Originally Posted by Alan Mendelson View Post
Redietz here's something the experts at WOV didn't learn in J School so what they say doesn't count. As a writer you need to know if you are writing for the eye or for the ear.

You know what I'm talking about. When you speak the word cheque the ear doesn't know if it's a chip or a piece of paper for a bank transaction.

When you write for the eye there is no question what a cheque is.

When you write for the eye and you use the word check to mean a cheque you are needlessly opening the door to confusion.

If you were a good editor you would tell your writing staff to understand if the words they cgoose will be heard or read.
That's why I agreed with the casino managerial person when she said "cheque" would have reduced confusion. But anyone who took my word regarding the story should have easily understood that "check" referred to E.R. getting chips.

Basically, if you were paying attention to the story and your default mode is to believe me, there was no confusion. If your default mode is to not believe me for some reason and to search for gotchas, then the line filled your need for a presumed gotcha, as in "Accuracy, Accuracy, Accuracy!" So in those two situations, the use of "checks" served as a Rorschach test.

However, because some people may have been just glancing at the thread, I owed it to casual readers to use the "cheques" spelling. Given the same situation, I would use "cheques" next time. "Checks," however, is clearly a legitimate spelling variation.