KarenHayesMitchell
Dreamer
There's a website I use on a daily basis for my editing. It has been a godsend during my final editing phase, I hope you find it useful too. Pro Writing Aid - Free Editing Software
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Editing
- Thread starter KarenHayesMitchell
- Start date
CupofJoe
Myth Weaver
I just tried it out on something I was playing with today... "American" has too many syllables... you can't win.
- Thread starter
- #3
KarenHayesMitchell
Dreamer
It's one of those things you have to decide what you want to change. I primarily use the Overused Words section but I look to see what the others say. And you can unselect some of the items. I doubt anyone would have a complete novel and not have something on the list.
CupofJoe
Myth Weaver
I think even Roget would fail... but i hadn't realised that I had used "had" so much. and it spotted a tense change i had missed [there's that damn word again...]
- Thread starter
- #5
KarenHayesMitchell
Dreamer
It's amazing how many errors there are in a piece of work. I put in a chapter at a time and in my current chapter I use the word 'was' 76 times in 11 pages.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
Fantastic tool. Spotted several issues. Thanks!
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
It's definitely a "take with a grain of salt" kind of thing. Extremely useful for pointing stuff out, but you've got to make good choices about what suggestions to take.
'Grain of Salt' indeed. Another sample I ran through that thing was calling me out on capitalization issues. I have an area termed the 'Free Cities' which turned up several times in the characters conversations, along with a discussion of slavery, in which 'free' was also used.
Then there is the 'ending the sentence on a preposition' bit. This occurs almost entirely in dialogue, and not just normal dialogue, but with a character given to flamboyant statements and actively arguing with another. So they interrupt each other.
Dang thing also didn't like several of the words I yanked out of my Thesaurus. It found several ... 'false cliche's' I'm going to call them - phrases usually taken one way but employed entirely differently in my text. Big example here was 'over the top' - in my text the guy was climbing a mountain. '.. hand came down over the top...'
Still...it does look like it would be a real handy deal for the final rewrite and editing end of things. I'm probably going to make a lot of use of it, just to help with the drudge end of things.
Then there is the 'ending the sentence on a preposition' bit. This occurs almost entirely in dialogue, and not just normal dialogue, but with a character given to flamboyant statements and actively arguing with another. So they interrupt each other.
Dang thing also didn't like several of the words I yanked out of my Thesaurus. It found several ... 'false cliche's' I'm going to call them - phrases usually taken one way but employed entirely differently in my text. Big example here was 'over the top' - in my text the guy was climbing a mountain. '.. hand came down over the top...'
Still...it does look like it would be a real handy deal for the final rewrite and editing end of things. I'm probably going to make a lot of use of it, just to help with the drudge end of things.
The perfect editing tool (though by no means perfect). Over-used words, adverbs/passive, repeated phases, consistency, and homonyms are all extremely useful. As to be expected there are a few odd conclusions (one word cliches, prepositions, etc), but as a whole it's a solid program.
Thanks for alerting us.
Thanks for alerting us.
SeverinR
Vala
Tried it,
It gave a generic over view,
pointed out some things that I might not have noticed,
but also pointed out alot of things that might not be right in every piece, but imo was proper in the work I submitted.
I did like the flag for complex word: "actually" as used in the sentence: "The horns that were actually formed at this point were basically defensive in nature." (parphrased from memory)
I think a reader can handle the occasional 4 syllabol word.
ending with a preposition: 2 and one is in dialog.
I would use it again, like the flags in a word document, use the problems alerted as a possible problem, not as if this program is 100% right everytime.
It gave a generic over view,
pointed out some things that I might not have noticed,
but also pointed out alot of things that might not be right in every piece, but imo was proper in the work I submitted.
I did like the flag for complex word: "actually" as used in the sentence: "The horns that were actually formed at this point were basically defensive in nature." (parphrased from memory)
I think a reader can handle the occasional 4 syllabol word.
ending with a preposition: 2 and one is in dialog.
I would use it again, like the flags in a word document, use the problems alerted as a possible problem, not as if this program is 100% right everytime.
Last edited:
Chime85
Sage
a brilliant tool, will be saving that one for a quick once over in my workings
I think this is a great tool as well. It can really highlight problems you may not see otherwise. However, it's still just that: a tool. I wouldn't completely replace your own editing our peer editing and use this website only. For cleaning up some issues you may have problems with (especially with a first draft) this can be quite useful.
One of the greatest aspects is the "pacing" section. It shows when your novel may be dragging from long blocks of text (specifically exposition or introspection). That I found to really useful.
Another big thing I want to clean up is use of passive voice. I tend to use a lot of that when writing a first draft because I just want to get something down. So I'm hoping this tool will help point out these instances to me.
One of the greatest aspects is the "pacing" section. It shows when your novel may be dragging from long blocks of text (specifically exposition or introspection). That I found to really useful.
Another big thing I want to clean up is use of passive voice. I tend to use a lot of that when writing a first draft because I just want to get something down. So I'm hoping this tool will help point out these instances to me.
Ravana
Istar
Ran three texts through it, and must say this is a pleasant surprise. Unlike most programs I've seen, this gives feedback that is of genuine use.
Though part of why I was pleased is that it confirmed I'd handled most potential issues already.…
In particular, I discovered that I successfully managed to overcome two and a half of my three most overused words: "actually" showed up a mere three times in a total of 11.5k words of text; "even" showed up more often, but didn't trip its "overused" filter (it still showed up under "vague and abstract"); only "just" was flagged as overused–and then only in one of the three texts. This feature alone makes it worth using, in my opinion… since most people aren't aware of their personal overuse lists.
On the other hand, it appears I may want to add "could" to my list.…
I also like the fact that it appreciates a variety of diction: it gave me big green "pass" checkmarks on complex words. It's somewhat less enamored about my sentence length, though it approves of my variety. Most editing programs have kittens, if not cows, at my writing style. Examples:
Story 1 (3k words)
- sentence length: average 15.2 words
- 30-35 words = 13; 35-40 words = 5; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 50; 5 syllables = 11; 6 syllables = 1
Story 2 (6.2k words)
- sentence length: average 12 words
- 30-35 words = 11; 35-40 words = 7; 40-45 words = 6; 45+ words = 4
- word length: 4 syllables = 119; 5 syllables = 28; 6 syllables = 4
Story 3 (2.3k words)
- sentence length: average 11.9 words
- 30-35 words = 2; 35-40 words = 3; 40-45 words = 4; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 28; 5 syllables = 6; 6 syllables = 3
That it merely mentioned length as a potential issue, rather than having screaming conniptions over them, is a definite positive. More positive still is that its threshold for "too long" is 30+ words; plenty of other programs I've seen would gripe about 20+ words… some, fewer than that.
Less valuable is the "alliteration analysis." It seems to regard alliteration as a good thing–another item which pleased me–but its analyzer relies entirely on initial letters… which is a problem when it's counting every word that begins with 't', even if the next letter is an 'h'. I have no idea if there's a point past which it triggers an "excessive alliteration" flag; given that I didn't hit it, I'd have to guess there isn't one. (Feeding some of my poetry in didn't trigger one either.) This feature seems largely gratuitous, unless you're dead set on avoiding alliteration as much as possible.
That's one of seventeen categories, however. At least a dozen of the others are useful–and since they're broken out under separate tabs, you don't end up looking at all the flags it places on your text at the same time, leaving you to figure out which is flagged for what reason. Here, you can see which issue you're addressing, and deal with each separately.
Overall, I'd say this is not only useful to writers generally, but something I personally will use. It is a great template for identifying things you want to check–as opposed to things it thinks are "wrong." For instance, in one of my stories, it flagged a redundancy which was genuinely redundant: I changed it. (I fully intend to go back and look more closely at its other recommendations later.) For me, anything that can net me a single positive change is worth using. So thanks for bringing this to my–and our–attention, Karen.
-
P.S. One possible "note, however": I fed the above text in as well–why not?–and discovered it didn't count all that well: one of the 30+ word sentences it flagged has only 28 words, another 29. Both include contractions, though, so probably these are regarded as multiple words, which would bring the totals up to the correct values.
Though part of why I was pleased is that it confirmed I'd handled most potential issues already.…
In particular, I discovered that I successfully managed to overcome two and a half of my three most overused words: "actually" showed up a mere three times in a total of 11.5k words of text; "even" showed up more often, but didn't trip its "overused" filter (it still showed up under "vague and abstract"); only "just" was flagged as overused–and then only in one of the three texts. This feature alone makes it worth using, in my opinion… since most people aren't aware of their personal overuse lists.
On the other hand, it appears I may want to add "could" to my list.…
I also like the fact that it appreciates a variety of diction: it gave me big green "pass" checkmarks on complex words. It's somewhat less enamored about my sentence length, though it approves of my variety. Most editing programs have kittens, if not cows, at my writing style. Examples:
Story 1 (3k words)
- sentence length: average 15.2 words
- 30-35 words = 13; 35-40 words = 5; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 50; 5 syllables = 11; 6 syllables = 1
Story 2 (6.2k words)
- sentence length: average 12 words
- 30-35 words = 11; 35-40 words = 7; 40-45 words = 6; 45+ words = 4
- word length: 4 syllables = 119; 5 syllables = 28; 6 syllables = 4
Story 3 (2.3k words)
- sentence length: average 11.9 words
- 30-35 words = 2; 35-40 words = 3; 40-45 words = 4; 45+ words = 1
- word length: 4 syllables = 28; 5 syllables = 6; 6 syllables = 3
That it merely mentioned length as a potential issue, rather than having screaming conniptions over them, is a definite positive. More positive still is that its threshold for "too long" is 30+ words; plenty of other programs I've seen would gripe about 20+ words… some, fewer than that.
Less valuable is the "alliteration analysis." It seems to regard alliteration as a good thing–another item which pleased me–but its analyzer relies entirely on initial letters… which is a problem when it's counting every word that begins with 't', even if the next letter is an 'h'. I have no idea if there's a point past which it triggers an "excessive alliteration" flag; given that I didn't hit it, I'd have to guess there isn't one. (Feeding some of my poetry in didn't trigger one either.) This feature seems largely gratuitous, unless you're dead set on avoiding alliteration as much as possible.
That's one of seventeen categories, however. At least a dozen of the others are useful–and since they're broken out under separate tabs, you don't end up looking at all the flags it places on your text at the same time, leaving you to figure out which is flagged for what reason. Here, you can see which issue you're addressing, and deal with each separately.
Overall, I'd say this is not only useful to writers generally, but something I personally will use. It is a great template for identifying things you want to check–as opposed to things it thinks are "wrong." For instance, in one of my stories, it flagged a redundancy which was genuinely redundant: I changed it. (I fully intend to go back and look more closely at its other recommendations later.) For me, anything that can net me a single positive change is worth using. So thanks for bringing this to my–and our–attention, Karen.
-
P.S. One possible "note, however": I fed the above text in as well–why not?–and discovered it didn't count all that well: one of the 30+ word sentences it flagged has only 28 words, another 29. Both include contractions, though, so probably these are regarded as multiple words, which would bring the totals up to the correct values.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ghost
Inkling
This is nifty, KarenHayesMitchell.
I've wanted Autocrit but couldn't afford it. Pro Writing Aid looks like a better option since it's free (!) and there aren't word limits.
I don't want to rely on a tool like this, but it's useful to paste stories and find common faults. I've got a running list of words to cut during revision, and now I'll be able to add to the list. The section about clichés might also be helpful. Ignoring the false positives, I have one cliché per story. Ideally, I'd like none.
I've wanted Autocrit but couldn't afford it. Pro Writing Aid looks like a better option since it's free (!) and there aren't word limits.
I don't want to rely on a tool like this, but it's useful to paste stories and find common faults. I've got a running list of words to cut during revision, and now I'll be able to add to the list. The section about clichés might also be helpful. Ignoring the false positives, I have one cliché per story. Ideally, I'd like none.
Weaver
Sage
I always have to laugh when someone tells me, "Never use adverbs!" (Never IS an adverb.) For some idiot computer program to insist on deleting every adverb in a manuscript because the person who wrote it was taught that adverbs are eeeviiillll... *shakes head*
Just to be completely fair, I tested this program using the same story fragment that I have here in my portfolio. As one example of what the program says I'm doing wrong, here are a list of the words it says are too long in my story:
surrendering
particular
imprisonment
temporary
ordinary
habitation
vegetables
captivity
original
revealed
alternative
isolation
accelerate
considerably
experience
familiar
appropriate
deteriorating
immediate
hallucination
Some of these words are marked as "inflated" - too big for a real person's vocabulary, supposedly. [insert rude noise here] The suggested alternatives, however, are all rather flat and lifeless, not to mention not the right words for what I'm trying to say.
Y'know what's really funny, though? Not once did this thing complain about my (deliberate) use of sentence fragments. I guess they're finally learning that it's a valid stylistic choice sometimes.
Summary of findings: Do yourself a favor and have a human (or other sapient being) look over your writing instead.
Just to be completely fair, I tested this program using the same story fragment that I have here in my portfolio. As one example of what the program says I'm doing wrong, here are a list of the words it says are too long in my story:
surrendering
particular
imprisonment
temporary
ordinary
habitation
vegetables
captivity
original
revealed
alternative
isolation
accelerate
considerably
experience
familiar
appropriate
deteriorating
immediate
hallucination
Some of these words are marked as "inflated" - too big for a real person's vocabulary, supposedly. [insert rude noise here] The suggested alternatives, however, are all rather flat and lifeless, not to mention not the right words for what I'm trying to say.
Y'know what's really funny, though? Not once did this thing complain about my (deliberate) use of sentence fragments. I guess they're finally learning that it's a valid stylistic choice sometimes.
Summary of findings: Do yourself a favor and have a human (or other sapient being) look over your writing instead.
- Thread starter
- #17
KarenHayesMitchell
Dreamer
I agree that you should use a human to edit but this will help find some of the harder to find issues. I don't only use it for my editing. It's just a small step in the editing process and you have to use it like any other edit, only change what works for you. They are only suggestions.
BWFoster78
Myth Weaver
I think you're missing the point as to how most of us use this extremely useful tool: it's to point out things that MIGHT be a problem that you might overlook otherwise. Everytime I use this on a scene, I find a couple of things that I end up changing.
It is no substitute for your judgment as an author. To say it doesn't have value, however, completely misses the mark.
Ireth
Myth Weaver
I've used it a few times, and it is pretty useful, though it does have its faults. More than once it's asked me if I want to replace "sighed" with "side", which makes absolutely no sense.
Weaver
Sage
A problem with any kind of not-useful advice: a person who knows enough to spot when the advice is not useful (or downright wrong) is already knowledgable enough to do without that advice and just figure things out on their own. The program has been set to mark any passive-voice verbs as wrong, for example. A person knows - or ought to know - that occasionally passive voice works better than a more 'action-y' verb. It takes more time to filter through the wrong suggestions for the one or two that could have merit than it does to do it the old-fashioned, editing-program-free way.
Under any circumstances, it would be beneficial to people who chose to use this program if the designers had mentioned what reading/writing level it is directing the writer toward, so as to avoid confusion about why polysyllabic words are marked as needing replacement with something short.
