Poor flow destroys writing in general. Many writers would benefit from creating an outline and rearranging their writing based on it. Writing that does not follow logical flow is completely doomed. Many article authors seem to simply write in same order as thoughts occur in and then call job complete. Meanwhile, writing is a complete mess and a potentially great article remains nothing more than amateur fodder.

This mistake can be avoided by printing out work, reading it over, and labeling main theme for each sentence. In “poor opening” example, introductory sentence belonged later on in article—perhaps conclusion. Reading article draft aloud is a professional technique for discovering sentence structure errors.

Number Four: Poor Conclusion

It is poor form to label your conclusion as such in an article. There is no need to type word “Conclusion” or state “In conclusion”. A conclusion should not be a summary of what was already written. It must include fresh writing, illustrate main point of article, and bring article to a logical closing. Moreover, it can’t leave reader with sense of incompletion. An ideal conclusion will drive point home and give reader satisfaction of having read article. The closing of article must be communicated well or reader will come away unsatisfied—even if article was great up until that point.

Writing great articles takes practice and adhering to some basic principles. To eliminate poorly written articles, share them with your friends and family. Write down their questions and comments as they read your article. With newfound information in hand, proceed to rewrite your work. Never be afraid to delete and rearrange—every writer must do this. In end, your readers will thank you by continuing to read your improved work.

©2005 Jason Andrew Martin LLC

Jason A. Martin has been conducting business on the Internet for 11 years. He is a freelance writer on many topics and is currently working on obtaining a degree in Journalism and Law.

The point is that it is not necessary for a reviewer to make a list of badly written words of author and publish it on pages of a newspaper or magazine. You can do that if review is for eyes of author only.

Not many writers like it—especially if reviewer has been paid to do work. He could simply say in his review that book needs editing. You know saying about those who live in glass houses that take delight in throwing stones.

That old saying became poignant to me as I read next sentence explaining reason for your correction: “to achieve a high level of GRAMMATICALITY.” To tell you truth, when I read that sentence, I thought that a stray missile had just come from Middle-East and landed on my desk. I docked. Grammaticality? Where did you get that?

I don’t know what author of book must have done after reading “review.” I guess he must have been full of thanks to you for letting his “great” book appear in your newspaper. If so, he got it all wrong. You did him a great disservice.

The book was about buying and selling of shares. Now, let me answer your question: “Do you aspire to make money through buying and selling of shares?” My answer is yes, but not by reading book that you have just “reviewed.” You killed it!

There are some things that good editors and reviewers do. First, they cross check facts with other editors. Second, they read good reviews in respected newspapers and magazines. You can find excellent book reviews in London Review of Books and The Spectator.

Those of us who are in writing business should have humility to learn. There is more to editing than sitting in swivel editorial chairs behind huge mahogany desks, looking through tinted glasses like mine, and giving deadlines to less privileged reporters. Writers should know that their writings are read by authorities in language—and that includes native speakers. So, there is need for us to strive for perfection—to write living, meaningful prose.

In those good old days, students learnt English by reading newspapers and magazines. "Not anymore," according to Raven bird. These days, everyone is a writer and an editor. I remember a principal lamenting that an English graduate job applicant couldn’t write an application letter. It is as bad as that.

But I am happy that there are a few humble ones. Not long ago, I was discussing editing with head of English department of a prestigious university. I was surprised when she admitted to me that she gives her works to a junior lecturer, who she says is good in language, to edit for her. When I heard that, I thought I was transported to ideal world of Sir Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis. And my respect for her grew from that day on.

If you like truth, your prose was drab, breathless, dead. Just to tell you how bad it is, you never for once mentioned title of book in your "review." What I kept seeing were references like: "According to this author, production of book"; "Structure-wise this book is segmented into 15 chapters"; "Chapter two of this book"; "Stylistically speaking, this book is a success." I kept asking myself, Which book is he referring to?

I could only find book's image, not an existing book title that was being referred to. You just wrote dangling modifiers. The GRAMMATICALITY of “review,” therefore, is hopelessly wanting.

Writing is not a crossword puzzle. Or a game of charades. Good prose should be clear-- devoid of ambiguities. There should not be sentences like: "The witches said to Macbeth." Because what they told him has two meanings.

There is one thing about truth--it is hurtful. It is not same as drinking a cup of honey. This letter will test your humility because truth has been a relative “concept” ever since Pontius Pilate asked Jesus Christ, “What is truth?” And I will tell you another truth: you could do better.

Enjoy your writing.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur Zulu.

Arthur Zulu is an editor, book reviewer, and author of Chasing Shadows!, How to Write a Best-seller, A Letter to Noah, and many others. For his works and free help for writers, goto:

http://controversialwriter.tripod.com

mailto: controversialwriter@yahoo.com

Web search: Arthur Zulu