Oh, I probably should have said this already: the essay is literature-based. AndI picked the title and topic myself.

Ah, last thing - I noticed that you can download the document as a word file which solves the problem of the strange formatting when it appears as a GoogleDoc in a web page.

Already had 5 people log in and download, thanks so much for helping! :)

Also, if anyone downloads and just wants to email me comments, my email is [email protected] .

I think that it does a good job of constantly returning to the central theme of space. It's a good essay. I would love to see a section on gender in post-colonialism and struggle, but I understand that this may derail from the scope. The only spelling nitpick I can think of is that it switches between "Silas’" and "Silas’s" in the possessive.

OH BOY, a LITERATURE ESSAY! :D

Oh damn, I can't access the essay or my Google account...

I read the first 3 pages. I had to google 'Umkhonto we Sizwe' and '‘chutnification'. Ignorant fucktard that I am. But it might be useful to explain these in your essay.
Also, shorter paragraphs would be nice.


Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK):
translated "Spear of the Nation," was the armed wing of the African National Congress

Chutnification:
Salman Rushdie made up the word "chutnification," to describe what happens when foreigners become Indophiles. That is for example when English people who came to India and regarded Indian people as less civilized than the English, then came to realize how advanced and complex Indian civilization is, and began to appreciate & love India.

"when in reality it would have most likely coming from one of the top fivefirearms-producing countries..."

Surely "come" instead of "coming".

I have enjoyed reading the essay, up to the point of this presumed error, and I expect to enjoy it further. Thank you.

In fact, best would be "when it would most likely have come".

I'll do it!

Impressive citations and a strong message. Not exactly U.S. style, but full of the exquisite level of detail that makes us love to read (but not to write) British writing. A couple of niggling details: First, do you use "evince" as a verb rather than "evidenced"? Did you run a spell-check? I'm not sure of the accuracy of a couple of spellings that may be perfectly fine in British English. Finally, the last part of the last sentence seems quite awkward: "...prioritises critical importance on understanding why things needs to change." And of course I don't know the parameters of your assignment or course, but this looks graduate-level to me.

Mujus, people who even think of running a spell-checker shouldn't bother writing.

Hey everyone thanks so much for reading and offering some feedback!

@Vaft: Good spot with the 2 times I slipped up and put Silas's - thank you! It's these kind of things that become hard for me to spot after so many times of reading it through.

@fielder: At the end of the sentence where I first use the term Umkhonto we Sizwe 'MK' I have a footnote explaining the meaning of it. Thanks for reading though!

@ChrisVis: Great spot, thank you! Thanks for reading and saying you enjoyed doing so :)

@Mujus: Thanks so much for this feedback, this is really encouraging. Yes, I am a postgraduate, finishing my MA. The word 'evince' is commonly used and does have a slightly different meaning to 'evidence', although they are probably interchangeable - but you're right, I see the word used much more in essays/articles published in Britain than I do in those from the US.

"Mujus, people who even think of running a spell-checker shouldn't bother writing."

And with that nominations for Dumbest Statement on webDip have ended.

Abge, I fully agree that a spell-checker is important. Does everyone out there know how to get Microsoft Word to give you the Readability Statistics for your papers? I make my students print it out and attach it (a convoluted process requiring the PrntScrn key and Picture Tools), but it's much more useful for basic writers than for the level Sarg is writing at. I have them look at only three stats: the number of words, the average sentence length, and the Flesch-Kincaid Readability Level.

Also, re the Silas'/Silas's question, U.S. style for the possessive form of proper names that end in -s are vague and totally dependent on which one sounds best. Example: We say "Jesus' disciples" for the name Jesus, pronounced with English pronunciation, because it sounds better than "Jesus's disciples." But, but! The Spanish version of the name, Jesús, pronounced "Hay-soos", is quite common in some areas of this country, and the possessive of the Spanish version is more commonly written as Jesús's friends, Jesús's class, Jesús's family, etc.

Is this stuff cool, or what? ;-)

lol. Please ignore the grammar error in my first sentence above. *sigh*

I don't think I've used Office in close to 10 years. I use LaTeX almost exclusively and, before that, OpenOffice.

I'm always shocked by how poorly most people write. I'm not even sure what the cause is. Is it indicative of a lack of clarity of thought? Or is it just a problem expressing your thoughts to others?

Actually, Mujus, many grammar books (Strunk and White, at least, and I think the newest edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, though I don't have it with me to check, so I'm not sure on that one) will say ALWAYS to use 's, including for names ending in s, except only for ancient names ending in "us." Weird I know, but that's the rule, for whoever cares.

Under this rule, in particular, it would be Silas's.

abge: Have you read my essay? Your posts seem to be steering people away from the purpose of why I started this.

@Mujus: Please could you remind what you do? I thought you were a secondary school teacher - but your comments suggest you're teaching at University level?

Hi Sarg--I teach at a California community college--the last of the three higher ed systems in the state to get hit hard with huge cuts, but it's coming. The state college system (San Diego State, CalPoly San Luis Obispo, many others) and the University of California (Berkeley, UCSF, UCSD, and many more) have gotten annual cuts of 20-25% each of the past two years. And our time looks to be coming this next year that starts June 30. San Diego State has 500-person sections, while our largest is still 45. But I think class size will become negotiable in the near future.

Ok, a few 500-person sections, I mean. But still.

I also teach in a graduate school of education at a private university near here, on an occasional basis, and have taught at a state college, at the University of Arizona, university-associated language institutes, and... oh yeah, adult school.

Plus a couple of classes at other colleges, just to keep from being bored, but that's been a while, since we now live in "interesting times."

Here's what Wiki says about the usage of apostrophes after names that end in -s" <<Basic rule (singular nouns)
For most singular nouns the ending 's is added; e.g., the cat's whiskers.
If a singular noun ends with an s-sound (spelled with -s, -se, for example), practice varies as to whether to add 's or the apostrophe alone. A widely accepted practice is to follow whichever spoken form is judged better: the boss's shoes, Mrs Jones' hat (or Mrs Jones's hat, if that spoken form is preferred). In many cases, both spoken and written forms differ between writers. (See details below.)>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

Oh, that's very varied, how interesting!

I was just offered a PhD position at my University this week, I'm very excited by the prospect!

Is your subject area languages-based then?

Congrats on the job offer!! Language-based, yes, but not literature. I'm a professor (quite an inflated term for community college, if you ask me--when I started we were all "instructors") in three departments at my college, all language-oriented.

Wait a job offer or accepted into a PhD program?

Either way, congratulations are in order. =)

Oh, not a job offer but not a programme as such either - it's my own research project, is that not how it works in America?

Thank you :)

Interesting, Mujus.

The section of the Chicago Manual of Style I was trying to refer to is 7.15-16:

"The possessive of most singular nouns is formed by adding an apostrophe and an s.... For the few exceptions to these principles, see 7.19–21.

"The general rule extends to proper nouns, including names ending in s, x, or z, in both their singular and plural forms, as well as letters and numbers."

I lent out my copy of S&W, so I can't give a citation there, but that's the rule there as well.

I guess it's just one of those things that hasn't been completely agreed on by the powers that be even after all these centuries!

(I confess I really like the always-use-them rule because it's simple and consistent, which is the ideal for punctuation rules).

Abgemacht, in spite of, and because of your derogatory reaction, I reaffirm my statement : "People who even think of running a spell-checker shouldn't bother writing." Perhaps I should add that this applies particularly to those wishing to write in English as opposed to American English. But anyone with a good command of English should actually know the common variants of English, especially the most common variant.

Leaving aside issues like typos, Chris, are we now of the opinion that only people with "a good command of English" should bother writing? Where, in particular, "a good command" is sufficiently high that they know spelling all by heart? Nobody might have something worthwhile to say who was unsure of the spelling of one of the words he used, for example?

Please note that I did not say, "People who are not good at spelling should not write." Of course they should write! How else can they express themselves? But they should write the way think words are spelled, or if they are not sure, they should look up words. Using a spell-checker worsens their problem, just as over-use of a calculator worsens the problem for those who struggle with arithmetic.
If someone has something worthwhile to write, they should write it the way they think it is spelled. That will convey the context of the words more accurately to the reader. After all, anybody's written words should tell the reader as much as possible about the writer, not just which spell-checker he uses.

Please forgive the grammatical error in my previous message.

People use spell-checkers to hide their inability to spell. They should rather look the words up if they're not sure. That way they'll learn. Spell-checkers often find non-existent words, and substitute suggestions which have nothing to do with the intended word. I once read a report about "erotic movements in crude oil prices". That makes the writer look like a real idiot, and he can only blame his spell-checker.

The writer writes two typos : "Eratic movements in rude oil prices". The spell-checker changes "eratic" to the nearest word, "erotic". The spell-checker sees no problem with "rude". The writer thinks he's done well.

Forgive me for misinterpreting. It's certainly true that in the hands of somebody who can't spell, a spell checker is a dangerous thing. But I continue to maintain that, precisely for those who can, it's very useful. Of course one always should read over one's work to check for errors, but it's still fairly easy to miss things. As a "second pair of eyes," a spell checker can be quite useful.

Agreed. My statement was too radical.