Constant Content

I submitted my first article about a week ago, and I just got the email that said it had been reviewed. It has been rejected and, while saddening, I'm not complaining about that. It contained grammatical errors that I failed to notice, and I am grateful to the editors for detailing them in the email so that I could correct them. What confuses me, however, is that only about half of them were actually grammatical errors as far as I could tell. The other half seemed to be nothing more than personal preference on how it should have been worded. If there is a specific way that I'm intended to word my articles, that's fine. As Constant Content is not my site, and it is the site owners right to define how articles should be written. I'm not complaining about my article being rejected. I'm just saying that it would be nice to know things such as: the adjective "very" doesn't seem to be acceptable, nor does the word "quite", and the word "then" is generally unnecessary.

I am very new to writing non-fiction in general, but I'm usually able to pride myself on my proper grammar. One reason I like Constant Content is the respect for the English language that can be found here, and the high standards that are upheld. It gives me more of a challenge and makes me a better author all around. Maybe I misunderstood certain parts of the email, or maybe I'm not as knowledgeable about my primary language as I like to think. However, if anyone would like to enlighten me on the subject of what Constant Content editors do or don't like to see in an article, I would be most grateful. I have read the guidelines and FAQ by the way, but for the most part they're both very vague. I'd like to know, more specifically, what I should and should not put in my articles.

Thank you in advance to anyone who give me any advice on how to be a successful writer on Constant Content. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to rewrite the other two articles I've submitted, as I'm sure they'll be rejected for many of the same reasons.

Hello,
Words like "very" and "quite" can lead to wordiness. For example, "The car was very fast. I was quite impressed." Does "very" add much to the sentence? Does "quite"?

I'm guessing the editor may be trying to give you pointers to improve your writing. The occasional "very" on its own probably wouldn't lead to a rejection, but if other issues were present, the editor may have taken the opportunity to point it out while detailing the more serious grammar errors.

There's a more extensive list of guidelines somewhere - let me see if I can find it for you. I'll be back.

Here they are:
http://www.constant-content.com/about/e ... elines.htm

Celeste Stewart wrote:Hello,
Words like "very" and "quite" can lead to wordiness. For example, "The car was very fast. I was quite impressed." Does "very" add much to the sentence? Does "quite"?

I'm guessing the editor may be trying to give you pointers to improve your writing. The occasional "very" on its own probably wouldn't lead to a rejection, but if other issues were present, the editor may have taken the opportunity to point it out while detailing the more serious grammar errors.

There's a more extensive list of guidelines somewhere - let me see if I can find it for you. I'll be back.

Here they are:
http://www.constant-content.com/about/e ... elines.htm

Hm, I didn't see the extended guidelines before. Thank you for directing me to them. I see what you're trying to say, though personally I think that words like "very" or "quite" can help quite a bit in getting a point across. Without them the sentence just doesn't feel as strong to me. Which is what I was saying with whole personal preference thing. I'm used to writing fictional stories, and most of my readers have suggested that adjectives, even simple ones, help greatly in setting the scene and tone. Perhaps that's not true for non-fiction though. Also, the standards here are significantly higher than I had anticipated. Most sites that I've come across, and keep in mind those are mainly for fiction, are far more lenient. Constant Content seems to only want the best of the best though, which is admirable. For me it will take some getting used to however. (See now I don't think the meaning of any of those sentences would have been properly conveyed without the adjectives. Not to mention that without them it just sounds dull, and not the kind of thing I would like to read personally.)

I didn't notice it before, but now I see how lazy I've become when proofreading. I used to go over my work with a fine-toothed comb about fifteen times before I even considered submitting it, but now I go over it once, maybe twice, and think it's good enough. I actually like the strict rules that are upheld here, it might just be enough to get me back into the habit of ensuring there is not a single misplaced letter in my fictional works. I hope I can bring my work, both fictional and otherwise, back up to the standards that I once upheld, and up to the standards that Constant Content is so keen on upholding. Even if I don't make a dime from my work on this site, at least I can use it to improve my writing style. I hope I don't go overboard though. I can already tell that there is a difference between fiction and non-fiction, other than just the obvious fact that one is entirely made up, and the other is true.

I also noticed that all of the errors that were detailed were very small, which again shows the high standards of this site. They were all things such as commas or hyphens, and a bit of capitalization. I like that, it gives me a challenge. No one has ever cared enough about grammar in my other work to look at it in such detail. Assuming that these stupid little mistakes aren't the death of me, I can see a long and prosperous future for myself here. As previously stated, even if I don't make a dime, I can still take away the experience and knowledge earned. I hope this becomes a mutually beneficial relationship. Hope no one I know hears about my article being rejected though. I'm always quick to correct them when they make a grammatical error, so they'd never let this go.

Hello again,
I also write fiction and in the fiction world, editors are well known for discouraging adverbs and adjectives in favor of choosing more descriptive verbs and nouns. While the editors here do sometimes exert their preferences, concise writing is important here. It's not just some editor's whim, writing authorities (such as Strunk & White) generally agree.

Strunk & White on "very":
1. "Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves."
2. "Avoid the use of qualifiers. Rather, very, little, pretty – these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating; we should all try to do a little better, we should all be very watchful of this rule, for it is a rather important one, and we are pretty sure to violate it now and then.

I took one of your sentences and trimmed it by 30% (realizing that it's just a forum post). The meaning is still the same, but the word count is less.
* I see what you're trying to say, though personally I think that words like "very" or "quite" can help quite a bit in getting a point across. (27 words)
* I see your point, though I think words like "very" or "quite" help get a point across. (17 words)

Here's an article that makes some good points from both a fiction and non-fiction standpoint:
http://www.screenwrightist.com/avoid-wr ... adjectives

From a Web writing perspective, the "too much unnecessary text induces skipping" is spot on. On the Web, readers skim to start with. You want to make sure that every word counts. Also, the trend is for less text on the Web, so we don't have the luxury for extra words. A full article might run only 300-400 words on the Web compared to over 1,000 in print. Sure, adjectives and adverbs have their place; you just have to pick and choose.

Celeste Stewart wrote:Hello again,
I also write fiction and in the fiction world, editors are well known for discouraging adverbs and adjectives in favor of choosing more descriptive verbs and nouns. While the editors here do sometimes exert their preferences, concise writing is important here. It's not just some editor's whim, writing authorities (such as Strunk & White) generally agree.

Strunk & White on "very":
1. "Use this word sparingly. Where emphasis is necessary, use words strong in themselves."
2. "Avoid the use of qualifiers. Rather, very, little, pretty – these are the leeches that infest the pond of prose, sucking the blood of words. The constant use of the adjective little (except to indicate size) is particularly debilitating; we should all try to do a little better, we should all be very watchful of this rule, for it is a rather important one, and we are pretty sure to violate it now and then.

I took one of your sentences and trimmed it by 30% (realizing that it's just a forum post). The meaning is still the same, but the word count is less.
* I see what you're trying to say, though personally I think that words like "very" or "quite" can help quite a bit in getting a point across. (27 words)
* I see your point, though I think words like "very" or "quite" help get a point across. (17 words)

Here's an article that makes some good points from both a fiction and non-fiction standpoint:
http://www.screenwrightist.com/avoid-wr ... adjectives

From a Web writing perspective, the "too much unnecessary text induces skipping" is spot on. On the Web, readers skim to start with. You want to make sure that every word counts. Also, the trend is for less text on the Web, so we don't have the luxury for extra words. A full article might run only 300-400 words on the Web compared to over 1,000 in print. Sure, adjectives and adverbs have their place; you just have to pick and choose.

So basically on the web you want to keep things as concise as possible. People who like reading books generally won't mind, and may even prefer, if you take a little extra time to paint a vivid picture. On the web, however, people value their time. They want things to be short, sweet, and to the point. You need to make every word count or they will start to skip parts.

So the editor telling me to omit most of the adjectives I used, is not so much the preference of the site owner, or the employees, but the customer. While the readers of my fictional works tell me that they love an author to give a clear image. The readers of non-fiction articles, especially on the web, don't have time to spend five minutes getting the details on what something looks like.

It goes against everything that I have ever been taught, or believed, and every fiber of my being, but shorter is generally better here. That will definitely take some getting used to. It seems that I still have many things to learn if I'm to be successful here. Non-fiction articles don't need to be as descriptive or even as fun to read as fiction. They need to get the message across, quickly and clearly.

That's a fine example of irony in my opinion. I've been trying to get my one-thousand word chapters up to at least two-thousand in my fictional works. The most popular authors I've seen have about ten-thousand or more words per chapter. I'm going to have to develop a completely different mindset here though. Fiction needs to be fun and descriptive. Non-fiction needs to be clear and concise.

Another challenge here is that I've gotten to know most of my readers in my fictional works, and so I know what they like, and can adjust my writing accordingly. Here though, I don't know any of the people that will read my work. I don't even know what they like to read about. So I need to develop a writing style that will appeal to the general public. I also need to find out what the general public likes to read about, and stay current on it. In school my love of a challenge always got me into trouble, everything moved to slow, and it frustrated me when I had to wait for people to catch up. Here though, it seems that it will serve me well. I'm liking this site more every time I come to it.

Yep, Web writing is its own unique beast. It can still be fun and descriptive though.

When I first started dabbling in children's fiction, I would write stories according to Highlights' guidelines - a full story complete with characters, a plot, etc., within 800 words. That taught me quickly to omit the needless words and choose each one carefully. I'd do an 800-word draft and then try to cut the word count by 30% without losing meaning, plot, or momentum. Once I whittled away the needless words, I had 30% more space to further develop the story! I could add more detail, add another plot point, expand on weaker areas, and so on. It's a good exercise and has helped in both fiction and non-fiction writing.

You got the point. On the web people want information and they want it now. CC clients know what they need, and trust CC to give them concise content. Sounds like you can make a lot of money here and improve your ability to write for different types of audiences.

I'm of the opinion that being concise is NOT a negative thing when writing fiction. Robert Jordan, he of the Wheel of Time series, used to spent one whole page just going on and on about how a house looked, what the roof was made of, how the shade of the tree seemed to create shadow images against the side of the house, how a brick on one of the walls looked to have a crack in it.......Details are meant to add to the story; extraneous ones should be chucked aside. You could say that it requires more skill to describe that house in just one line, rather than to resort to an entire page. Like Celeste mentioned, when you have a word limit, you want all the words for keeping the pace of the story, not for things that, while it may be nice to know, are not essential to the story. As Chekhov once said "One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it."

Long version cut short: being concise in fiction is not necessarily bad.

I agree, but my novels turn into short stories! I guess I'm more of a nonfiction writer.