Adrienne Foster

Despite my background, I'm still lousy at copyediting my own work. No matter how much try, I usually find grammatical problems or poor word choices in my articles after they've been posted. One of the Gather features that I appreciate is the ability to make minor edits. (I do believe in copyeditors, but can't expect anyone to do it for no compensation.) Since I don't catch all of my errors, I thank you for bearing with me.



As for any postings of ghost stuff, I would like to point out that I try to make the reviews I post as accurate as possible, but sometimes the facts are hard to find and may come up later. The best ghost stories do have historical backgrounds, but unless they are thoroughly researched, are considered folklore. History is based on facts, while folklore is based on hearsay. Sometimes hearsay makes a good starting point in research, which eventually either confirms or disputes the stories.



When I offer criticism to help improve a writer's work, I generally do not simply direct them to read someone's "how-to" essay or book. Through experience, I have learned that discussing the theory of writing with novices does not really help them improve their work. (We never think these mistakes apply to us.) Theorists can spout their ideas all they want, but people wanting to improve their work are frequently unable to understand what the theorist is saying until the problem is pointed out in their own work. Therefore, when I comment on the writing of a posting, I am much more likely to tell writers what prompted me to rate the way I did. Reading lots of highly rated articles is valuable advice, but that in itself is far from enough.



Since most of the writing I post online are reviews, you can find a bigger body of my work at Epinions, where they actually pay out a little money without the big rigamorale of the point system.