Beasizzle

I like how Beason interviewed a small number of people so his audience could see the individual critiques of the subjects. Instead of clustering all their responses together, he stretched them apart to see the finest detail. This was helpful in understanding why they thought different errors were more or less bothersome. This is what sets this Beason's research apart from most others. Different articles would most likely be quick to establish a greater number of subjects and generalize the results of each subject. Around the latter half of the article, Beason explains that errors in a paper will induce different responses from readers. They will each critique you and judge you differently. After reading this, why would I want to write anything? I am certain my grammatical skills are not up to par, so it leaves me a bit self-conscious about my writing. Beason then goes on to say that although people are judging your writing, you should not be so quick to judge them. So basically, he is telling me tit for...what? No tat? I understand I shouldn't bring out the marching band every time I notice grammatical errors, however why should I sludge through somebody else's mistakes and not secretly judge them? Okay, yes, if I were to do that, it would probably not help the decline of unwanted stereotypes. So, I guess in that sense Beason makes a good point.