Angling Journalism

[chevin]

gilbertron:

my comments were intended on a far more fundamental level, i never critised anyones use of punctuation or grammar, as i believe these are irrelavent to the argument, what i dont like is the way most angling journalism seems to be written to appeal to the lowest common denominator, theres no imaginationn, no spark, certainly no risk taking, its just dull repetition of the same old themes. read the book jeremy paxman edited (i think its called fish, fishing and the meaning of life, but i may be mistaken) and you'll see some fantastic angling writing, also read any john geirach book, or george mellies memoires, all make fantastic reading, indeed the first book i mentioned evoked such magical scenes in my head that i started fly fishing because of it, i'd never been interested before, but i wanted to experience some of that which was being written about.

 

i find it amusing to be called a semi illiterate the irony of that is almost too much to take. i only claim to be a professional journalist because thats exactly what i am, and the fact i've got where i am with such a cavalier attitude to all that crap i was taught at school only shows that you should write what and how you feel, not what and how other people say. subject matter and style are everything, punctuation and correct use of capital letters when using the first person singular are nothing. and on that note hopefully this thread will wither up and fade away

unless anyone else wants to insult me, slag me off, tell me i shouldnt be doing what i do, etc etc

WOW, thanks for that, I rest my case!

[Wordbender]

gilbertron:

punctuation and correct use of capital letters when using the first person singular are nothing.

'Nothing', beyond being the tools of your trade, you mean? Those same tools that fashion the 'everything' of style and subject before presentation to your readers.

 

Writing without regard to grammar and punctuation is like painting with fingers instead of artists' brushes. Your audience gets the general idea but those special details are, sadly, lost.

 

Read those great writers again. Check out their regard for your 'nothing'.

 

Terry

[poledark]

What has happened to the old fashioned "pride in your product?" I don't profess to be grammatically correct all the time (and I still can't stop putting two ll's on the end of until ) but frankly if you can't bother to put in a few dots and commas FOR THE BENEFIT OF YOUR READERS,then I don't think you deserve to be read at all.

 

Lots of the posters on here are quite young and it is noticeable that many obviously could not be bothered with "all the crap they were taught at school", which is why half of them can't spell, have no conception of paragraphs, and have no idea where the edit button is.

 

I can only repeat what I have already said once.....have some respect for your readers, if not for yourself.

 

Den

 

[ 23. July 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: poledark ]

[gilbertron]

jesus this one is going to run and run, the writers i mentioned are examples of the fact that good writing and angling writing are not mutually exclusive. and anyone intending to start writing could do a lot worse than to read some of these works to get some ideas and inspiration.

but dont get so hung up on the punctuation etc, good copy is easily edited, both for length and punctuation corrections, bad copy, regardless of how well it is punctuated or how good the grammar is, is a nightmare to edit and no publisher will touch it with a barge pole

[gilbertron]

and your point is chevin?

[Vagabond]

Wen i send me furst arrtikal in i cuddent eeven spelle gernerlisst, but now i are one !

 

Seriously, if an editor receives a REALLY exceptional set of ideas that happens to be badly spelt, unpunctuated, and grammatically poor, he MIGHT still publish it after extensive editing - after all, what are sub-editors for?

 

A classic case is "I walked by night" - an absolutely fabulous account of a semi-literate Norfolk poacher's life - edited (but lightly, so that the writer's idiom and style stays intact) by Lilias Rider Haggard. One of the best pieces of outdoor writing I have ever read. It's on my shelf next to my collection of BB's books - need I say more?

 

However, unless a piece IS exceptional, it is far more likely to be binned - most editors have plenty of material to choose from, so a poorly presented piece of work will be at a disadvantage straight away.

 

My advice to Barnese would be to present your work as well as you can, in terms of spelling (spell checkers can be useful, even though they reject words like "boilie"), punctuation, neat captions to good photos, well-spaced lay-out etc etc. Don't worry if it is not perfect - just do the best you can.

Tell the story as it is, in plain English, without trying to embellish with flowery language - that is the secret of success of several well-known angling writers. Fred J , Peter Stone, Roger Standen, Chevin, Tag Barnes.

 

There is a lot of pretentious writing around these days from those who can best be described as "Bernard Venables wannabes" - they are wasting their time - Bernard was a genius, and a one-off. Avoid the mistake of trying to emulate him.

 

IF your piece gets rejected, read it through again, and you will almost certainly see how it might have been improved - so hopefully, your next attempt will be better. As Poldark says, there should be an element of personal pride in what you present.

 

....and John is right - angling writers make enemies - particularly if the writers catch good fish !

 

Does anyone remember a piece by Jim Gibbinson in one of the carp magazines a few years back ? It was a tongue-in-cheek article to "help" wannabe-famous carp angling writers, and entitled "Basically, at the end of the day, this is what it's all about"

 

One of the funniest pieces I have ever read.

 

[ 23. July 2003, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Vagabond ]

[Wordbender]

gilbertron:

and your point is chevin?

I think you've already confirmed it, mate.

 

Terry

 

[ 23. July 2003, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Wordbender ]

[chevin]

gilbertron:

and your point is chevin?

In my last post I began a sentence with the word "But", I gave you the opportunity to show that you were aware of the correct use of English. Under the circumstances in which you were being criticised, I would have expected you to jump on that and tell me where I was wrong. Furthermore, long before now, I would have expected you to demonstrate to me - and others - that you could indeed rise to a professional level when it came to writing.

 

Sadly, (oh, that "sad" word again), you have missed every opportunity to put us down. All you ever had to do was to post a grammatically correct note with no spelling mistakes and with the necessary punctuation and we would have acknowledged the fact that you really had something to contribute to this thread. I wouldn't have thought that you would have found that to be too difficult! I don't understand why you haven't done it.

[gilbertron]

i'm not interested in putting down people who post on here, or analyzing every word of their posts to spot mistakes. that seems to be the preserve of you and your cronies.

if it makes you feel good to point out every error i make then please do. i'm not perfect and never claimed to be. and as for putting deliberate mistakes to see if i'm intelligent enough to spot them, well done thats very clever indeed (oh and i can do it as well, or didnt you spot it, gosh that makes me feel so big and clever)

i wish i'd never bothered contributing to this thread, i've never criticised any of the contributors, just offered my opinions and in return i've been picked apart, pilloried and had my professionality called into question. i really cant be bothered with this cliquey atmosphere anymore, goodbye anglersnet.

[Vagabond]

poledark:

I still can't stop putting two ll's on the end of until

Freudian, Den, Freudian

 

"Till" means to dig

 

So,

 

Writing "untill" is your subconscious telling you to give up the idea of digging your garden and go fishing instead.