Raspberry Editing Services | Writing service

Raspberry Editing Services

Phone: +61 404 901 739

Add/Update information

Reviews

Tags

• Businesses
• Local service
• Writing service

25.01.2022 Moving on from the wonder of the wide open maw of intersubjectivity (I hope you got my irony there), and onto more concrete matters: . Don’t tune out! I’ll be quick!...Continue reading

20.01.2022 (This post connects to the picture below, entitled, "Look!a bunny!" A couple of months ago, I came across an error in a sentence fragment similar to this one: and the importance of this knowledge for policy discourse . The word for should have been as: and the importance of this knowledge as policy discourse . (You may be legitimately wondering how knowledge can act as policy discourseor indeed, as anything. This is its own interesting enquiry, actually. K...nowledge is made, of course, by usI’ve mentioned that stories make worldsand what it can be and is thus encompasses more than its component facts. But seeing knowledge as a making process draws attention to self-assemblies, credibility, veracity, and belieftoo much to get into here, probably. So, back to prepositions). Yes! That is the topic, believe it or not (and it may seem an even less appealing one than that lot in the previous parentheses!). Prepositions! Is this really where I’m going today? It is! As, for, on, off, under, to, in, ofthe minutiae of sentences, hatefully idiomatic to language and contextthe bane of second language acquisitionprepositions shift more in the mind of the reader than just your language and writing competence. Prepositions are words of power in sentences. Imagine your teen is going to the cinema with their friends; you then naturally imagine that they are at the cinema with their friends; and you still quite naturally imagine they will be (soon) in the cinema with their friends. Further imagine, however, that your teen is discovered not in the cinema, not even at the cinema (really), but behind the cinema (still with their now "so-called" friends!). The significance of a possibly-errant bunny in the wider contextual frame of a luminous morning drive in southern France will escape some of your readers (and mine!), but that bunny is probably holding the wheel while you take the picture. Have a grand drive! See more

18.01.2022 I’m being a bit silly today. (I hope you can hear it.) In "The Order of Things" (1994), Foucault talks about the non-place of language. His point (such that I follow it :0) ) is tied up in metaphysics, and the passage (such that I follow it :0) ) is really very funny. I am weirdly fond of its application to communication generally (i.e., that there’s rather a void between the matters of language and the matter that it describes); yet, after repeated efforts at composing wor...k emails, I have begun to wonder about aspects of this "so-called" non-place. Thing is, my endless email exertion is always about tone, and it occurs to me that this struggle is invariably resolved inside my reader’s mindyes, it is there that my carefully chosen words condense and evaporate! And what most and least accessible, evanescent and unequivocal non-place of a stomping ground could be otherwise imagined?!? But it’s not just writers that frequent these mercurial pathswe all do it, every time we speak. If tone is how I say what I say, the pressing question remains, How will you read what I say? Barthes was a big one for this topic; but I worry that my tone is starting to sound pretentiously "learned", with the big F and Roland all in the one post (and some of you can feel very free to stop reading right now; please ignore my errors, and receive my thanks for sharing this common pavement so far trodor trudgedand no hard feelings!). I don’t pretend to make tone irrelevant to writing, I’m just wriggling my options for literary success and failure by involving you in the business, really. We speak, we write, we listen, we readwe "make"all done inside these subjective non-places of being. I’ve been asked to be shorter in these messages, so I will leave you with it, nowwhether offended, bored, disgusted, or delighted (:0)), whicheverand charge you with the opportunity of reflecting that you may have become so (nearly) all by yourself. Have a beautiful day! Barthes, R. (1967). "The death of the author." Available from https://web.archive.org//www.ubu.com/aspen/aspen5and6/thre - barthes Foucault, M. (1994). "The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences." New York, NY: Random House.

18.01.2022 As you may have gathered, I clean text for a living. Or, I do when I get the chance, anyway. Understandably, at present everyone seems to be running behind and can’t afford the time it takes for me to iterate their work to cleanliness. (I won’t say they can’t afford the cost because I am very inexpensive.) After exhausting myself over the house cleaning in preparation for the week, last night my son and I were doing Is Your Brain Young Or Old?!?, rapid-fire b...rain teasers like this classic, ? 1 + 2 = 3 4 + 5 = 9 6 + 7 = 13 8 + 9 = 17 and many of you won’t have trouble finding it, even though the structure of expectation as shaped by grammar does conceal the problem momentarily. In terms of other real and actual cleaning, I have a beautiful friend who bewails the futility of cleaning her floors on the grounds that they just have to be done again!. Clearly, however, one cannot clean the floor if one does not clean it ; this is logically impossible. But I do not say this to her in case she thinks that I think she doesn’t clean her floor at all, ever. This would be untrue and also extremely unfriendly, because issues of cleaning houses and clean houses are inextricable from those of role, responsibilty, power and morality, or what Dana Crowley Jack calls the Over Eyethat portion of the self that absorbs cultural value imperative/s and uses them on itself in pursuit of the safety of conformity. (You may not notice this cultural voice in your own thoughts but if you listen carefully, you may hear it in your internal shoulds.) We clean because we want to, because we should, or because we must: At the moment, we clean and clean and cleanmy hands are shredding from hand-washing. In what I surmise to be the pursuit of the perception of cleanliness, my local discount pharmacy has just laid down slick laminate flooring over its industral warehouse polished concrete. While it is probably easier to keep this new floor sanitary, I feel it can’t hurt belief about the pharmacy to shift the visual framing from budget to refreshingly cheaper. So, there we have it, these matters that matter so much at the moment: scrubbed hands, floors, perceptions, and texts. And I thought I would slide that last item in as a in case any of you be calling me right noweven though it is very understandable to skip your text cleaning because readers are not likely to see those small errors on the floors of your sentences, or mine. (There are three errors in this piece, including the one in the brain teaser. I’m sure you will see them all, but if not, leave them to me!) , !

17.01.2022 Mothers, ahoy! I was recently talking to a close friend about her returning to work. She expressed concerns about not achieving her potential as a woman/person in the world because she didn’t have a job outside the home, and I was reminded of Dana Crowley Jack’s work on feminism and the female self. Jack has a way of illuminating that women’s selves are left unacknowledged by a sociocultural system that doesn’t assign value to the things it demands that women must do. To be... a woman in our world, you must be relational, but you must also be successful. This complex set of knowledges typically centres around the home/work binary, a way of looking at the self that puts the relational aspects of women’s lives into unresolvable tension with their self-realisation as working parents. The way we see women in our sociocultural system makes it difficult (if not impossible) to see the relational tasks that women must do (whether or not they are self-actualised working parents) as either (a) a part of their legitimate selves, or (b) a successful activity. In short, knowledge structures and understandings do not see motherhood, parenting, caring, relational activities as being legitimate on success scales because success means something else and the scales for it are locked away in another knowledge domain called work. If, as mothers, we state to one another that we are great mothers and that as such, we are successful already, even without a career and self-actualisation, we will know that these are things said by friends who want to encourage us, a delineation that illustrates most clearly what I actually want to get at: Even if you are a great mother and are successful at it, there is no way for you to objectively see or measure this because there is no epistemic foundation/frame for this information (other than my friend wants to encourage me). These knowledges of relationship and caringof school negotiations and lunches and midnight wakings and daytime emails, and all the resthave no legitimised structures of language, understanding, comparison, or success, and are thus locked away from all thought (for men and women both), other than that of subjective opinion, and they may remain so unless they become differently valued by our culture and are given objective epistemic voice. So, after talking with my friend (who, if I told you her history of parenthood, would be elevated to Lady of the Motherhood immediately by all), I just wanted to share that the selves we are in fact looking at and at times find somehow puzzlingly wanting are already containers of achievements that, while they may not be readily visualised by our society as success, are actualisations of its real and genuine meaning. Have a beautiful day! Jack, D. C. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

14.01.2022 (This post connects to the picture below, entitled, "Yikes! Here comes the editor!) As imagined other, the sensation of myself as an editor is not a good one. Editors find mistakes, remind people of unhappy moments in English class, leave people ducking for coverespecially in this thought-disposable, word-dense world. The purpose of an editor, though, is not to find mistakes but to see those things that after hours of looking you can’t see any longer. In fact, my job is ...to see your text as itself, rather than as you, which is where a writer can lose sight of their ultimate goal in the inevitable enmeshment of the writing process. Returning to myself as an imagined other, "Hope your feeling better" may be very bad grammar (because sentences need verbs), but I don’t need to mentally edit a text message that appears in this form because, even structurally incomplete, it’s capable of communicating its message ("I care about you"). In dense, academic work, however, an error like this speaks to the writer’s overall credibility, and does not bode well for the standard of the content (even if the content is actually spectacular). When you read your text, you read its content: I read its words. I can’t convince you not to wince or duck for cover when you entrust your text to me as an editor, but I can tell you, "This alpaca doesn’t spit". Have a great day.

04.01.2022 My son and I have lately been making up words; the favourite at the moment is not, oddly enough, tigtoggling or even, diddlysquattopops but, Pigneatha!, which is surprisingly satisfying to say and capable of standing in for any number of annoyances without even grazing the edge of intersubjective offence (or, at least none that could be considered sensible, anyway!). I’ve used that big fat word, intersubjective here when interpersonal might have done just as well; I... can back it up, too, of course, as a choiceand if I do, my credibility might soar with some of you (hopefully those teetering on the edge of calling for a quote). On the other hand, I might sound more like I’m already soaring in my terribly clever clogs, expecting you to get airborne with me, which may rankle and have quite the opposite effect. Plied close to pigneatha (if not, perhaps diddlysquattopops, anyway), the tone of manipulatively clever fades somewhat (luckily!). Words both have meaning and hold meaning, not just for writers, hogtied to endless conundrums of content, but for their readers, too. Thinking intersubjectively about text is a layer of writing review that takes a while (to find time before the deadline) to master, but the piles of words you commit to the page will stack up into a context of their ownyes, your text makes a context! Some of the context it makes is youwhat you are seen as by the reader, whether confident, brash, inappropriate, or elegant. Academic writing takes place in a domain-specific discourse community that has expectations for conventions in such things as structure, tone, style, and language, and while behind closed doors we may exclaim something emotionally relieving such as, Pigneatha! It is not possible to get it all right!, the text that hits the light of your readers’ eyes tells them whether you have thought about your work being read or about them readingin fact, whether the text is for you or is actually for them. So, who (or whom) is it for? If I urge you not to leave the matter tigtoggling by giving it diddlysquattopops attention, I cannot help but look self-interested in my clogs (of cleverness) if I then add, Pigneatha! It IS possible to get it all right! See more