正文
A Casual Chat with 畫蛇 on Learning English Composition - 來源: tcmquack
A Casual Chat with 畫蛇 on Learning English Composition
Quack: Before I ask my first question, I want to thank you for graciously agreeing to sit down with me for a little chat. As I wrote in my e-mail to you earlier in the week, I am interested in learning from your experience of dealing with some of the more-common issues we encounter in learning English composition.
畫蛇: You’re most welcome, Quackie. Although we have not known each other for long, in the short time since we have met, I have grown to like your direct, humorous style, both in writing and in conducting yourself as a person. Trust me, the pleasure is mine to have, as you call it, this little chat.
Q: Thanks for your kind words. Well, since you just mentioned writing style, let me start there. To be honest with you, I am not even sure that I have a writing style, for I, after close to two decades of studying English, still struggle on a daily basis trying to find my own voice in writing. Just how does one develop one’s writing style?
蛇: I don’t mean disrespect, Quackie, but I think you have gotten this business of developing a writing style backwards. In practice, you really don’t go out set a goal of developing a certain writing style. A writing style is more something you end up with rather than something you actively and conscientiously pursue.
Q: Fair enough. I guess I need to remind myself from time to time to get away from certain preconceived concepts, writing style among them.
蛇: Exactly. The key is be yourself. Or as you put it, find our own voice, and be true to it. If you do that, the style thing will come naturally.
Q: My next question has to do with my favorite subject: rewriting. You don’t seem to have much faith in rewriting, do you? Do you rewrite at all?
蛇: Don’t silly. Of course, I do. Everyone rewrites. I think you got the idea that I don’t believe in rewriting because, in the very first piece I wrote for職壇’s “Improve Our English” activity, I advocated focusing on getting the first few words down and letting the piece’s natural flow take one to a logical conclusion. I argued for a quick and efficient start because so many of us find ourselves stuck in the first paragraph or even the first sentence. Others may find that other ways of getting past the first few sentences work better for them. Personally, I just like starting things rolling early and worry about perfection later.
Q: Ah, perfection! Are you a perfectionist? I almost have to say that you must be, since all your writings are just so smooth, perfect.
蛇: Now, you are just saying that! No, I am not a perfectionist, and have never wanted to be one. For one, I am too lazy to be a perfectionist (Hannah knows that well since, if I can get away with it, I don’t even bother to type more than 20 Chinese characters in a post). For another, I am of the opinion that to meet our daily communications needs, we don’t need to be a perfectionist. Perfectionism is wasteful, inefficient, and very much unnecessary.
Q: You are not by any means condoning spelling or grammar errors, or other sloppy composition mistakes, I take it?
蛇: Not exactly. But everyone has a spelling or grammar error now and then. You avoid the basic mistakes – so basic that I call them “flagrant fouls,” and you will have a passable, decent piece of writing. For more formal communications, e.g., a job application cover letter or resume, one pays closer attention to watch out for these avoidable errors.
Q: That makes good sense. From hereon, I will watch out for “flagrant fouls” in my own writing. Would you mind giving us a couple of examples of “flagrant fouls”?
蛇: 1. “He don’t like me because he hate me.” 2. “You was the only person I know when I first come to this country back in 2001.”
Q: I see. To our credit, we don’t come across many errors of that kind on 職壇. And what about the more forgivable mix-ups you see here?
蛇: The more forgivable mistakes apply to not just here, but also to any workplace. Some examples are: using “affect” where “effect” is meant or vice versa, “a SSA expert,” “its vs. it’s”, or misplacing “only.”
Q: Forgivable or not so forgivable, they are still eyesores to folks of more exacting standards. How would you advise others to avoid those mishaps?
蛇: I don’t see any shortcut to solve this problem but be attentive to details and learn as one goes along. That is true of finessing in general, is it not?
Q: Good point. I intend to wrap up this piece under the tolerable length of the average職壇 reader. Any parting wisdom for the rest of us?
蛇: 1. Stay in one’s comfort zone (write on what one knows about); 2. write for the right audience (steer clear of pampering or condescension); and 3. when in doubt, err on being brief and simple (cut out any clogging, cluttering non-essential stuff).
Q: Very sound advice, indeed. On behalf of all 職壇 readers, thank you!
Quack: Before I ask my first question, I want to thank you for graciously agreeing to sit down with me for a little chat. As I wrote in my e-mail to you earlier in the week, I am interested in learning from your experience of dealing with some of the more-common issues we encounter in learning English composition.
畫蛇: You’re most welcome, Quackie. Although we have not known each other for long, in the short time since we have met, I have grown to like your direct, humorous style, both in writing and in conducting yourself as a person. Trust me, the pleasure is mine to have, as you call it, this little chat.
Q: Thanks for your kind words. Well, since you just mentioned writing style, let me start there. To be honest with you, I am not even sure that I have a writing style, for I, after close to two decades of studying English, still struggle on a daily basis trying to find my own voice in writing. Just how does one develop one’s writing style?
蛇: I don’t mean disrespect, Quackie, but I think you have gotten this business of developing a writing style backwards. In practice, you really don’t go out set a goal of developing a certain writing style. A writing style is more something you end up with rather than something you actively and conscientiously pursue.
Q: Fair enough. I guess I need to remind myself from time to time to get away from certain preconceived concepts, writing style among them.
蛇: Exactly. The key is be yourself. Or as you put it, find our own voice, and be true to it. If you do that, the style thing will come naturally.
Q: My next question has to do with my favorite subject: rewriting. You don’t seem to have much faith in rewriting, do you? Do you rewrite at all?
蛇: Don’t silly. Of course, I do. Everyone rewrites. I think you got the idea that I don’t believe in rewriting because, in the very first piece I wrote for職壇’s “Improve Our English” activity, I advocated focusing on getting the first few words down and letting the piece’s natural flow take one to a logical conclusion. I argued for a quick and efficient start because so many of us find ourselves stuck in the first paragraph or even the first sentence. Others may find that other ways of getting past the first few sentences work better for them. Personally, I just like starting things rolling early and worry about perfection later.
Q: Ah, perfection! Are you a perfectionist? I almost have to say that you must be, since all your writings are just so smooth, perfect.
蛇: Now, you are just saying that! No, I am not a perfectionist, and have never wanted to be one. For one, I am too lazy to be a perfectionist (Hannah knows that well since, if I can get away with it, I don’t even bother to type more than 20 Chinese characters in a post). For another, I am of the opinion that to meet our daily communications needs, we don’t need to be a perfectionist. Perfectionism is wasteful, inefficient, and very much unnecessary.
Q: You are not by any means condoning spelling or grammar errors, or other sloppy composition mistakes, I take it?
蛇: Not exactly. But everyone has a spelling or grammar error now and then. You avoid the basic mistakes – so basic that I call them “flagrant fouls,” and you will have a passable, decent piece of writing. For more formal communications, e.g., a job application cover letter or resume, one pays closer attention to watch out for these avoidable errors.
Q: That makes good sense. From hereon, I will watch out for “flagrant fouls” in my own writing. Would you mind giving us a couple of examples of “flagrant fouls”?
蛇: 1. “He don’t like me because he hate me.” 2. “You was the only person I know when I first come to this country back in 2001.”
Q: I see. To our credit, we don’t come across many errors of that kind on 職壇. And what about the more forgivable mix-ups you see here?
蛇: The more forgivable mistakes apply to not just here, but also to any workplace. Some examples are: using “affect” where “effect” is meant or vice versa, “a SSA expert,” “its vs. it’s”, or misplacing “only.”
Q: Forgivable or not so forgivable, they are still eyesores to folks of more exacting standards. How would you advise others to avoid those mishaps?
蛇: I don’t see any shortcut to solve this problem but be attentive to details and learn as one goes along. That is true of finessing in general, is it not?
Q: Good point. I intend to wrap up this piece under the tolerable length of the average職壇 reader. Any parting wisdom for the rest of us?
蛇: 1. Stay in one’s comfort zone (write on what one knows about); 2. write for the right audience (steer clear of pampering or condescension); and 3. when in doubt, err on being brief and simple (cut out any clogging, cluttering non-essential stuff).
Q: Very sound advice, indeed. On behalf of all 職壇 readers, thank you!
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
