The Sleeper Has Awakened...

So, it has been a while since my last post on my blog regarding poor writing. Honestly, I could lie and state that my first three postings left me so emotionally distraught over terrible writing that I was unable to traverse the web. The reality is that I have been too tired to muster both the will and the creativity to tackle the overwhelmingly poor writing and editing that is ubiquitous across the entirety of the web. However, that is about to change, as I have been moved by a poorly written article on a topic that I hold very near, and dear, to my heart--Apple.

Relationship Gondolas (Part 3)

Yes, still more bad writing and editing to wade through, but that honestly shouldn't be a shock at this point.

Article: Here Is What's Missing From Gay Romance Today

Problem #3: Acknowledgement of Each Other's Value

Upon reaching the second characteristic in the article, I was pleasantly surprised with a title that wasn't terrible. This gave me the briefest moment of hope that the author was improving as he went along. Unfortunately, once I moved to the actual content, my hope was dashed on the rocky shore of reality:



Imagine this section didn't have a title--the reader would be left wondering what the author thinks every relationship should have. Just because you have a section title doesn't mean that you don't have to introduce the actual topic about which you are writing.

Here is my re-write of the opening to this section:

One of the most important things to remember about a relationship is that it is comprised of two individuals. Every person has unique, intrinsic qualities which can potentially attract someone, potentially leading to the formation of a relationship--those unique values should be acknowledged, valued, and nurtured if a relationship is to grow.  It is by embracing the unique qualities of a person that one is able to develop a more intimate relationship that is more than superficial. Unfortunately, as a society, we are trained to deprive ourselves of realizing the value of our own unique qualities, as well as those of a potential partner, and instead focus solely on physical appearance. In the open and competitive marketplace of relationships, our bodies have become the currency used to attract a potential partner, creating a distorted view of what is truly important when it comes to forming true and lasting bonds with another person.

Again, a much longer paragraph than the opening of this section, but it also incorporates much of what follows in the original text, reducing the overall length of the section. At this point, I should probably just rewrite the whole article and submit it to this website--but then again, I'm not being paid to do so.

Reading the remainder of the section, I noticed that there was some improvement in the author's writing--not much, but at least some improvement. However, by the time I reached the end of the section, I was once again treated to the terrible writing to which I have become accustomed:

As a side note, if I'm with a partner, it's going to be a lot more than just my perception I am putting on him (I'll leave the details to your imagination). This paragraph felt like a collection of incomplete thoughts begging for editorial reconstruction. I was left with no choice but to haul out the orange construction barrels and get to work, resulting in the following:

We should never allow the physical appearance of a person to become the only tool we use to determine the value of a person--we have to look at their heart, mind, sense of humor, and other intangible qualities too long to list. By acknowledging the value of these intangible characteristics in people, as well as ourselves, we are more likely to find a partner with whom we are wholly compatible. If we choose to not move beyond the superficial, we will be limiting ourselves to the mere illusion of compatibility with someone, leading to the eventual demise of the relationship. Given time, those who limit themselves by valuing only the physical appearance of a person will be left wondering, when it is too late, why they were unable find a love that endures, when so many others were successful.

Oooooooohhhhh, see what I did there? I brought the word acknowledging from the section title into the final paragraph, along with the word value. That is a much tidier bow with which to wrap up this section.

Captain Picard, take it away...

Relationship Gondolas (Part 2)

If you're reading this entry first, you should stop and scroll further down so that you can start at the beginning of this editorial nightmare.

Article: Here Is What's Missing From Gay Romance Today

Problem #2: Sensitivity Towards Love & Intimacy

Right from the start, I don't like how the author titled the first characteristic one should look for when embracing romance. Honestly, when you read it, it just sounds awkward because we're not physically moving toward something. Here is my rewrite:

Sensitivity To Love & Intimacy

What I believe the author was trying to say is that people need to be sensitive to feelings of love and intimacy intrinsically, as well as being sensitive to those same feelings exhibited by a potential partner.

It only gets worse from here, as evidenced below:

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

More than likely, the author of this article is not an authority on dating and relationships. The author probably spent hours researching legitimate articles on gay dating and relationships, then followed up with his friends to talk about their views on the gay dating scene (which more than likely became a reason to drown their emotions with alcohol and make vague promises of deleting the dating apps on their smartphones). Once finished with his research, the author made a valiant effort to sound authoritative, and in that process, he proceeded to abuse his word processor by writing. At this point, I can take neither the author nor the website seriously based on the poor writing and apparent lack of editorial standards. The message of the article, which is a good one to discuss, is lost in a thicket of incoherent babbling. If I had turned reading this article into a drinking game about bad writing, I would have been heavily buzzed by this point in the article.

In my view, a better way to write this opening would have read something like this:

Because sex can be easily found online, lust has become confused for love and intimacy. While sex with another person (or persons) is an intimate act, it is only skin-deep intimacy which is not a strong foundation upon which to build a lasting relationship. As lust wanes with the passage of time, relationships crumble under the weight of familiarity, causing partners to seek out someone different and exciting. Thus begins the seemingly never-ending cycle of lust-based relationship-hopping, which desensitizes people to the possibility of love and intimacy, turning them into emotional cynics. However, if people began to value themselves, and those around them, as more than genitalia to be used as a sexual commodity, it becomes possible to build a strong foundation for a lasting relationship, if meant to be.

While a longer rewrite than the original, this is a much clearer approach to what I believe the author was trying to say.

The next paragraph also has its own issues:

Unfinished thoughts really don't help one's cause.

Honestly, I'm not even going to attempt to rewrite this, as it would take far too much time and it is becoming difficult to see my screen because my palm is firmly attached to my face. This paragraph reads like a litany of unfinished thoughts that were machine gunned onto the page and deemed complete because the author added punctuation. This section ended with this train-wreck: 'Gay guys of this generation are used to starting out their newly out lives by experimenting on hookup apps, and by the time they meet a compatible person, unless they've been cautious of their feelings, they can desensitize themselves from intimacy and all its qualities'. At this point, I simply started to cry--tears of blood.

In the end, this was highly painful to read.

Relationship Gondolas (Part 1)

For my inaugural post, I am eviscerating an article that I found on the web that purports to give tips on how to build a better gay relationship. My problem with the article is not the topic, rather, my problem is with the lack of clarity and editing. Writing is not an easy task, as it requires a critical eye and countless sessions of editing and rewrites. I, more than anyone, know how difficult and anxiety-inducing putting the written word out in public view can be (I write a lot on Facebook and have received my own fair-share of critiques based on the ideas I have shared and how I expressed those ideas). One thing remains true about writing: no matter how appropriate a topic is, it cannot be taken seriously if it is poorly written. Reading should not be an exercise in frustration.

There will be multiple entries for this particular article, so you will need to read these entries in reverse, working bottom to top.

So, without further ado, here is the beginning of a very painful read.

Article: Here Is What's Missing From Gay Romance Today

Problem #1: The Opening Paragraph

I didn't realize that you can get seasick from a gondola metaphor

The best way I can describe the opening to this article is that it is similar to driving roads in Ohio after this past winter--it was a very bumpy ride. I lurched from sentence to sentence, trying to mentally rewrite it into something more readable. The only way this could have been worse would have been if it started out with 'It was a dark and stormy night...'

A better way to have written the opening might be:

Think of a relationship as a gondola ride: the gondola is the relationship, love is the water upon which the gondola floats, and romance is the oar which propels the gondola forward. A relationship without love and romance is like a gondola in a canal without water and an oar to propel it; the gondola exists, but has no ability to progress. 

In my view, the edit above is a stronger opening when compared with the choppiness written by the author. The author's opening also makes it painfully apparent that he doesn't truly know how a gondola is propelled, as he makes reference to both wind and "ore" (Do gondolas typically use canvas or nylon sails? I wonder if one type of ore is better than another when used to propel a gondola?). One good rule to follow is that if you are going to use an analogy or metaphor, make sure you understand the subject of your analogy or metaphor before using it.

Along similar lines, it is important for an author to understand the context in which a word is used, as context drives an author's diction. Unfortunately for this author, it would appear that an or is an ore is an oar. Based on this first paragraph, all I can now see in my mind's eye is a gondolier throwing large chunks of undetermined ore behind a gondola in order to create waves to help propel the 'love boat' forward. However, if the winds are favorable in Venice, or in the Venetian Casino and Resort in Las Vegas for that matter, the gondolier can choose to hoist a sail instead.

Once recovered from the seasickness of the opening gondola ride, the author decides to throw a car metaphor at us in order to really drive home his point (pun intended here). Is there a need for this? I'm going to have to go with a resounding NO. Had the author opened his paragraph better, there would be no need to add additional information to explain his viewpoint. If the author added this because he wasn't sure his readership would understand what a gondola was, the author shouldn't have used the gondola in the first place.

Here is the first Captain Picard facepalm to sum up my feelings about the opening paragraph: