out of it, and hope they really listen to me and don't go off to find a less scrupulous person to "edit" their mss.
Scammers galore live out there, alas. My favorites are the ones whose claim to fame was that they once proofread their high school literary magazine, and now, ten years later, they have decided to be "editors" because they're stay-at-home-whatevers and have time on their hands. Puleeeze. Some of us have crafted our talents and hard work in this industry professionally for several decades and still hope that we are somewhat good editors.
(Please forgive any typos -- am writing with a wrist brace on and some pretty bad nerve pain in my left hand. Long story.)
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
>> I could name about half a dozen other top-notch authors who can't spell or edit their way out of a paper bag, but whose books are so well crafted otherwise that it's well worth it to the publisher to have them heavily copy- or line-edited. Just sayin'.<<
Yeah, I know it's true. And I love Andre Norton--her books are among the first sf/fantasy that I ever read. But call me a Puritan--I still think that writers should be able to spell and write coherent sentences without outside help.
- Victoria
>> I could name about half a dozen other top-notch authors who can't spell or edit their way out of a paper bag, but whose books are so well crafted otherwise that it's well worth it to the publisher to have them heavily copy- or line-edited. Just sayin'.<<
Yeah, I know it's true. And I love Andre Norton--her books are among the first sf/fantasy that I ever read. But call me a Puritan--I still think that writers should be able to spell and write coherent sentences without outside help.
- Victoria
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
I'm with you, Victoria. I think writers should be able to spell and have a clue with grammar, too. Alas, it is a talent that doesn't always come with the same touch of the wand that the writing-talent fairy confers. (And if only a touch of a magic wand would do it for both talent and spelling! whoohoo! I'd be out of a job, but that might be a happy day.)
TNH and I have had conversations before about spelling and grammar: We both believe, with long experience, that it's only partially taught. If you don't have the "spelling gene," all the classes in the world won't teach you how to spell. Same for grammar. Some people can look at a sentence and tell you exactly where it's wrong and how to fix it, and yet can't necessarily tell you the exact mechanics or grammatical terms involved; but they can fix it, almost naturally. In spelling, some people can look at a word and tell you it's wrong. For the people to whom this talent is foreign, they may be taught to a degree, but they'll never make really fantastic proofreaders, copy editors, or line editors -- it's the "natural" ones who excel in the field. I'll make a bet that someday we'll read an article in Science News telling us that Harvard found the gene sequence for Spelling and Grammar.
I'm with you, Victoria. I think writers should be able to spell and have a clue with grammar, too. Alas, it is a talent that doesn't always come with the same touch of the wand that the writing-talent fairy confers. (And if only a touch of a magic wand would do it for both talent and spelling! whoohoo! I'd be out of a job, but that might be a happy day.)
TNH and I have had conversations before about spelling and grammar: We both believe, with long experience, that it's only partially taught. If you don't have the "spelling gene," all the classes in the world won't teach you how to spell. Same for grammar. Some people can look at a sentence and tell you exactly where it's wrong and how to fix it, and yet can't necessarily tell you the exact mechanics or grammatical terms involved; but they can fix it, almost naturally. In spelling, some people can look at a word and tell you it's wrong. For the people to whom this talent is foreign, they may be taught to a degree, but they'll never make really fantastic proofreaders, copy editors, or line editors -- it's the "natural" ones who excel in the field. I'll make a bet that someday we'll read an article in Science News telling us that Harvard found the gene sequence for Spelling and Grammar.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
Would you hire a plumber who doesn't know how to use a wrench?
Or a doctor who has no idea what a stethoscope does.
Or a police officer who don't know how to use a gun.
Or a cook who has no idea what 1 tsp. means.
Or...
You get the idea. It's a craft people. Talent alone does not make you a writer.
Would you hire a plumber who doesn't know how to use a wrench?
Or a doctor who has no idea what a stethoscope does.
Or a police officer who don't know how to use a gun.
Or a cook who has no idea what 1 tsp. means.
Or...
You get the idea. It's a craft people. Talent alone does not make you a writer.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
"In spelling, some people can look at a word and tell you it's wrong....I'll make a bet that someday we'll read an article in Science News telling us that Harvard found the gene sequence for Spelling..."
There's no mystery about that. The ability comes from eidetic imagery, which is indeed inherited. I don't know the gene sequence, though.
If you can't tell whether a word is wrong by looking at it, how do you tell? Surely you don't have to look up all the words on a page because one of them might be wrong?
"In spelling, some people can look at a word and tell you it's wrong....I'll make a bet that someday we'll read an article in Science News telling us that Harvard found the gene sequence for Spelling..."
There's no mystery about that. The ability comes from eidetic imagery, which is indeed inherited. I don't know the gene sequence, though.
If you can't tell whether a word is wrong by looking at it, how do you tell? Surely you don't have to look up all the words on a page because one of them might be wrong?
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you can't tell whether a word is wrong by looking at it, how do you tell? Surely you don't have to look up all the words on a page because one of them might be wrong?<hr></blockquote>
Most copy editors look up:
1. Words they know they always spell wrong (everyone, even the best spellers, have one or two of these), and
2. Words they don't know absolutely, positively (without a doubt, could spell in their sleep with one hand tied behind their backs ... you get the idea).
The trick is teaching copy editors to not assume they know how to spell a word, just because it's a "familiar word." Many mistakes get by authors and editors because someone assumed.
And we know what assumption gets ya.
As regards eidetic imagery (which is better known as "photographic memory," though that's a misnomer), I would argue against your note about it. Eidetic memory/imagery is indeed helpful in what I call "innate" spelling and grammar, but it's not even close to the same story. Innate spelling and grammar can be applied to words the reader has never seen before; obviously, memorized words can only be attributed to eidetic memory.
<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you can't tell whether a word is wrong by looking at it, how do you tell? Surely you don't have to look up all the words on a page because one of them might be wrong?<hr></blockquote>
Most copy editors look up:
1. Words they know they always spell wrong (everyone, even the best spellers, have one or two of these), and
2. Words they don't know absolutely, positively (without a doubt, could spell in their sleep with one hand tied behind their backs ... you get the idea).
The trick is teaching copy editors to not assume they know how to spell a word, just because it's a "familiar word." Many mistakes get by authors and editors because someone assumed.
And we know what assumption gets ya.
As regards eidetic imagery (which is better known as "photographic memory," though that's a misnomer), I would argue against your note about it. Eidetic memory/imagery is indeed helpful in what I call "innate" spelling and grammar, but it's not even close to the same story. Innate spelling and grammar can be applied to words the reader has never seen before; obviously, memorized words can only be attributed to eidetic memory.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
Editrx, I have (1) eidetic imagery for words, (2) many years' experience as a copy editor, and (3) no words in your category 1.
You wrote: "Obviously, memorized words can only be attributed to eidetic memory." That strikes me as strange and intriguing, because I think of spelling ability as having two possible sources: knowing the word by sight, without effort, and having had to memorize it. These are alternatives. Eidetic imagery removes the need to memorize.
With my original question, I was trying to get at how people identify misspellings by any other way than noticing that a word "looks wrong." But all this is probably a digression, given the purpose of the board.
Editrx, I have (1) eidetic imagery for words, (2) many years' experience as a copy editor, and (3) no words in your category 1.
You wrote: "Obviously, memorized words can only be attributed to eidetic memory." That strikes me as strange and intriguing, because I think of spelling ability as having two possible sources: knowing the word by sight, without effort, and having had to memorize it. These are alternatives. Eidetic imagery removes the need to memorize.
With my original question, I was trying to get at how people identify misspellings by any other way than noticing that a word "looks wrong." But all this is probably a digression, given the purpose of the board.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
Please, digress away.
I was just going to add my 2 cents about the original post, and that was:
You're assuming the writer is trying to make a profit. Think of this situation instead:
The writer is someone who just desperately wants to have a story published. He has a great imagination and has always loved writing, but the mechanics of writing elude him. He sends out a bunch of stories and gets form rejections or criticisms of his poor grammar or half-baked plot or... whatever it may be.
A critique group's not necessarily appropriate for him. I just met a guy (mildly retarded) who got kicked out of his critique group because he wasn't interested in writing professionally and they were. They didn't want to spend too much time babysitting his stories, and that's legitimate, too. If your work needs real, fundamental help, you shouldn't burden a free critique group with that.
Hiring an editor, however, could help. An editor is paid to show you what's wrong and how to fix it. And if the editor's good and the story had any promise to begin with, that writer may get that dream come true-- a published story, somewhere, to rest on his coffee table and feel proud of.
And as for the PA thread, I see that as a somewhat positive step-- sad that they'd think they need to hire editors first if they want to submit traditionally, but if they're going to go with PA again, getting the book edited before publication is wise and a gift to their readers. I'm angry when I read a book that hasn't been edited. It's half the reason POD books got a bad reputation to start with. Again, it may not make financial sense, but don't assume that's every writer's goal. Some of them just want to be proud of their work and know that a few people are going to read it.
I'm not the world's best singer, but if you ask me what my true dream is, it's to stand up on a Broadway stage and sing my little heart out. Music-- and performing in general-- has been my greatest passion since I can remember. Nobody would have to pay me to get up on that stage, and I'd probably pay the director to let me have the opportunity... maybe better singers would hate me for it. Maybe reviewers would pan my performance in the next day's paper. That would make me sad. But it wouldn't stop me from having that dream.
Oh, and P.S. I hired a singing coach for many, many years. I have indeed been paid to sing occasionally, but nowhere near as much as I paid for that coach. Until this moment, I never even thought about that fact. Didn't make any difference to me.
Please, digress away.
I was just going to add my 2 cents about the original post, and that was:
You're assuming the writer is trying to make a profit. Think of this situation instead:
The writer is someone who just desperately wants to have a story published. He has a great imagination and has always loved writing, but the mechanics of writing elude him. He sends out a bunch of stories and gets form rejections or criticisms of his poor grammar or half-baked plot or... whatever it may be.
A critique group's not necessarily appropriate for him. I just met a guy (mildly retarded) who got kicked out of his critique group because he wasn't interested in writing professionally and they were. They didn't want to spend too much time babysitting his stories, and that's legitimate, too. If your work needs real, fundamental help, you shouldn't burden a free critique group with that.
Hiring an editor, however, could help. An editor is paid to show you what's wrong and how to fix it. And if the editor's good and the story had any promise to begin with, that writer may get that dream come true-- a published story, somewhere, to rest on his coffee table and feel proud of.
And as for the PA thread, I see that as a somewhat positive step-- sad that they'd think they need to hire editors first if they want to submit traditionally, but if they're going to go with PA again, getting the book edited before publication is wise and a gift to their readers. I'm angry when I read a book that hasn't been edited. It's half the reason POD books got a bad reputation to start with. Again, it may not make financial sense, but don't assume that's every writer's goal. Some of them just want to be proud of their work and know that a few people are going to read it.
I'm not the world's best singer, but if you ask me what my true dream is, it's to stand up on a Broadway stage and sing my little heart out. Music-- and performing in general-- has been my greatest passion since I can remember. Nobody would have to pay me to get up on that stage, and I'd probably pay the director to let me have the opportunity... maybe better singers would hate me for it. Maybe reviewers would pan my performance in the next day's paper. That would make me sad. But it wouldn't stop me from having that dream.
Oh, and P.S. I hired a singing coach for many, many years. I have indeed been paid to sing occasionally, but nowhere near as much as I paid for that coach. Until this moment, I never even thought about that fact. Didn't make any difference to me.
jenna's got it nailed!
...tight 'n tidy, and right on target, imo...
...and i'd pay b'way prices to see you up on that stage singin' your heart out, sweetiepie!... i'd even pay to get to wherever, for the privilege of hearing your dream come true... loveya, m
...tight 'n tidy, and right on target, imo...
...and i'd pay b'way prices to see you up on that stage singin' your heart out, sweetiepie!... i'd even pay to get to wherever, for the privilege of hearing your dream come true... loveya, m
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
Editrix said:
As I've heard it explained, the weird thing about Andre Norton's sentences is that they aren't genuinely incoherent. You can always tell what sentence they were supposed to be. It's like there's a consistent level of garbling going on. With genuinely incoherent writers, you get some normal sentences, some fixable ones, and some where it's impossible to tell what the author meant.
If you want an example of the disconnect between writing fiction and being able to turn out a tidy paragraph, you can't do better than Steve Brust. He's your canonical dyslexic. On the one hand, he can't spell to save his life, and he's forever leaving words out. On the other hand, he's intelligent, articulate, extremely verbal, and a born storyteller. His dyslexia is purely an interface problem.
A good edit isn't cheap. The important point is that in both those cases, the text is worth fixing.
Editrix said:
Imre Thornton, Abe Louverton, Max Stocker, Lemuel Ardalaneigh ..."Um, ever heard of Andre Norton?
As I've heard it explained, the weird thing about Andre Norton's sentences is that they aren't genuinely incoherent. You can always tell what sentence they were supposed to be. It's like there's a consistent level of garbling going on. With genuinely incoherent writers, you get some normal sentences, some fixable ones, and some where it's impossible to tell what the author meant.
If you want an example of the disconnect between writing fiction and being able to turn out a tidy paragraph, you can't do better than Steve Brust. He's your canonical dyslexic. On the one hand, he can't spell to save his life, and he's forever leaving words out. On the other hand, he's intelligent, articulate, extremely verbal, and a born storyteller. His dyslexia is purely an interface problem.
A good edit isn't cheap. The important point is that in both those cases, the text is worth fixing.
Re: real freelance editors & why some pub'ed authors nee
Reph -- Just a few replies to your note to me.
I'm honestly fascinated that you have no words that you never, ever misspell or misremember. In more than twenty years as a managing editor/production manager, I've never found a copy editor or proofreader who had absolutely perfect recall of spelling. More power to you!
(I do, however, have a backlog of ex-freelancers who thought they never spelled anything wrong and so never double-checked words, thus violating the rule of "never assume," on my list in the post above. Just sayin'. I honestly am sure you have perfect recall of words, as you say -- I'm sure it must exist out there. I've been unlucky not to ever have anyone on staff with it at any of the houses. But as long as my freelancers don't assume, and double-check their dictionaries and style books, we're cookin' with gas.)
However, while spelling eidetic seems flawless in both our posts, the definition of eidetic seems to differ greatly from what you have noted.
Websters defines eidetic thus:
"marked by or involving extraordinarily accurate and vivid recall especially of visual images [an eidetic memory]."
Recall is memory of something you have seen or heard (or experienced). In this discussion, spelling, recall refers to words you have seen spelled. It differs in no significant way from any other form of memorization, only that you recall something you may have seen only briefly. It is still memorization.
(Recall, for those keeping score here, is defined in short as "remembering." Remembering implies memory. Memory means something was placed into our memories. The only way to place anything in memory is through "memorization" -- defined as "to commit to memory." Memorization doesn't necessarily mean sitting down with a poem and repeating it to yourself until you can say it in your sleep; it is any act that stores things learned and retained through many different mechanisms, including the prized "eidetic" technique/talent, which stores things by a mostly subconscious act.)
At the risk of repeating myself, here it is again: This form of spelling knowledge, for "innate spellers," does indeed work for words they have never seen before. (I won't bother to cut and paste my post here; it's just a few posts above this one.) In other words, it doesn't necessarily depend on recall, on memorization.
And eidetic memory (what you call imagery) is recall -- memorization. Even if done subconsiously.
I know quite a lot about eidetic memory: I have it. I also, originally, specialized in language and information acquisition for one half of my undergrad double major, lo these decades ago. Handy to also have it for the spoken word; it made writing up verbatims, when I was playing with one of my degrees (psychology), much easier. And it makes handling book schedules and meetings almost tolerable.
I must say, also, that having an eidetic memory doesn't mean a person never, ever forgets anything, or that it is flawless. It happens on an subconscious level, and if the subconscious is distracted by anything at all, the eidetic memory may not function at 100% capacity. (How can you tell your subconscious was distracted for a few seconds? You can't. Thus the danger inherent in depending entirely on eidetic memory. Note I used the word entirely here as an important qualifier.)
It's a delicate talent to depend on for important things. Double-checking never hurt anyone, and any copy editor who refuses to double-check automatically breaks the "assume" rule. And then we start on down that slippery slope of small errors in books which lead to bigger errors which lead to dogs and cats sleeping with each other and next thing we know it, the world is ending.
Reph -- Just a few replies to your note to me.
I'm honestly fascinated that you have no words that you never, ever misspell or misremember. In more than twenty years as a managing editor/production manager, I've never found a copy editor or proofreader who had absolutely perfect recall of spelling. More power to you!
(I do, however, have a backlog of ex-freelancers who thought they never spelled anything wrong and so never double-checked words, thus violating the rule of "never assume," on my list in the post above. Just sayin'. I honestly am sure you have perfect recall of words, as you say -- I'm sure it must exist out there. I've been unlucky not to ever have anyone on staff with it at any of the houses. But as long as my freelancers don't assume, and double-check their dictionaries and style books, we're cookin' with gas.)
However, while spelling eidetic seems flawless in both our posts, the definition of eidetic seems to differ greatly from what you have noted.
Websters defines eidetic thus:
"marked by or involving extraordinarily accurate and vivid recall especially of visual images [an eidetic memory]."
Recall is memory of something you have seen or heard (or experienced). In this discussion, spelling, recall refers to words you have seen spelled. It differs in no significant way from any other form of memorization, only that you recall something you may have seen only briefly. It is still memorization.
(Recall, for those keeping score here, is defined in short as "remembering." Remembering implies memory. Memory means something was placed into our memories. The only way to place anything in memory is through "memorization" -- defined as "to commit to memory." Memorization doesn't necessarily mean sitting down with a poem and repeating it to yourself until you can say it in your sleep; it is any act that stores things learned and retained through many different mechanisms, including the prized "eidetic" technique/talent, which stores things by a mostly subconscious act.)
At the risk of repeating myself, here it is again: This form of spelling knowledge, for "innate spellers," does indeed work for words they have never seen before. (I won't bother to cut and paste my post here; it's just a few posts above this one.) In other words, it doesn't necessarily depend on recall, on memorization.
And eidetic memory (what you call imagery) is recall -- memorization. Even if done subconsiously.
I know quite a lot about eidetic memory: I have it. I also, originally, specialized in language and information acquisition for one half of my undergrad double major, lo these decades ago. Handy to also have it for the spoken word; it made writing up verbatims, when I was playing with one of my degrees (psychology), much easier. And it makes handling book schedules and meetings almost tolerable.
I must say, also, that having an eidetic memory doesn't mean a person never, ever forgets anything, or that it is flawless. It happens on an subconscious level, and if the subconscious is distracted by anything at all, the eidetic memory may not function at 100% capacity. (How can you tell your subconscious was distracted for a few seconds? You can't. Thus the danger inherent in depending entirely on eidetic memory. Note I used the word entirely here as an important qualifier.)
It's a delicate talent to depend on for important things. Double-checking never hurt anyone, and any copy editor who refuses to double-check automatically breaks the "assume" rule. And then we start on down that slippery slope of small errors in books which lead to bigger errors which lead to dogs and cats sleeping with each other and next thing we know it, the world is ending.
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
>This form of spelling knowledge, for "innate spellers," does indeed work for words they have never seen before.
One theory of second language learning states that people learn a second language in two different ways. The first is through internalization of discrete rule; for example, regular verbs take an -ed ending for the past tense. The second way is through memorization of individual cases; for example, the past tense of 'go' is 'went' and not 'goed.' If you use MRI (I think, might be PET) to examine someone's brain while they conjugate verbs, placing regular verbs in the past tense activates one area of the brain, placing irregular verbs in the past tense activates another.
This is the kind of difference I think you're talking about. If someone can spot a word that is spelled incorrectly, and this is the first time they have ever seen that word, then all they are doing is applying their knowledge of spelling conventions in English to the word (i.e., restrictions on consonant clusters, conventions for certain sounds (ie vs. ei) etc.). Of course, that doesn't mean that the word *is* actually spelled incorrectly, just that it doesn't fit the standard conventions of written English. So this kind of spellcheck is application of memorized/internalized rules.
You can also, of course, have memorization of words (and phrases), where the word is memorized as a whole. Often I find mis-spelled or mis-typed words in my work because they *look* wrong, which I guess is simply me matching the visual shape of the word against what I remember it to be. So this kind of spellcheck is memorization of wholes.
IMHO, you're talking about two different routes to the same destination.
Cheers,
Euan
>This form of spelling knowledge, for "innate spellers," does indeed work for words they have never seen before.
One theory of second language learning states that people learn a second language in two different ways. The first is through internalization of discrete rule; for example, regular verbs take an -ed ending for the past tense. The second way is through memorization of individual cases; for example, the past tense of 'go' is 'went' and not 'goed.' If you use MRI (I think, might be PET) to examine someone's brain while they conjugate verbs, placing regular verbs in the past tense activates one area of the brain, placing irregular verbs in the past tense activates another.
This is the kind of difference I think you're talking about. If someone can spot a word that is spelled incorrectly, and this is the first time they have ever seen that word, then all they are doing is applying their knowledge of spelling conventions in English to the word (i.e., restrictions on consonant clusters, conventions for certain sounds (ie vs. ei) etc.). Of course, that doesn't mean that the word *is* actually spelled incorrectly, just that it doesn't fit the standard conventions of written English. So this kind of spellcheck is application of memorized/internalized rules.
You can also, of course, have memorization of words (and phrases), where the word is memorized as a whole. Often I find mis-spelled or mis-typed words in my work because they *look* wrong, which I guess is simply me matching the visual shape of the word against what I remember it to be. So this kind of spellcheck is memorization of wholes.
IMHO, you're talking about two different routes to the same destination.
Cheers,
Euan
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
Editrx, I make a distinction between memorizing something and simply adding it to one's memory store by becoming familiar with it. American Heritage Dict., memorize: "To commit to memory; learn by heart." Webster II has almost the identical definition. Funny that we have words for the process by which something becomes available from memory with or without effort – remember, recall – but not for the process of putting things into memory unless it's effortful. I suppose learn covers many instances. I learned my name at an early age without having to memorize it.
I still don't understand how children learn to spell who don't have eidetic imagery. (To me, that means seeing things that aren't there – in my case, seeing words set in type when I hear or think them. You may be using the phrase differently.) If they aren't reading their spelling words off a mental screen in front of their eyes, are they using auditory thoughts for every word? That is, have they memorized the sequence of letter sounds for each word, so that they say to themselves "Dog. Dee, oh, gee," and then write down those letters on the spelling test?
Editrx, I make a distinction between memorizing something and simply adding it to one's memory store by becoming familiar with it. American Heritage Dict., memorize: "To commit to memory; learn by heart." Webster II has almost the identical definition. Funny that we have words for the process by which something becomes available from memory with or without effort – remember, recall – but not for the process of putting things into memory unless it's effortful. I suppose learn covers many instances. I learned my name at an early age without having to memorize it.
I still don't understand how children learn to spell who don't have eidetic imagery. (To me, that means seeing things that aren't there – in my case, seeing words set in type when I hear or think them. You may be using the phrase differently.) If they aren't reading their spelling words off a mental screen in front of their eyes, are they using auditory thoughts for every word? That is, have they memorized the sequence of letter sounds for each word, so that they say to themselves "Dog. Dee, oh, gee," and then write down those letters on the spelling test?
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
As regards wholes and parts -- yes! A good way to put it, indeed. Which is why, when confronted with a new word in English that follows non-romantic and/or non-germanic language rules (or follow archaic rules), we tend to think the spelling looks wonky. And why we can look at other words and tell that they're spelled "right" or "wrong," but can't quite tell why -- it just does.
Reph,
Eidetic memory is the unusually accurate recall of visual memory (again, see the definition above -- it's a commonly used definition for eidetic memory [or what you call imagery]).
If you're seeing words that aren't there, there's another name for that, and there is treatment for it, too. Just kidding.
Seriously, some people report "seeing" memories of material that was acquired eidetically, while most people simply remember the material the same way everyone remembers things (but they don't physically "see things that aren't there," so to speak). It's not unusual for people with eidetic memory, for example, to be able to tell you exactly what page and where on the page a line of text occurs in a given book -- the page is "visualized" when the person is asked to recall the text. Others can recite the text, but can't remember where it occurred in the book.
With strong eidetic memory, the first example is reported more often in circumstantial cases, but I'm not positive that it's prevelent across the board -- I'd need to pull up scientifically accurate studies on it, and it's far too late at night for me to do that now and still get up in time for work in the morning.
Maybe someone else here has that information at their fingertips?
As regards wholes and parts -- yes! A good way to put it, indeed. Which is why, when confronted with a new word in English that follows non-romantic and/or non-germanic language rules (or follow archaic rules), we tend to think the spelling looks wonky. And why we can look at other words and tell that they're spelled "right" or "wrong," but can't quite tell why -- it just does.
Reph,
Eidetic memory is the unusually accurate recall of visual memory (again, see the definition above -- it's a commonly used definition for eidetic memory [or what you call imagery]).
If you're seeing words that aren't there, there's another name for that, and there is treatment for it, too. Just kidding.
Seriously, some people report "seeing" memories of material that was acquired eidetically, while most people simply remember the material the same way everyone remembers things (but they don't physically "see things that aren't there," so to speak). It's not unusual for people with eidetic memory, for example, to be able to tell you exactly what page and where on the page a line of text occurs in a given book -- the page is "visualized" when the person is asked to recall the text. Others can recite the text, but can't remember where it occurred in the book.
With strong eidetic memory, the first example is reported more often in circumstantial cases, but I'm not positive that it's prevelent across the board -- I'd need to pull up scientifically accurate studies on it, and it's far too late at night for me to do that now and still get up in time for work in the morning.
Maybe someone else here has that information at their fingertips?
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
Editrx: We seem to be using words in disparate ways. You speak of "material that was acquired eidetically." To my understanding, eidetic phenomena concern retrieval, not acquisition. The person receives visual information the same way as anyone else but has a different kind of access to it later.
Anyone: I'd still like to know how people can spell correctly if they don't see a word in their mind's eye and read the spelling from the mental image.
Editrx: We seem to be using words in disparate ways. You speak of "material that was acquired eidetically." To my understanding, eidetic phenomena concern retrieval, not acquisition. The person receives visual information the same way as anyone else but has a different kind of access to it later.
Anyone: I'd still like to know how people can spell correctly if they don't see a word in their mind's eye and read the spelling from the mental image.
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
Can't help you with that one. I have to see it. When I am introduced to someone new, I often have to visualize their name (spelled correctly) or I don't have a chance of remembering it.
I can't memorize music, because I can't visualize the pages of notes. With music, you can hear and feel the music, not just see it. Words are more visual.
I have a horrible memory but can spell fairly well. As a kid, when my memory was better, I was a great speller.
I think my brain is evaporating. I forget everything!
After one of my recent forgetful episodes, I asked my husband if he knew that genius if often accompanied by absentmindedness.
He looked at me and said, "You just keep telling yourself that."
:nerd (I may forget my cell phone every day, but I can still spell better than him.)
Can't help you with that one. I have to see it. When I am introduced to someone new, I often have to visualize their name (spelled correctly) or I don't have a chance of remembering it.
I can't memorize music, because I can't visualize the pages of notes. With music, you can hear and feel the music, not just see it. Words are more visual.
I have a horrible memory but can spell fairly well. As a kid, when my memory was better, I was a great speller.
I think my brain is evaporating. I forget everything!
After one of my recent forgetful episodes, I asked my husband if he knew that genius if often accompanied by absentmindedness.
He looked at me and said, "You just keep telling yourself that."
:nerd (I may forget my cell phone every day, but I can still spell better than him.)
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
By sound, of course. In the couple of decades since I've learned to read I've had lots and lots of experience associating certain sounds with certain spellings, and a good enough memory to know that particular spellings apply to particular words (particular combinations of sounds). Kind of like knowing that a note is B flat, which can also be written A sharp. After years of reading music I don't have to ask how to write that note when we're in the key of B major--I don't have to think about it, because after years of reading music it's habit to notate it that way--but I didn't know what pitch it was by seeing music, I knew what pitch it was by hearing it.
I guess I'm saying the same thing as the poster above who talked about rules of English spelling--I've internalized "spelling theory" and interpret sounds of words according to that. There are a few words I've had to flat-out memorize to spell correctly, but I still do that by sound, sometimes warping the actual pronunciation of a word to myself so that I can remember how to spell it.
Since I've learned to type I've also got a whole other set of "how to spell" that involves finger movements. It's tied to sound--I occasionally catch myself typing "ov" for of because my mind insists that v=the sound at the end of "of." But it's very much a physical memory, the same way that I remember instrumental music "in my fingers" as much as in my ear.
I learned to read by sounding out, but like doing scales on an instrument over and over eventually reading most words becomes an unconscious process. You know when it's off the same way you know when you hit the wrong note in a scale--it sounds off.
I can't help but memorize music--I only have to sing something a time or two for it to start digging itself in. With instrumental music, it takes much longer. It's as much a physical memory as a memory of sound, although the two are still very much tied together. I have to admit, I find needing to see notes to memorize music a bit bewildering. It's odd how differently some people's brains are put together, isn't it.
By sound, of course. In the couple of decades since I've learned to read I've had lots and lots of experience associating certain sounds with certain spellings, and a good enough memory to know that particular spellings apply to particular words (particular combinations of sounds). Kind of like knowing that a note is B flat, which can also be written A sharp. After years of reading music I don't have to ask how to write that note when we're in the key of B major--I don't have to think about it, because after years of reading music it's habit to notate it that way--but I didn't know what pitch it was by seeing music, I knew what pitch it was by hearing it.
I guess I'm saying the same thing as the poster above who talked about rules of English spelling--I've internalized "spelling theory" and interpret sounds of words according to that. There are a few words I've had to flat-out memorize to spell correctly, but I still do that by sound, sometimes warping the actual pronunciation of a word to myself so that I can remember how to spell it.
Since I've learned to type I've also got a whole other set of "how to spell" that involves finger movements. It's tied to sound--I occasionally catch myself typing "ov" for of because my mind insists that v=the sound at the end of "of." But it's very much a physical memory, the same way that I remember instrumental music "in my fingers" as much as in my ear.
I learned to read by sounding out, but like doing scales on an instrument over and over eventually reading most words becomes an unconscious process. You know when it's off the same way you know when you hit the wrong note in a scale--it sounds off.
I can't help but memorize music--I only have to sing something a time or two for it to start digging itself in. With instrumental music, it takes much longer. It's as much a physical memory as a memory of sound, although the two are still very much tied together. I have to admit, I find needing to see notes to memorize music a bit bewildering. It's odd how differently some people's brains are put together, isn't it.
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
No infallible speller spells by ear. Not in English, at any rate.
No infallible speller spells by ear. Not in English, at any rate.
Re: memorization of wholes and parts
Well, that's how I experience it when I do it, at any rate. I do agree that "by ear" isn't going to work without a lot of "spelling theory" to assist it. But I wouldn't discount spelling by ear entirely, even for English--there are not a few words in my vocabulary that I spell by deliberately mispronouncing so I can get the sound I need for the correct spelling.
How infallible I am is another matter, but I think I do pretty well.
Well, that's how I experience it when I do it, at any rate. I do agree that "by ear" isn't going to work without a lot of "spelling theory" to assist it. But I wouldn't discount spelling by ear entirely, even for English--there are not a few words in my vocabulary that I spell by deliberately mispronouncing so I can get the sound I need for the correct spelling.
How infallible I am is another matter, but I think I do pretty well.