Reddit reviews Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
We found 69 Reddit comments about Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Gotham Books
Awesome catch. Anyone who doesn't know, it's a reference to this book. I'm guessing the gag is also that Alan gets shot and then immediately leaves in the scene.
It's a pretty funny book if anyone is thinking about buying it.
edit: Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. Sorry, I thought the title was implied from the parent comment.
Owen wins 1,169,474 more games then eats, shoots, and leaves.
Matt Doyle's response to Twellman's "ding-dong" comment:
>Got my xmas shopping for @TaylorTwellman done:
> http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038 …
> http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41z6w-f6QeL.jpg …
Whoa there hombre. Serial comma all the way.
OP needs to read the following:
http://www.amazon.ca/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Lynne-Truss/dp/1592402038
There are formal grammar guides and more 'layman' and humorous guides, but I've found the best success just by learning from context. Read quality books in any field and see how authors write. Read articles in newspapers and magazines that are not sold on supermarket checkout lines, and notice the writing. Learn by osmosis, just by seeing correct grammar and observing it. You'll get a feel for comma placement, apostrophe use, and so forth. Honestly, that's how I learned.
I will say the few sentences you've typed above are pretty decent. Only a couple of minor, nitpicky, errors.
> "That bus is full of children Superman!!"
You should read Eats, Shoots and Leaves at some point in your life.
The first thing that I suggest is that you buy a reputable book that will teach you how to write. I'm not saying that you're a bad writer, but I would wager that most people write three times worse than they think they can (I am including myself). On Writing Well is a classic, and you might also want to read this one and this one, although I strongly recommend completing the first one. What's included is:
a) Keep it simple. Don't say it's going to be a turbulent precipitation, say that it's going to rain. A lot.
b) Study each adverb and adjective. Any words that aren't necessary should be cut. Is it really important to say that the violin was wooden? Probably not. What about the sentence "She smiled happily"? The "happily" isn't necessary, that's what "smiled" means.
c) Use specific verbs.
d) Consistency is key. Switching tenses or something similar in the middle of writing is generally a bad move.
e) Proofread. Duh. That goes hand in hand with editing.
So, yeah. You should
reallylook into thatstuffarea. One read-through will help significantly.Ok. So now that I finished preaching to you, let's move on. I didn't find any templates in my quick search, so that's of no use right now. What you can do, though, is study
verywell-written program notes. Are their sentences long or short? When are they longer or shorter, and why? Is the tone active or passive (psst. it's probably active)? What's the tone that they use, and what is your impression at the end? You get the gist. If you write downwhat you thinkyour thoughts for three of these, you'll have a good idea what you're shooting for. Other than that, it's all up to you, so go nuts.Anecdotes are also a nice way to make things entertaining. Search for stories, or impacts on the audience. Did you know there are at least six editions of the Rite of Spring? Why was the one your orchestra's performing (let's assume) created? Many people also don't know about the riot after its premier. Stravinsky escaped out the back entrance to avoid the aristocratic mob. Say fun things, win fun prizes, or something like that.
It's also important to know that stories tend to follow the path of one person. The Odyssey could have had its crew be the focus, instead it was Odysseus. Inside Out could have placed all the emotions front and center, but it was Sadness and Joy that saved the girl. Keep that in mind if you're going down a similar path.
Man, I went all out on this. Good luck with your program.
http://amzn.com/1592402038 ;)
There's a whole cheeky book based on this joke.
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation https://www.amazon.com/dp/1592402038/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_4rwRzbR2Y15QR
I'm pretty obsessed with proper grammar and punctuation, and I love semicolons (even though Kurt Vonnegut would reject me for it). I would give you a long explanation since I love talking, being a teacher and all, but the Oatmeal's comic is much more concise and amusing than I could ever hope to be.
As a grammar nerd, I'd recommend the classics when it comes to grammar and usage: Eats, Shoots & Leaves and The Elements of Style.
When it's used as part of or in place of a name, capitalize. Otherwise, don't.
"and the king was sad" is correct, because "the king" is not a noun, but "and King John was sad" would be correct because "king" here is the title as part and parcel of the name.
In your blurb above, the capitalization on queen is incorrect.
This book is one I always have nearby somewhere when I'm writing. Definitely worth a few bucks. Grammatical errors will put a lot of people off - even if you make the same grammatical errors consistently through your MS.
For more info: https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
This comment is wonderful, because it shows the importance of situational awareness. While the example below is in relation to commas in a list, it still points out the importance of seeing it through to make your proper point.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
The panda has a meal, fires it’s pistol then splits.
Eats shoots and leaves.
The panda eats bamboo and plants.
This shows how important this comment is. You need to always take a good look!
(Taken from the wonderful book Eats, Shoots & Leaves: A Zero Tolerance Approach yo Punctuation.
Relevant.
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
I'll comment on both content (fact-checking) and writing structure & style. I realize others have corrected some of the data but I'm going through this as a line-edit so you'll see some repetition.
In particular: Even after the fact checking, if I were grading or judging your article (and without giving away details about my true identity, that "if" would hold some authority), I would give you no better than a C because of statements like "Overall the religion is nothing more than a money grab created by a con man," particularly given that it is obvious you have little knowledge of the subject.
If you are reporting, you report, and you do not opine. The essence of journalism (or anything like it) is to explain the facts without your emotional involvement, and to report how both supporters and detractors see the subject. ("Those in favor of this legislation see it as a way to help the disadvantaged; those opposed feel the monies raised would only benefit the military-industrial complex and never help anybody.") The idea is always to present the facts so that the reader can make an informed decision. That is especially true when you find you feel strongly in one direction or another. (Also, it's more interesting.)
Obviously, many of the people here agree with your sentiment that "Overall the religion is nothing more than a money grab created by a con man." But some people do not share that conclusion, and if you were to write an essay well, you'd reflect their world view as well. And in any case, you don't support your assertion that he was a con man. (He wasn't -- he was far more complex than that -- but you're not alone in that conclusion.)
One of the essay's weaknesses is that you can't decide whether to give a timeline of the CofS's history or to describe it. The combination doesn't work. If I were you I'd focus on the description, even though you tried to grasp it yourself by following the timeline. (That's especially so since you got so much of the timeline wrong.)
For context: I am not a member of the Church of Scientology; I left in 1980. But I practice scientology independently, and I'm among those who expand/change auditing technology to improve its workability. That makes the CofS members feel that I'm a heretic. It also means that I examine what I learned in scientology in detail to determine what part I agree with and what I object to. So take my advice with that in mind.
> Scientology is a new age religion founded in 1954 by L. Ron Hubbard.
As others pointed out: not "new-age" (that term was invented far later) and the date was 1953.
>Hubbard was a well-established science fiction writer with some 140 stories published in pulp fiction comics.
Leave out the "with some 140 stories published in pulp fiction comics." It isn't necessary, it has factual errors (never in comics), and it does not add to the description of Scientology. You either go into Hubbard's background in depth or you describe Scientology. The assignment clearly is to do the latter.
> In 1950 he released a book called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health which became a best seller on the New York Times. Dianetics is not spiritual in itself but actually more of a psychoanalysis book.
Copyedit: Book titles are italicized, so it should be Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Also, most people abbreviate long titles like this, and the accepted writing style is to show that abbreviation after the full use of the title, so you'd write "Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (DMSMH)" and thereafter refer to the book as DMSMH. That's especially important here given that Dianetics refers to the practice or subject, and DMSMH makes it clear when you're writing about the book itself.
> In the book he spoke of finding the “dynamic principal of existence” which is to survive. The book explains that in our mind we have a section regarded as the reactive mind. Our brain records everything in our lives, and the fears and threats that trigger a survival response are placed in our sub conscious reactive mind. This way we can call upon these memories in similar situation to avoid them and survive. The Scientology website gives the example of a person eating a food that later made them sick. Now when they see that food, the reactive mind reminds them of sickness they felt before in an attempt to no experience that reaction again. These bad memories are known as “engrams”.
Copy edit: In the U.S., periods and commas go inside the punctuation. Thus:
not
(For more on improving this writing skill, read the very funny and instructive Eats, Shoots & Leaves.)
> The book then explains that we are all thetans, spirits that are immortal and are simply placed into bodies. They are trillions of years old and the creators of the material world which they willed into existence according to the book(URL1).
Incorrect. DMSMH does not discuss thetans or introduce the topic. It very deliberately does not mention past lives (which was a weird-o topic in the very conservative 1950s). Dianetics (both the subject as theory and the auditing as practiced) focused purely on people addressing engrams to reduce their emotional charge, and not on our spiritual existence. It certainly did not go into "how long we've been around" as spiritual beings.
> We as thetans are not pure however according to the book. All of our past lives engrams as well as all our pre-birth and present experiences also develop engrams that have tainted the thetan. The only way to become a pure thetan is through the process of auditing.
Incorrect data. First, again, nothing about thetans is addresses in DMSMH; that's in other, later books.
Second, there's no discussion of "purity" in any manner. Or rather, the concept is that we are each already immensely powerful (and kinda cool) but have collected some bad crap along the way to be cleaned up. Rather like an adorable little kid who plays in the mud; all you need to do is wash off the mud, to begin with, and then later you help the kid learn new skills and abilities (including how to avoid getting dirty in mud puddles). You aren't trying to become something you are not; you're working to become more of what you are.
The key point here is that scientology sees each of us as immortal spiritual beings, called "thetans," as "spirit" and "soul" have so many meanings that they can confuse the issue. For example, in many religions you "have" a soul; in scientology there is a baseline belief that you are a soul. I am a thetan; I don't have one.
> L. Ron Hubbard use to do shows where he would audit audience members. They would then claim to be able to see past lives and even go so far as to experience something called “exteriorization” which is when someone’s soul is separated from their mind and body.
Copy edit: "used to," not "use to."
Copy edit: "when someone’s soul is separated from their mind and body" is poor grammar because "someone" is singular and "their" is plural. Rephrase. It's up to you whether to write, "is released from his mind and body" or " ...his or her mind and body" or whatnot, but fix that.
Line edit: How is the fact of him doing "shows" relevant to describing what Scientology is? This appears to be a case of, "I read it, and it sounded interesting, so I thought I'd include it." The fact of him doing "shows" was never the issue. (They were fun, but that's irrelevant here.) I think the point you mean to make is that from the earliest, Dianetics and Scientology were addressing topics such as past lives and the separation of the body and soul (what scientology calls a thetan).
Also they were never "shows." They were technology demonstrations, done for the same reason that Apple attracts thousands of people to product announcements. That is, "This is something new and we want to show you how it works." It was never about him showing off in a carnival way. This was training: "Let me show you how it's done," for the same reason people watch videos on YouTube to learn how to crochet. You see how an expert does things and then you go off and do it yourself.
You also imply an inaccurate cause-and-effect when you write, "They would then claim to be able to see past lives and ...". From the earliest experiments with Dianetics, and the number of people practicing auditing after reading DMSMH, people ran into past lives. Initially it was frowned upon to run those (like I said, in the 50s this was really weird), but everyone discovered that the only way to address the emotional charge -- to resolve the incident that might have ended with that case of food poisoning -- was to address whatever came up. Similarly, people were going exterior whether or not Hubbard was around.
Your wording in this section betrays a negative attitude that does not belong. You can easily say that people getting auditing reported experiences from past lives, and some said they went exterior (the spiritual being separating from the body) ...without any judgement.
Scientological comment: Yes, I have plenty of past life memories, and I'm generally pretty damned happy when I go exterior. Neither are the aim of what I'm doing, however.
> In 1952 Hubbard released a second book building off of Dianetics called Scientology: A Religious Philosophy, this is where the religion was born. With the release of the book, Hubbard also established a few churches around America for Scientology. This is how his self-help pseudoscience writings became a religion.
Factually incorrect data. Fix that.
[continued...]
Here.
Sllllllllllllowwwwwwwwwwwwwww
...and slow if you're using a random generator :P
I peeped your wishlist and I really think you'd enjoy Eats, Shoots and Leaves. It's one of the most hilarious and informative books I've ever read. I think I literally laughed out loud reading this book more often than any other book. The author's dry, English wit is spot-on.
...I just reread your post and see that you're not looking for book suggestions. Oh well, read this anyway!
Eats Shoots and Leaves
Not a website, but rather a book. I would highly recommend Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. It's incredibly entertaining and very educational.
EDIT: here's a link
Have you read Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss? It isn't long, but it is a great, funny book about common grammatical errors. It includes some interesting history about grammar and the context helps cement grammar guidelines into your brain.
Grammar games now? Oh my. I've a book for you!
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
Some fun books to start with:
Eats, Shoots and Leaves, by Lynne Truss
Sin and Syntax, Constance Hale
If you want more help read Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. Very quick and funny read that will greatly improve your punctuation.
It's a nice quote, but doesn't really make sense to me. A period does not indicate one is finished speaking. It simply helps us organize our words in a more understandable manner. I would imagine a supreme being doesn't speak in run-on sentences.
I am not an English major, although I did enjoy reading Eats, shoots and leaves, but that quote has one too many commas. The first comma should be a period.
Eats, shoots and leaves
Read Eats, Shoots & Leaves, you will thank me later.
*Yes, you are right. What do I need to do to improve it?
Here are several links to books that might be helpful:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Yeah, some books might offer a good read. :D
For punctuation, Eats, Shoots & Leaves. For grammatical style, On Writing Well, though it's less of a grammar book. Workbook, Schaum's Outline of English Grammar.
One of the things my grammar teacher did that really helped me grasp the different pieces of grammar (clauses, modifiers, etc.) was to have us each choose a 500-ish word piece of writing, that she would approve, and then for each grammatical element we were studying, we would take that piece and find every instance of that element, and have our small groups check each other's as well. Our choices for college (Chesterton, Lewis, Lopate, White) might not be appropriate for high school or middle school, but you could have them pick pieces from books and authors they love. Hunger Games. Harry Potter. Rick Riordan's books. That way, when you're in a small group, you can see how different authors utilize different elements more or less and what it looks like in first person vs third person, etc.
LOL. Eats shoots and leaves.
Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
I'm ordering a copy of 'Eats Shoots & Leaves' (link), a humorous way to learn grammar. /u/Idonthaveaname referred me to it, and I can't wait to get it. The book was a number one best seller, and it's a grammar tutorial book if that tells you anything about it's comedic value.
link to my big post about fantasy/sci-fi openings. Scroll past the specific comments.
Relevant.
That sucks. Just relax about it.
This will help you immensely.
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
http://www.amazon.ca/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Lynne-Truss/dp/1592402038
Learn
Here are a few grammar books that are not only helpful but also very readable. Actually, a quick Amazon search brings up a lot of books, but these are the ones I recommend from firsthand experience:
Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Woe is I
Grammar Snobs are Great Big Meanies (<-- probably the most informal of the 3)
It's a very decent punctuation joke. And also the name of a book about punctuation (which includes the joke): Eats Shoots and Leaves
It's not free, but "Eats, Shoots & Leaves" by Lynne Truss is a pretty great read about the importance of punctuation. AND it's cleverly written.
She is awesome, started with the podcast a few years ago and got the book. Have you read Eats, Shoots & Leaves as well?
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
$24/mo is absurd. The best way to check grammar is to put it down and come back an hour or two later to proofread. If you're desperate, MS Word does have a built-in grammar check tool you can use or Open Office has some grammar check extensions you can download such as LanguageTool.
If you question your own grammar, get a couple of light and easy grammar references to keep by your desk. Eats, Shoots & Leaves or The Transitive Vampire are two that are easy to work with and don't take themselves too seriously.
EDIT: Also, if you need to write regularly, buy one of these: The Synonym Finder. Hands down one of the best, easiest to use on the market. I write professionally and I have 5 copies of this book -- one for every place I may wind up writing. That's how useful I find it.
>This Friday I'm cooking grilled my staff Grilled Cheese for lunch.
Wow. I can recommend a good cookbook.
Maybe he should have read this book.
Recommended Reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
The more you read, the better your writing. Thankfully I am still very technical, but write up drafts to the best of my ability as our team has some excellent word smiths. Above book is how we solve arguments, but still working on comma usage.
Lynn Truss, author of Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation never capitalises after a colon. In all matters, she is correct.
The giant panda is actually the most dangerous bear in the world, because it eats, shoots & leaves.
Few bits of advice.
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
This is a great book explaining everything you need to know about punctuation in a fun way.
https://www.amazon.com/Vocabulary-Cartoons-Learn-Minute-Forget-ebook/dp/B00FBL1GL0
This book is how I learned a bunch of vocabulary words. You'll never forget them with the help of the fun cartoons that help you recall the words.
https://www.amazon.com/Brysons-Dictionary-Writers-Editors-Bryson/dp/0767922700
Bryson is a great author and this book can be helpful to you as well.
4.Finally, practice writing. I don't know what field you are studying but I would recommend learning about academic writing. Find journals (through your college library) that are about your field of study and try reading an article or two and take notes on them. The goal is to try and connect a topic from your classes with an article or some other writing (you can find articles online from reputable sources other than journals) . Then you can try writing about your own perspective on the topic in a research style paper. This way you will learn more about what you are studying and see how other professionals write about it. Also, look for books about your field as they will be great resources for your writing.
Eats Shoots and Leaves
As a native English speaker, I don't know a book that would teach you the finer details of grammar. But I do know a book that discusses grammar in an entertaining way. Give Eats, Shoots, and Leaves a try. Even if you already know the grammar it discusses, at least you'll get to enjoy a great book.
celtx 2.9.7 has a stageplay template. In the Typeset mode, you can choose between American stageplay format and International stageplay format.
https://screenplayreaders.com/celtx/
__
"Have You Turned Your Screenplay Into a Stageplay?"
https://www.englishgrammar101.com/
https://faculty.washington.edu/heagerty/Courses/b572/public/StrunkWhite.pdf
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
If you want to read something with a different voice and very unique style, there's always Nabokov's Pale Fire. For something much more technical, you should consider checking out Eats, Shoots, and Leaves. It was assigned reading in one of my classes along with Strunk & White, and they both really helped me out.
well, yea, except my co-workers keep trying to kill me.
^I'll ^show ^myself ^out
^http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
I refer you to the classic, "Eats, Shoots & Leaves".
Eats shoots and leaves
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
Ooh, you should check out Eats, Shoots & Leaves. I haven't read it in about 15 years, but I recall it presenting the information in a very fun, memorable way.
Eats, Shoots and Leaves is both hilarious and educational. Highly recommend.
https://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
>she got Jay to admit to lying on the stand
"Lying on the stand," is what you said.
"Lying, on the stand," is what you meant.
They're totally different things. The first one is perjury. The second one is just a sign of an unreliable witness.
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592402038
I would think a security chief would be aware of the eats, shoots and leaves issue.
punctuation. not just for pandas.
Needs punctuation. I know what the title conveys, but it's one of those "eats shoots and leaves" kind of sentences.
EDIT; Eats Shoots and Leaves as in the book on punctuation.
Here's the original source.