CRIT: Untitled
Miles
critted, some time ago:
Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
process the unfamiliar. He was being dragged by two men, one either
side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
stung his already hurting body. As he regained clarity he was able to
make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
he noticed it.
The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches, the gentle nature of it
made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable, as one of the men beat a
worn fist upon the knots of deep oak. Filepp's hearing and vision was
still slurred but he assumed the man had received a reply as he
entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm. Each
limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural. He
sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
hinges to creak his fate. The minutes passed like days, until he
finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
The door heaved open, with his other escort coming out to help him up.
Filepp looked up wincing from the sudden flood of light. He stumbled
across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
burned every few feet around the room, the room was of stone but the
air was not as bitter as in the corridor. The two men laid Filepp down
at the foot of steps that lead to a raised platform, on which a large
wooden throne stood. After laying him down the two men turned and moved
to flank either side of the door. Filepp looked up, as a shadow pressed
his face.
A tall man with long leather boots, a bear fur coat and a thick mop of
hair smiled down at him. Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
Miles.
Jacey Bedford
<mileswa...@hotmail.com> writes
There's a lot to recommend this, you've got some great ideas and genuine
scary bits... In fact some excellent content, but you need to take a
closer look at your sentence construction. Sometimes it's better to keep
it simple. Especially when something stressful or scary is happening.
Short, snappy sentences can heighten the tension.
>Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
>stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
>process the unfamiliar.
For instance... I love the use of the word _snag_ but you've tried to
put a lot of ideas into one sentence. You've tried to include his feet
snagging on a crack, seeing a stain on the floor and his headache as he
tries to understand both unusual things.
I think I might split that down into more manageable bites of
information.
Filepp's feet snagged on a crack in the stone flagged floor as he was
dragged along. His body hurt and he could barely focus his eyes for the
grinding ache in his head.
>He was being dragged by two men, one either
>side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
>stung his already hurting body.
>As he regained clarity he was able to
>make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
>with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
>wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
>he noticed it.
62 words in this sentence and it covers:
1) Filepp regaining clarity,
2) the masons leaving the floor unfinished, thereby causing the guards
to stumble,
3) torches burning on the walls
4) and arriving at a door.
>
>The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches, the gentle nature of it
>made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable, as one of the men beat a
>worn fist upon the knots of deep oak.
'the gentle nature of it' need rephrasing. Are they being kind
deliberately or is it just that being dropped on his bum is a better
choice than being dragged along?
>Filepp's hearing and vision was
>still slurred but he assumed the man had received a reply as he
>entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
I think slurred might not be a word that quite covers hearing and
vision. Speech is often 'slurred'; vision is 'blurred'; hearing is...
Er... I dunno, but I suspect not slurred. 'Distorted' maybe?
>
>Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
>thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
>as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm.
You need to seriously look at this sentence - especially from 'the gust
of his breathe, each paining his lungs,' And the last bit should be a
separate sentence but 'it seemed a blade was brandished upon his
diaphragm' is a bit florid. I know what you mean, but there's got to be
a shorter, neater way of writing it. 'Each breath felt like a knife
jabbing between his ribs,' or something. He's in pain, so he's not going
to be thinking in fancy words. Words like 'ouch' will come more readily
to mind that 'brandished' and 'diaphragm.'
>Each
>limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural.
This sentence is a bit the same as the previous one - too florid.
>He
>sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
>hinges to creak his fate.
And this sentence is lovely - but because of the previous two, I almost
missed how nice it was.
>The minutes passed like days, until he
>finally recognised voices beyond the door,
Split sentence here
>the man had noticed it too
>and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
>
>The door heaved open, with his other escort coming out to help him up.
>Filepp looked up wincing from the sudden flood of light. He stumbled
>across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
>weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
'relieved him of the mass' is too flowery as well. What's wrong with
'held him upright' or something equally simple?
>
>They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
>burned every few feet around the room,
End sentence here.
Suggest you delete 'with mutual flames'
>the room was of stone but the
>air was not as bitter as in the corridor. The two men laid Filepp down
>at the foot of steps that lead
led
> to a raised platform, on which a large
>wooden throne stood. After laying him down the two men turned and moved
>to flank either side of the door. Filepp looked up, as a shadow pressed
>his face.
Can a shadow press?
>
>A tall man with long leather boots, a bear fur coat and a thick mop of
>hair smiled down at him. Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
man's
>genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
This finishes well. Like I said, much of this is good, but some of the
sentences make it seem as though you're trying too hard to be clever. My
advice is to simplify and refine, but don't lose the good bits.
:-)
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
jacey at artisan hyphen harmony dot com
posting via usenet and not googlegroups, ourdebate
or any other forum that reprints usenet posts as
though they were the forum's own
Nick Argall
"Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
> critted, some time ago:
>
>
>
>
>
> Filepp's feet snagged,
That's a great opening three words.
> as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
> stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
> process the unfamiliar.
That's a poor opening sentence. (I spent six months obsessing over
openings. Does it show?)
The first three words have given us character, action and conflict. Filepp
(character) is trying to move his feet (action) but he's hit an obstacle
(conflict). The rest of the opening sentence is rambly and distracted. It
seems to me that you're worried about leaving the audience behind, so you're
dumping a ton of information into that opening sentence. Don't worry about
leaving the audience behind for the first few paragraphs, we'll catch up.
We want to know that there's a story here that's worth reading,
understanding it can wait a little.
> He was being dragged by two men, one either
> side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
> stung his already hurting body.
Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like "He
was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men dragged
him [...]"
> As he regained clarity he was able to
> make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
> with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
> wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
> he noticed it.
Too much information, not enough structure.
The good news is that there's very clearly a story in there. You're
revealing stuff that relates to the plot in a sensible way, there is very
clearly something happening, and the smile at the end is a nice mysterious
tease that sparks curiosity. Grammar and prose construction seem to be the
things to improve, not storytelling.
Nick
Gerry Quinn
mileswa...@hotmail.com says...
> This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
> critted, some time ago:
>
> Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
> stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
> process the unfamiliar.
I stumbled initially, and then it dragged me along (just like happened
your hero).
I think you can write, Miles.
> He was being dragged by two men, one either
> side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
> stung his already hurting body. As he regained clarity he was able to
> make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
> with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
> wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
> he noticed it.
You still need to activate the copy-editor in your brain. It's not
always clear what's happening. The sentences are too run on in the
above; it's not immediately clear that 'it' refers to the door.
> The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches, the gentle nature of it
> made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable, as one of the men beat a
> worn fist upon the knots of deep oak. Filepp's hearing and vision was
> still slurred but he assumed the man had received a reply as he
> entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
>
> Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
> thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
> as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm. Each
> limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural. He
> sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
> hinges to creak his fate. The minutes passed like days, until he
> finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
> and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
I'm not clear who the 'man' is here. First I thought he was thrown in
a cell, now it seems he's just under (rather rough) escort.
> The door heaved open, with his other escort coming out to help him up.
> Filepp looked up wincing from the sudden flood of light. He stumbled
> across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
> weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
>
> They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
> burned every few feet around the room, the room was of stone but the
> air was not as bitter as in the corridor. The two men laid Filepp down
> at the foot of steps that lead to a raised platform, on which a large
> wooden throne stood. After laying him down the two men turned and moved
> to flank either side of the door. Filepp looked up, as a shadow pressed
> his face.
>
> A tall man with long leather boots, a bear fur coat and a thick mop of
> hair smiled down at him. Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
> genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
Well, you used a rare word twice, and without explaining what it means
in context, but you know that. First draft - irrelevant.
I see you have been paying much more attention to grammar and spelling
than before, and that's good. They aren't yet exactly right, but
getting close enough that you can start to concentrate on other stuff
now. Exact description of what's going on needs more attention IMO.
Overall, I think this has a lot of potential.
- Gerry Quinn
Patricia C. Wrede
"Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
> stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
> process the unfamiliar.
I think the reason you're getting so many negative reactions to your opening
sentence is that you have set it up as a structure that *ought* to be
parallel, but it isn't, quite. So people automatically try to read it as a
parallel structure, and get tangled up when it doesn't work. It tries to
mean something like this:
Filepp's feet snagged [on the crack]
as his vision [snagged] upon the stain on the floor
as his aching head [snagged] [on] attempt[ing] to process the
unfamiliar [sensations?].
What really makes it want to do this is those two follow-up "...as...his
[vision/head..." You could eliminate a good bit of the confusion by
changing that second "as" to "while" -- "while his aching head attempted
to..." isn't parallel to "as (too did) his vision...", so it doesn't set up
a predisposition to try to read it as a parallel structure. Tightening it
up would help, too -- you don't need both "crack *or* stain", for instance;
you could just pick one. Using "flagstones" instead of "stone flagged
floor" would move things along without really eliminating too much
information. I do think you need to add something, though -- you have two
clauses that don't quite finish, and I think you can only get away with one
(assuming you keep the sentence more-or-less as is, instead of splitting it
up). The two are "Filepp's feet snagged..." (on what? A crack, a log, a
step, a boot, a murder hole...) and "...as his aching head attempted to
process the unfamiliar..." (unfamiliar *what*? Information, sensation(s),
shapes around him, smells, sounds...). The first one is probably easier to
specify, but I found the second one more annoying (and I rather liked that
you left out whatever his feet snagged on, once I got over the initial shock
of expecting something to be there).
Alternatively, you could rearrange the sentence so that the last clause
comes first, which also doesn't set up that parallel rhythm: "As his aching
head..., Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision..." Or, you could
break it down into a couple-three different sentences -- some of the problem
is that you're cramming so much information into one sentence.
I'm not going to do a line-by-line on the rest of this; other folks have
covered most of what I'd say anyway. You have some nice images here, and a
nice mix of the vivid and the quiet. I do think you need to pay a little
more attention to your punctuation, though. Right now, you're using commas
for just about everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
weight. For instance, just changing a couple of punctuation marks in this
bit makes it much easier to read and brings out some of the nice phrasing:
>As he regained clarity he was able to
>make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
>with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
>wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
>he noticed it.
"As he regained clarity, he was able to make out a long corridor. The
masons had been rushed; much of the rock was uneven. Even his escorts
stumbled occasionally. It was dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in
harmony every so often along each wall, but it was not until Filepp was
within arm's reach of the door that he noticed it."
Three commas changed to periods; one comma changed to semi-colon; two commas
added. No words changed at all. I particularly liked the straightforward
simplicity of "the masons had been rushed; much of the rock was uneven,"
which really got lost when the whole thing was one sentence.
Patricia C. Wrede
Cyli
wrote:
>This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
>critted, some time ago:
You've come a long way from the first time, and that not too long ago,
that you bounced in here. You've improved a lot.
--
r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
Zeborah
> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > He was being dragged by two men,
<snip>
> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like "He
> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men dragged
> him [...]"
This is indeed the passive mood; but passive is not necessarily the kiss
of death for a sentence, despite what Word and some teachers would say.
The active mood is frequently more precise or more concise, but writing
fiction isn't always about precision or concision; it's often about
nuance and connotation and the feel and rhythm of words.
In this context you have the choice of (among other things):
He was being dragged
He was being dragged by two men
He was dragged by two men
Two men dragged him
Two men were dragging him
All of these describe the same event. Some are shorter, one gives less
information. None of them is wrong by itself, though some might be
wrong for this story.
If, for example, he's dazed and confused then "He was being dragged"
would be just fine, despite being in passive and giving less
information, because by giving less information it shows that he's not
fully aware of his surroundings; in such a case "Two men were dragging
him" would be wrong, despite being in active.
Even if he's not dazed and confused there are minor differences between
active and passive: "Two men dragged/were dragging him" puts the men
first, so if you want to focus on them you probably want to choose one
of those; on the other hand "He was dragged/being dragged by two men"
starts with his experience of being dragged, so if you want to focus on
that then you probably want one of those.
From another angle, of simple past vs past continuous:
"Two men dragged him"/"He was dragged by two men" (simple past) puts the
whole dragging action into one metaphorical moment, so is normally used
when talking about the action being over and done with fairly quickly in
story-time -- that is, even if it takes a long time actually, if nothing
else in the story happens during this action, simple past is most often
appropriate. By contrast, "Two men were dragging him"/"He was being
dragged by two men" (past continuous) describes the action as being
drawn out; this can be useful if you're going to talk about other things
happening while he's still being dragged, or even if you aren't going to
talk about other things but want to give the impression of the action
dragging on (so to speak) for a long time.
I think, myself, that in this case "He was being dragged by two men" is
the right choice for this story: the passive puts the focus on the
protagonist and his experience rather than the men who are subjectively
tangential to that; the past continuous emphasises that the dragging is
not just one quick dash, but is taking a long time during which the
protagonist makes various observations.
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
John W. Kennedy
> Nick Argall <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> He was being dragged by two men,
> <snip>
>> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like "He
>> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men dragged
>> him [...]"
>
> This is indeed the passive mood;
"Voice", not "mood". Indicative, subjunctive, and imperative are "moods".
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Miles
Filepp, has just regained consciousness and he hasn't the strength to
move his head, so is left facing the floor. His head is killing and his
vision is almost double. So as he moves along the corridor he attempts
to concentrate on say, a crack or stain but he is moving. So when I say
his vision snagged I mean it snagged on the previous crack or stain
before it moved along to the next. All of this seems to blur into one -
so when you have a really bad headache, its not the best thing. He
could close his eyes, but he is unsure where he is and trying hard to
'process the unfamiliar'
I do agree that I'm a bit of a comma-junky I just have the
urge to get everything relevant into the one paragraph or sentence and
be done with that little section. I'm really happy that the main
problems were just the technicalities, so to speak. That the main
concerns were about punctuality and sentence structure. I know these
are very important but these are things that will come in time - that
the key is practice.
'I think you can write, Miles.' That generally made my day.
This, to me, is more important. I can learn how to spell or the correct
placement of commas from a book. Being able to write well is something
that I don't think can be taught. I think you can be given tips and
advice but each writer must have a style that -if they are meant to
write, will come to them naturally. So on the whole I've pretty chuffed
with the feed back and I hope to receive more. Thanks!
Miles.
Christopher B. Wright
did want to say that while the piece sort of comes across as a jumble
and is a bit difficult to work though, I found the effort worthwhile.
There is a lot about it that I really, really like. Specifically, I
found the tense buildup leading to the kindly smile very chilling and
unsettling -- if that's where you were going, boy did you get there. :)
Christopher B. Wright (ubersoft -at- gmail -dot- com)
Patricia C. Wrede
"Zeborah" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1hpoi8g.1yp0t3c190ev9yN%zeb...@gmail.com...
> Nick Argall <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > He was being dragged by two men,
> <snip>
>> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like
>> "He
>> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men
>> dragged
>> him [...]"
>
> This is indeed the passive mood; but passive is not necessarily the kiss
> of death for a sentence, despite what Word and some teachers would say.
> The active mood is frequently more precise or more concise, but writing
> fiction isn't always about precision or concision; it's often about
> nuance and connotation and the feel and rhythm of words.
And there are at least four really good reasons why an author might *need*
to use passive voice: when the emphasis of the sentence needs to be on the
person or thing that would otherwise be the object; when the person or thing
that would otherwise be the subject is unknown; when the author deliberately
wishes to hide the identity of the person or thing that would otherwise be
the subject; and in a subordinate phrase or clause where it is necessary to
use the passive voice in order to stay in agreement with the main sentence.
Examples: 1) Emphasizing the person or thing that would otherwise be the
object.
"The gem was stolen five times: twice by the dwarves, twice by the
elves, and once by the King of Siam."
"She had been abused by her father when she was six."
In the first example, the use of passive voice allows for a more compact
structure by letting me use parallelism to describe all the thefts of which
the gem was the object. The real focus of the sentence is the gem, not the
various people who stole it, and that focus would get muddled if I rephrased
this in three separate active-voice sentences or clauses. The second
example is more of a judgment call; "Her father abused her when she was six"
is an equally good sentence, and many writers would choose it. However, if
the father never appears in the story, or if I were writing a descriptive or
narrative summary paragraph focused on "her," I might well prefer the
passive voice in order to keep the reader's attention on my character
("she"). This is the reason that seems to cause the most uproar when it
gets used, because the anti-passive-voice-ists make one judgement and the
pro-passive folks make another, and never the twain shall meet. But it's
still a *perfectly legitimate usage*. And there are times when the author
*needs* to keep the focus on "she" in order to keep the rhythm and structure
of the passage working properly.
2) The person or thing that ought to be the subject is unknown.
"He was murdered." (By whom? We don't know yet ... )
"It's been stolen!" (By whom? Ditto ditto ... .)
The author *could* say "Somebody murdered him" or "Somebody stole it!"
3) Deliberately hiding the identity of the subject (from the reader or from
some other character). [Note: overusing this one makes it really obvious
and obnoxious ... use with care.]
"Harold was seen at the theater last night (but I promised not to
say who saw him)."
"The soup was dished out and everyone started eating." (For some
reason, the author doesn't want the reader to know who served the soup;
possibly someone is about to get poisoned ... )
This is the one that gets abused and overused, and which, I think, is at the
root of the uproar over not using passive voice. But there are times when
it's exactly what the author needs to do, and the fact that some people
abuse the construction doesn't mean it's a lousy one to use.
4) In a subordinate phrase or clause, to maintain agreement with the main
clause.
"The councilor, having been insulted, left in a huff." ("Having
been insulted [by persons unknown]" is passive voice because passive voice
is the only way to keep "the councilor" as the implied subject. To change
it to active, you'd need something much longer and more awkward, like "The
councilor, whom the secretary had insulted, left in a huff.")
Patricia C. Wrede
Gerry Quinn
nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com says...
> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > He was being dragged by two men, one either
> > side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
> > stung his already hurting body.
>
> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like "He
> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men dragged
> him [...]"
I would suggest a motto: "active sentences, never mind the grammatical
voice". Make the writing vigorous, and it doesn't matter how the voice
pans out.
The above seems okay by me - as Zeborah says, it puts the focus on the
character.
- Gerry Quinn
Jacey Bedford
<zeb...@gmail.com> writes
That's a great explanation.
Zeborah
> Zeborah wrote:
> > This is indeed the passive mood;
>
> "Voice", not "mood". Indicative, subjunctive, and imperative are "moods".
I knew I should have said "thingy".
Tim S
> This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
> critted, some time ago:
The actual content is mostly good, but your punctuation appears to be
guided by the motto "when in doubt, use a comma". Unfortunately, this
doesn't help the reader understand the relationship between successive
statements...
>
>
> Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
> stain on the stone flagged floor, as his aching head attempted to
> process the unfamiliar. He was being dragged by two men, one either
> side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
^^^^^^^
- |
Either this should be a full stop, or you should have "irritating" and
"stinging" instead of "irritated" and "stung", or you need to rephrase
the sentence.
> stung his already hurting body. As he regained clarity he was able to
> make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
> with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
> wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
> he noticed it.
Aaargh! All of these commas are wrong! Every one of them is doing the
work of a full stop. There are lots of ways to fix this. Here is one of
them, but it's just how I'd do it, trying to show how the sentences
actually relate, and probably not how you want it to go.
------
stung his already hurting body. As he regained clarity he was able to
make out a long corridor.
The masons had been rushed. Much of the rock was uneven -- even his
escorts stumbled occasionally. It was dimly lit, with a pair of torches
burning in harmony every so often along each wall, but it was not until
Filepp was within arms reach of the door that he noticed it.
-------
Also, "burning in harmony" is a fascinating phrase, but I have no idea
what it means.
>
> The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches, the gentle nature of it
- ^ Full stop.
> made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable, as one of the men beat a
> worn fist upon the knots of deep oak. Filepp's hearing and vision was
Can't visualise what a "worn fist" is, unfortunately. Also, I don't
understand what the connection is between Filepp feeling comfortable and
the man beating his fist on the oak (i.e. why "as"?)
> still slurred but he assumed the man had received a reply as he
"Slurred" usually refers to speech. I know what you mean, but maybe
"blurred" vision and "muffled" hearing? Dunno how I'd do this, actually,
and as it's your story you'll have to choose your own words, but
"slurred" doesn't sound right.
I also don't understand why you talk about a "reply", since nobody's
asked anything (or is this in an earlier bit?) And I don't understand
who is entering, or why Filepp assumes the man has received a reply
(because he entered? -- as suggested by "as". What is the logic there?)
> entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
I have no idea what that flash of light is about. Does closing the door
cause a light to flash? Where is the light coming from? Is this
connected with Filepp assuming the man had received a reply, and if not,
why is it in the same sentence?
>
> Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
> thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
That last comma should be a full stop, a dash or something like that.
> as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm. Each
> limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural. He
That comma should really be a full stop or semicolon.
I like the idea of limbs "unsuited to his torso" and "unnatural", but I
think I need a few more details on this.
> sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
> hinges to creak his fate. The minutes passed like days, until he
> finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
Full stop! Also, I've lost track of which man. I thought there were two?
> and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
>
> The door heaved open, with his other escort coming out to help him up.
> Filepp looked up wincing from the sudden flood of light. He stumbled
> across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
Full stop!
> weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
What mass?
>
> They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
Full stop!
Not sure about the geography here. Is the circular chamber directly
connected to the room he's just been in? And what the heck are mutual
flames?
> burned every few feet around the room, the room was of stone but the
Full stop!
> air was not as bitter as in the corridor. The two men laid Filepp down
> at the foot of steps that lead to a raised platform, on which a large
"Led", not "lead".
> wooden throne stood. After laying him down the two men turned and moved
> to flank either side of the door. Filepp looked up, as a shadow pressed
> his face.
>
> A tall man with long leather boots, a bear fur coat and a thick mop of
> hair smiled down at him. Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
Apostrophe!
> genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
I like this last paragraph, except I'm not sure how exactly real
kindness (as opposed to just friendliness) would be visible in a smile.
Tim
Nicola Browne
news:ekq89a$qi6$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk
> Miles wrote:
> > This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
> > critted, some time ago:
>
> The actual content is mostly good, but your punctuation appears to be
> guided by the motto "when in doubt, use a comma". Unfortunately, this
> doesn't help the reader understand the relationship between successive
> statements...
I know exactly where he's coming from. I thought the content was
good too. I like the slightly odd turn of phrase.
I agree that relatively trivial but significant errors are getting
in the way of the writing and it is probably worth learning to
fix them now.
As everyone knows, I also have poor punctuation and editing skills
and life would be a lot easier if I didn't.
My advice would be to spend some time learning how to do the boring
stuff
because it actually allows you to control how your work is read.
For years I divided writing into the important stuff - the content
and the unimportant stuff - punctuation etc. It has taken me
ages to recognise that the unimportant stuff is important too, because
like a musical score it gives the reader necessary clues as to how
to interpret the content.
( I am an exceptionally slow learner)
Nicky
> >
> >
>
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Miles
>asked anything (or is this in an earlier bit?) And I don't understand
>who is entering, or why Filepp assumes the man has received a reply
>(because he entered? -- as suggested by "as". What is the logic there?)
> entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
>I have no idea what that flash of light is about. Does closing the door
>cause a light to flash? Where is the light coming from? Is this
>connected with Filepp assuming the man had received a reply, and if not,
>why is it in the same sentence?
1) You knock because you require permission to enter..
2) The light comes from the other - brighter room, to which the door
has just been opened.
3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both or all." Large
torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA large torches burnt with equally
large flames.
4) 'Not sure about the geography here. Is the circular chamber directly
connected to the room he's just been in?' Isn't that a bit obvious.
I couldn't agree more with you that my grammar and punctuation is poor
to say the least. I do aim to improve it and am currently attending the
CSC society meetings; the control of subconscious commas.
Though I think some of your other comments were a little...
odd. However I am never the less grateful for the feed back. Thanks
again.
Miles.
Nick Argall
>
>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > He was being dragged by two men,
> <snip>
>> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like
>> "He
>> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men
>> dragged
>> him [...]"
> I think, myself, that in this case "He was being dragged by two men" is
> the right choice for this story: the passive puts the focus on the
> protagonist and his experience rather than the men who are subjectively
> tangential to that; the past continuous emphasises that the dragging is
> not just one quick dash, but is taking a long time during which the
> protagonist makes various observations.
I think you're right, actually. I still don't like the sentence, but I
think it has much more to do with the run-on inclusion of lots of ideas than
the fact that it was passive. Thanks for your instructive commentary.
Nick
Nick Argall
"Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:12n0f93...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Zeborah" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1hpoi8g.1yp0t3c190ev9yN%zeb...@gmail.com...
>> Nick Argall <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>
>> [A very intelligent disagreement]
> [An explanation of important principles underlying basic problems with
> what Nick had said]
It's been humbling and inspiring. Thanks.
Nick
R.L.
> This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
> critted, some time ago:
I haven't seen or heard anything about it, virgin crit here. :-)
>
>
>
> Filepp's feet snagged, as too did his vision upon the passing crack or
> stain on the stone flagged floor,
I like it.
> as his aching head attempted to
> process the unfamiliar.
That gave a distracting impression, it sounds sedentary, like describing
someone sitting at a desk with a puzzle that's giving him a headache. I'd
suggest just cutting it out.
> He was being dragged
Good. Passive voice is appropriate here. (For one thing, he IS in a passive
situation. :-)
> by two men,
Do we really need to know how many men? Can he see both of them?
> one either side,
Where else would they be? Seems unnecessary.
> the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
> stung his already hurting body.
I like that. But it sounds like they're holding him by the shoulders or
torso, which seems odd. Mostly you drag people by the arms or the feet. :-)
> As he regained clarity he was able to
> make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
> with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
> wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
> he noticed it.
I like the basic design of this, him being focused on the small visual
things he could see well.
>
> The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches,
Maybe he's been sort of walking, shuffling, along all this time? Then
'dragged' gave me quite a wrong picture, I saw him flat on the floor.
> the gentle nature of it
> made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable,
I like that (tho the wording is a little awkward).
> as one of the men beat a
> worn fist upon the knots of deep oak. Filepp's hearing and vision was
> still slurred but he assumed the man had received a reply as he
> entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
I like the swift flash of light. But shouldn't it come before the closing
of the door?
> Now that all was still,
That's a little confusing, not clear whether it means after the man stops
knocking on the door, or after some longer noise or movement has stopped
(probably the latter but it was a boggle.)
> Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
> thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
> as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm.
I like all this kinesthetic stuff, and it seems very believable, very
well-paced.
> Each
> limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural.
I can't imagine that feeling, so I read it as a clue to be taken literally:
maybe he really has been put in a Frankenstein body or something.
> He
> sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
> hinges to creak his fate. The minutes passed like days, until he
> finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
> and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
Okay, now it's all sort of flowing along, I feel like I've got the momemtum
and direction and basic situation and don't have to look so closely at
every sentence.
>
> The door heaved open, with his other escort coming out to help him up.
> Filepp looked up wincing from the sudden flood of light. He stumbled
> across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
> weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
>
> They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
> burned every few feet around the room, the room was of stone but the
> air was not as bitter as in the corridor. The two men laid Filepp down
> at the foot of steps that lead to a raised platform, on which a large
> wooden throne stood. After laying him down the two men turned and moved
> to flank either side of the door. Filepp looked up, as a shadow pressed
> his face.
>
> A tall man with long leather boots, a bear fur coat and a thick mop of
> hair smiled down at him. Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
> genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
All seems pretty good so far. Good flow, good details, good ... imagining
oneself there, believable feelings of the character, nothing left out....
R.L.
R.L.
> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>/snip/
> Right now, you're using commas
> for just about everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
> weight. For instance, just changing a couple of punctuation marks in this
> bit makes it much easier to read and brings out some of the nice phrasing:
Yes, but I think your example below goes too far, chops it up too much,
loses the flow/pace of the original.
>>As he regained clarity he was able to
>>make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>>was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
>>with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
>>wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
>>he noticed it.
Here's mine, changing a few words too:
Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
was un-level. Even his escorts stumbled occasionally. The corridor was
dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along
each wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach that he noticed
a closed /oak/whatever/ door.
>
> "As he regained clarity, he was able to make out a long corridor. The
> masons had been rushed; much of the rock was uneven.
To me, the full stop and a new sentence beginning with 'The masons'
suggests that the masons are present or are somehow going to be important
characters. The semi-colon is grammatically correct but some imprecision
and slurring seems to me to fit the situation better. :-)
> Even his escorts
> stumbled occasionally. It was dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in
> harmony every so often along each wall, but it was not until Filepp was
> within arm's reach of the door that he noticed it."
>
> Three commas changed to periods; one comma changed to semi-colon; two commas
> added. No words changed at all. I particularly liked the straightforward
> simplicity of "the masons had been rushed; much of the rock was uneven,"
> which really got lost when the whole thing was one sentence.
I agree it was buried too deeply with just the commas, but your version
makes it all a bit too precise, too well-lit, for my feeling of the
character's perceptions here.
R.L.
R.L.
> First of all thanks to everybody who gave a reply. Now, my beginning.
> Filepp, has just regained consciousness and he hasn't the strength to
> move his head, so is left facing the floor. His head is killing and his
> vision is almost double. So as he moves along the corridor he attempts
> to concentrate on say, a crack or stain but he is moving. So when I say
> his vision snagged I mean it snagged on the previous crack or stain
> before it moved along to the next. All of this seems to blur into one -
> so when you have a really bad headache, its not the best thing.
That's pretty much what I got from it on first reading; good job. The only
thing that really didn't fit could have been tweaked I think: what I said
in a different post about a flash of someone at a desk getting a headache
from a puzzle. That could be tweaked with something like 'Through the pain'
or 'His vision fuzzy with pain' or something like that to show us the
headache came from some injury, not from the unfamiliarity.
> He
> could close his eyes, but he is unsure where he is and trying hard to
> 'process the unfamiliar'
A good bit of content, experience, but it might be made more clear.
> I do agree that I'm a bit of a comma-junky I just have the
> urge to get everything relevant into the one paragraph or sentence and
> be done with that little section.
To me many of the commas fitted the situation fine, but an editor might not
agree. :-)
R.L.
R.L.
> Nick Argall <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>
>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> He was being dragged by two men,
> <snip>
>> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like "He
>> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men dragged
>> him [...]"
>
> This is indeed the passive mood; but passive is not necessarily the kiss
> of death for a sentence, despite what Word and some teachers would say.
> The active mood is frequently more precise or more concise, but writing
> fiction isn't always about precision or concision; it's often about
> nuance and connotation and the feel and rhythm of words.
>
> In this context you have the choice of (among other things):
>
> He was being dragged
> He was being dragged by two men
> He was dragged by two men
> Two men dragged him
> Two men were dragging him
/snip a bunch more stuff I was gearing up to say, tho doubtless not as
well/
> From another angle, of simple past vs past continuous:
I was taught to call this 'imperfect tense': something that didn't finish,
wasn't 'perfected.'
> "Two men dragged him"/"He was dragged by two men" (simple past) puts the
> whole dragging action into one metaphorical moment, so is normally used
> when talking about the action being over and done with fairly quickly in
> story-time -- that is, even if it takes a long time actually, if nothing
> else in the story happens during this action, simple past is most often
> appropriate. By contrast, "Two men were dragging him"/"He was being
> dragged by two men" (past continuous) describes the action as being
> drawn out; this can be useful if you're going to talk about other things
> happening while he's still being dragged, or even if you aren't going to
> talk about other things but want to give the impression of the action
> dragging on (so to speak) for a long time.
>
> I think, myself, that in this case "He was being dragged by two men" is
> the right choice for this story: the passive puts the focus on the
> protagonist and his experience rather than the men who are subjectively
> tangential to that; the past continuous emphasises that the dragging is
> not just one quick dash, but is taking a long time during which the
> protagonist makes various observations.
Exactly.
R.L.
R.L.
> "Zeborah" <zeb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1hpoi8g.1yp0t3c190ev9yN%zeb...@gmail.com...
>> Nick Argall <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > He was being dragged by two men,
>> <snip>
>>> Passive sentence. Don't begin sentences in your opening with stuff like
>>> "He
>>> was being [verbed]" Better to make it an active sentence, "Two men
>>> dragged
>>> him [...]"
/snip/
> And there are at least four really good reasons why an author might *need*
> to use passive voice: when the emphasis of the sentence needs to be on the
> person or thing that would otherwise be the object;
....
> Examples: 1) Emphasizing the person or thing that would otherwise be the
> object. ....
> "She had been abused by her father when she was six."
....
> The second
> example is more of a judgment call; "Her father abused her when she was six"
> is an equally good sentence, and many writers would choose it. However, if
> the father never appears in the story, or if I were writing a descriptive or
> narrative summary paragraph focused on "her," I might well prefer the
> passive voice in order to keep the reader's attention on my character
> ("she"). This is the reason that seems to cause the most uproar when it
> gets used, because the anti-passive-voice-ists make one judgement and the
> pro-passive folks make another, and never the twain shall meet. But it's
> still a *perfectly legitimate usage*. And there are times when the author
> *needs* to keep the focus on "she" in order to keep the rhythm and structure
> of the passage working properly.
Yes. I think that sort of thing is especially important with verbs that
produce a more or less lasting condition, and soon afterwards get used as
modifiers. "The table was sanded and polished till it gleamed. ... The
polished table drew much attention."
To me that reads smoothly, whereas the following would boggle me for a
moment:
"The carpenter sanded the table and polished it till it gleamed. ... The
polished table drew much attention." (Hm, for some reason that sounds like
Hans Christian Andersen.)
R.L.
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:ztaryoiwc2on.15...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 18:23:37 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
[...]
>> From another angle, of simple past vs past continuous:
> I was taught to call this 'imperfect tense': something
> that didn't finish, wasn't 'perfected.'
The term 'imperfect' isn't really appropriate for English
grammar; the usual term nowadays is 'past progressive',
though Zeborah's 'past continuous' is also fairly common.
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:udry8b381hmy.xysw75ifazfx$.d...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>/snip/
>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
>> weight. For instance, just changing a couple of
>> punctuation marks in this bit makes it much easier to
>> read and brings out some of the nice phrasing:
> Yes, but I think your example below goes too far, chops it
> up too much, loses the flow/pace of the original.
>>> As he regained clarity he was able to make out a long
>>> corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>>> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it
>>> was dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony
>>> every so often along each wall but it was not until
>>> Filepp was within arms reach of the door that he
>>> noticed it.
> Here's mine, changing a few words too:
> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to make out the long
> corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was un-level.
This needs a comma after 'clarity', and the comma splice at
'rushed' needs to be repaired; if you want to keep the
semicolon after 'corridor', insert 'and' before 'much'.
'Un-level' is extremely jarring; only with *very* good
reason would I consider keeping it. Miles's 'uneven' is far
better. This isn't dialogue, or even an extremely tight,
right-there-in-his-thoughts third person PoV, so comma
splices and neologisms like 'un-level' are out of place.
> Even his escorts stumbled occasionally. The corridor was
> dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony every
> so often along each wall but it was not until Filepp was
> within arms reach that he noticed a closed /oak/whatever/
> door.
You need a comma after 'wall', and it should be 'arm's
reach'. (And 'by a pair' would be a bit more idiomatic.)
It's not necessary to perform such drastic surgery in order
to fix the punctuation. Here's a version that makes only
minimal changes to the actual words and keeps much of the
original pacing as well.
As he regained clarity he was able to make out a
long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much
of the rock was uneven, and even his escorts
stumbled occasionally. The passage was was
dimly lit by a pair of torches burning in harmony
every so often along each wall, but it was not
until Filepp was within arm's reach of the door
that he noticed it.
[...]
Brian
Crowfoot
>
> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
> make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was un-level. Even his escorts stumbled occasionally. The corridor was
> dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along
> each wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach that he noticed
> a closed /oak/whatever/ door.
Mine:
> Slowly regaining clarity he realized he was being dragged down
a long corridor. The masons must have been rushed; much of the
rock floor was unevenly cut. Even his escorts stumbled on it. Pairs
of torches lit the corridor, burning in harmony every so often along
each wall; but it was not until he was within arms' reach of it hat he
recognized a closed /oak/whatever/ door directly ahead (or on the
right or whatever).
SMC
R.L.
>> Here's mine, changing a few words too:
>>
>> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
>> make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>> was un-level. Even his escorts stumbled occasionally. The corridor was
>> dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along
>> each wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach that he noticed
>> a closed /oak/whatever/ door.
>
> Mine:
....
> The masons must have been rushed; much of the
> rock floor was unevenly cut.
The 'must have' helps a little, but to me the full stop still gives too
much prominence to masons who aren't even there.
> Even his escorts stumbled on it.
I'd rather have fewer 'it's in the paragraph, so I like 'stumbled
occasionally' rather than 'stumbled on it.'
> Pairs
> of torches lit the corridor, burning in harmony every so often along
> each wall; but it was not until he was within arms' reach of it hat he
> recognized a closed /oak/whatever/ door directly ahead (or on the
> right or whatever).
Much better about the door than mine. Still two 'it's in one sentence, tho.
R.L.
R.L.
> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:56:03 -0800, "R.L."
> <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
> <news:udry8b381hmy.xysw75ifazfx$.d...@40tude.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>
>>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>/snip/
>
>>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
>>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
>>> weight.
Yes, but I think a few of them, even comma splices, might be reasonable
for this voice in this context. Of course it would be up to the editor.
< looks for Kat...? >
Kat, how much can a writer stretch grammar to make a character's voice
clear, without the editor throwing the whole ms out with the stretchings?
Miles:
>>>> As he regained clarity he was able to make out a long
>>>> corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>>>> was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it
>>>> was dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony
>>>> every so often along each wall but it was not until
>>>> Filepp was within arms reach of the door that he
>>>> noticed it.
>
>> Here's mine, changing a few words too:
>
>> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to make out the long
>> corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>> was un-level.
/snip/
> 'Un-level' is extremely jarring;
Yes, so is the floor. :-) His feet are snagging on it, his escorts are
stumbling on it.
> only with *very* good
> reason would I consider keeping it. Miles's 'uneven' is far
> better.
In isolation perhaps. But 'rock was uneven. Even his escorts' repeats
'even' too closely imo. Tho come to think of it, that could read as an
appropriate stumble also. :-)
> This isn't dialogue, or even an extremely tight,
> right-there-in-his-thoughts third person PoV, so comma
> splices and neologisms like 'un-level' are out of place.
POV is a continuum, and this is very close to 'right there in his thoughts'
filtered tight third if not squarely right there in them. :-)
The masons HAD BEEN rushed [as evidenced by] the rock [being] uneven ...
EVEN the escorts were stumbling.... All these are conclusions by the
witness, Councilor.
[....]
R.L.
David Goldfarb
Patricia C. Wrede <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>2) The person or thing that ought to be the subject is unknown.
> "He was murdered." (By whom? We don't know yet ... )
> "It's been stolen!" (By whom? Ditto ditto ... .)
>The author *could* say "Somebody murdered him" or "Somebody stole it!"
Or you could do both, as in the film _Plan 9 From Outer Space_:
"This man was murdered. And *somebody's responsible*!"
--
David Goldfarb | BANG! BANG! BANG! "Fire the tachyon guns!"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- David Danzig
Chris Dollin
> 3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both or all." Large
> torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA large torches burnt with equally
> large flames.
That doesn't work, although it will probably take Brian or Patricia
or Tim to explain why.
I'd read "mutual flames" are more like the flames from each torch
mingled, but only under pressure.
--
Hot Oil + Fingertips < Good Hedgehog
The shortcuts are all full of people using them.
Patricia C. Wrede
"Nick Argall" <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:457115cf$0$16556$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Inspiration is good. Figuring out that most of what one starts off
"knowing" makes a good/bad opening/dialog/action scene/transition/etc. is
wrong, or at least, merely one possible way out of tens or hundreds of
equally useful alternatives is better.
(You can get away with making almost the same critical comments, without
getting *quite* so much flak for them, if you say things like "*I* really
dislike this; it feels passive *to me* and *I* like active openings."
People may still argue that it's not passive, but they're much less likely
to tell you you're wrong -- after all, *you* know what you like and don't
like.)
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
"David Goldfarb" <gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:ekrhc2$rn6$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
> In article <12n0f93...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Patricia C. Wrede <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>>2) The person or thing that ought to be the subject is unknown.
>> "He was murdered." (By whom? We don't know yet ... )
>> "It's been stolen!" (By whom? Ditto ditto ... .)
>>The author *could* say "Somebody murdered him" or "Somebody stole it!"
>
> Or you could do both, as in the film _Plan 9 From Outer Space_:
> "This man was murdered. And *somebody's responsible*!"
*snrch*
It occurs to me that an analysis of the dialog in Ed Wood films generally
would turn up lots of useful negative examples. Like that one. I just am
not sure I could stand to do it myself.
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
news:rb05lcpcge9r.1bqvbwjcirffk$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I think that sort of thing is especially important with verbs that
> produce a more or less lasting condition, and soon afterwards get used as
> modifiers. "The table was sanded and polished till it gleamed. ... The
> polished table drew much attention."
>
> To me that reads smoothly, whereas the following would boggle me for a
> moment:
>
> "The carpenter sanded the table and polished it till it gleamed. ... The
> polished table drew much attention." (Hm, for some reason that sounds like
> Hans Christian Andersen.)
That's at least partly a matter of taste and preference. It might also be a
matter of context -- your second version, for instance, would make a very
fine transition, in omniscient viewpoint, between a scene about the
carpenter and a scene on the sales floor or at a dinner party. "As he
worked, the carpenter worried about his business and his family. None of
his sons had chosen to follow in his footsteps. His daughter showed some
interest, but he was unsure whether it would last. He would not admit, even
to himself, that some of his concern was for the ridicule he would receive
for taking a female into his business. Like the other forward-thinking men
of Artisan Street, he considered himself above such reactions.//The
carpenter sanded the table and polished it till it gleamed. The polished
table drew much attention in his shop window a few hours later -- a
fistfight started between two customers over which of them had seen it
first. While they were having their forceful argument, the count's steward
quietly purchased it and had it carried off to serve as the centerpiece of
my lord's dinner party that evening."
Context makes all the difference in the world. That's part of why There Is
No One True Way -- some things work in one context, but don't work in a
different one that *looks* as if it's almost exactly the same. It's all in
that "almost."
Patricia C. Wrede
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:19t8bqvhdom7i$.1701jvir...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:59:51 -0500, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:56:03 -0800, "R.L."
>> <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
>> <news:udry8b381hmy.xysw75ifazfx$.d...@40tude.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>>>> "Miles" <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1164926034.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>/snip/
>>>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
>>>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
>>>> weight.
> Yes, but I think a few of them, even comma splices, might
> be reasonable for this voice in this context.
I don't: as I said last time, we're not tightly embedded in
Filepp's mind here. The PoV is Filepp's, but the voice is
somewhat distant and has a distinct touch of the external
observer to it.
[...]
>>> Here's mine, changing a few words too:
>>> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to make out the long
>>> corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
>>> was un-level.
> /snip/
>> 'Un-level' is extremely jarring;
> Yes, so is the floor. :-) His feet are snagging on it, his escorts are
> stumbling on it.
What comes across to me is that the writer has a tin ear,
not that she is trying to produce a verbal analogue of the
uneven floor.
[...]
>> This isn't dialogue, or even an extremely tight,
>> right-there-in-his-thoughts third person PoV, so comma
>> splices and neologisms like 'un-level' are out of place.
> POV is a continuum,
I think that you're confusing PoV with distance; the latter
certainly is a continuum.
> and this is very close to 'right there in his thoughts'
> filtered tight third
No, it isn't: there's far too much distance.
> if not squarely right there in them. :-)
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<e...@electric-hedgehog.net> wrote in
<news:KPbch.30697$bz5....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Miles wrote:
>> 3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both
>> or all." Large torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA
>> large torches burnt with equally large flames.
> That doesn't work, although it will probably take Brian or Patricia
> or Tim to explain why.
Part of the problem is that 'Reciprocal, common to both or
all' is too concise to be very helpful unless you already
have a sense of how the word is used. Let's take a look at
the definitions in three major dictionaries. The American
Heritage Dictionary, 4th edn., has a definition that's still
concise but a bit clearer:
1. Having the same relationship each to the other:
mutual predators.
2. Directed and received by each toward the other;
reciprocal: mutual respect.
3. Possessed in common: mutual interests.
Note the abbreviated usage examples: 'mutual predators',
i.e., creatures that prey on each other; 'mutual respect',
i.e., respect that each holds for the other, reciprocal
respect; 'mutual interests', i.e., interests held in common.
Senses (1) and (2) are covered by 'reciprocal' in Miles's
brief definition, and sense (3) is covered by 'common to
both or all'. This is good enough to be getting on with,
but in case Miles would like to see even more detailed
versions, I've included the definitions given by
Merriam-Webster OnLine and the OED at the end of this post.
Now let's look at 'Large torches burnt with mutual flames'.
What could this mean if we interpret 'mutual' in the
'reciprocal' sense? Not much that I can see, unless perhaps
the torches are shooting flames at each other. (WHOOSH!
SPIT!! POPCRACKLE!!!) How about the alternative reading,
'held in common'? That actually makes sense: the flames of
the torches have merged into a single large flame. (Mind
you, this would be easier to imagine if the torches weren't
strung out along a corridor!)
Even if we allow the first interpretation as an outside
possibility, these are quite different from 'large torches
burnt with equally large flames'. Here what is held in
common is not the flame, but the *size* of the flame, and
that's more a characteristic of the flame than of the
torches themselves.
If you really wanted to use the word 'mutual' here, you
could perhaps say something like 'Large torches burnt with
mutual exuberance'. (A simple 'Large torches burnt
exuberantly' would convey pretty much the same information,
but the longer version might better suit the rhythm of a
particular passage.) What is held in common here is the
exuberance with which the torches are burning; one
implication is that this is considerable and hence that the
flames are large. However, this also suggests that the
flames are bright and perhaps even leaping wildly about,
implications that you may not want. 'Large torches burnt in
mutual splendor' gives a slightly more sedate impression.
> I'd read "mutual flames" are more like the flames from
> each torch mingled, but only under pressure.
I agree about the mingling but not about the pressure.
Other Definitions:
Merriam-Webster OnLine has a slightly more extensive
definition than the AHD, with similar illustrations of the
main senses:
1 a : directed by each toward the other or the others
<mutual affection>
b : having the same feelings one for the other
<they had long been mutual enemies>
c : shared in common <enjoying their mutual hobby>
d : joint
2 : characterized by intimacy
MW (1a) and (1b) cover about the same ground as AHD (1) and
(2) but divide it up a little differently; this is the
ground covered by 'reciprocal' in the Miles's very
abbreviated definition. MW (1c) corresponds to AHD (3),
which also overlaps MW (1d). MW (2) is largely obsolete
nowadays, which is probably why it's not even mentioned by
AHD.
(In each case I've omitted one sense that's completely
irrelevant here.)
The OED, as usual, has more detailed definitions, from which
I omit the totally obsolete and the completely irrelevant:
1. a. Of a feeling, action, undertaking, condition, etc.:
possessed, experienced, or performed by each of
two or more persons, animals, or things towards
or with regard to the other; reciprocal.
b. Of two or more people: having the same feelings
for each other; standing in reciprocal relation to
one another.
c. 'the feeling is mutual' and variants: the feeling
expressed is reciprocated.
This is an extended version of AHD (1) & (2) and MW (1a) &
(1b).
2. Of something that is an attribute of each of two
or more parties independently: belonging to each
respectively; respective.
4. Held in common or shared between two or more
parties.
a. Of a feeling, action, or thing.
b. Of a person or people. (Now usually used of
friends, acquaintances, etc., and rarely applied
to blood relatives.)
This corresponds to AHD (3) and MW (1c) & (1d).
Although the OED has an example of sense (2) from 1992, this
usage, in which 'mutual' is synonymous with 'respective' is
rare to the point of obsolescence, probably because it's
almost directly opposed to the more usual sense (4). Using
the word in sense (4), one could say 'Their mutual way took
them over Mispec Moor', meaning that they went the same way.
Using it in sense (2), one could say 'They went their mutual
ways', meaning that each of them went his *own* way, with no
implication that they went the *same* way. Current usage is
for the most part limited to senses (1) and (4), i.e., to
those given by the AHD and to the various parts of MW (1);
these do boil down to 'reciprocal' and 'held in common', but
I think that the more detailed wording is at least a bit
helpful in showing how the words are really used.
Brian
Zeborah
> 3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both or all." Large
> torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA large torches burnt with equally
> large flames.
"common to both or all" means something closer to "shared by" -- "mutual
flames" means that all the torches are sharing the same flame, ie their
flames are all connecting. If you want them burning with equally large
flames, I'd say... well, "equal". Or something along those lines in a
thesaurus: identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, equivalent;
matching, even, comparable, similar, corresponding (of these, identical,
uniform, matching, and even are best; alike and corresponding are
worst).
I wanted to write about some of the other points too but had a harder
time of figuring out how to verbalise them; I may come back to them
later.
Zeborah
> >> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
> >
> >>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
> >>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
> >>> weight.
>
> Yes, but I think a few of them, even comma splices, might be reasonable
> for this voice in this context. Of course it would be up to the editor.
The problem with the comma splices is not simply that they're
ungrammatical; not even simply that by that ungrammaticality they'll
alienate a large chunk of the readers; but also that even for those
readers who can cope with ungrammaticality for whatever reason _they
make it extremely difficult to understand what's going on_.
You are clearly one of the very few who both doesn't mind the
ungrammaticality and can understand what's happening despite it. But it
would be risky for Miles to rely on the editor also being one of the
few; and even if the editor were one of the few, it would be risky for
*them* to rely on enough of the target audience being of the few to be
worth buying the novel.
Miles clearly understands this and has expressed his intentions to keep
working at his grammar; please don't discourage him from doing so. Once
he understands and has internalised the normal rules and customs of
English grammar he'll be able to play with them to get the effect he
wants: when he knows why comma splices usually have bad effects he'll
be able to use them to get good effects. But if you convince him that
they're just fine, and that therefore he doesn't need to study grammar
but can keep on as he is, then how would he learn and improve?
Don't feel you need to protect him by patting him on the head and
telling him he's doing very well; that's just patronising. He *is*
doing well, and not just in the writing itself: the thing he's doing
best in -- which is the most important thing -- is being always willing
to learn and do *better*. That should in no way be discouraged.
Tim S
> Miles <mileswa...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both or all." Large
>> torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA large torches burnt with equally
>> large flames.
>
> "common to both or all" means something closer to "shared by" -- "mutual
> flames" means that all the torches are sharing the same flame, ie their
> flames are all connecting. If you want them burning with equally large
> flames, I'd say... well, "equal". Or something along those lines in a
> thesaurus: identical, uniform, alike, like, the same, equivalent;
> matching, even, comparable, similar, corresponding (of these, identical,
> uniform, matching, and even are best; alike and corresponding are
> worst).
Matched. That's what came to my mind.
>
> I wanted to write about some of the other points too but had a harder
> time of figuring out how to verbalise them; I may come back to them
> later.
There's the burning in harmony earlier on.
I don't know what this involves.
The thing that immediately comes to mind is that the flickering of the
two flames is perfectly synchronised, like two dancers in a chorus line.
This would be very, very cool if true, but I suspect it isn't what Miles
had in mind. And since I suspect it isn't what Miles had in mind, I
don't know what to make of it.
Tim
R.L.
> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>
>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
>>>>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
>>>>> weight.
>>
>> Yes, but I think a few of them, even comma splices, might be reasonable
>> for this voice in this context. Of course it would be up to the editor.
>
> The problem with the comma splices is not simply that they're
> ungrammatical; not even simply that by that ungrammaticality they'll
> alienate a large chunk of the readers; but also that even for those
> readers who can cope with ungrammaticality for whatever reason _they
> make it extremely difficult to understand what's going on_.
Er, that's the general idea of the passage (and the corridor, too :-). The
passage is filtered through a pv character who is confused, cannot focus,
cannot process 'the unfamiliar'. It's probably just good luck that this
passage happened to be about someone being dragged along from one thing to
the next without explanation or pauses. :-)
I do agree (and so did Miles) that he used too many comma splices etc and
should often have made things more clear; I'd keep just a few for
seasoning.
Whether an editor would be alienated by the few I'd keep (or perhaps just
change them without getting upset, as zie would any other too-informal
usage) is another question, of course.
I suppose some MS might get thrown off the slush pile for an occasional
comma splice, so the safe thing might be to keep one file with the way you
want the voice to sound, but submit another file that's been sanitized. If
it gets bought, then during editing you might ask the editor if you could
put some of them back in (perhaps citing similar ones in books published by
that house).
> You are clearly one of the very few who both doesn't mind the
> ungrammaticality and can understand what's happening despite it.
Wasn't there a thread a while back about different readers having different
'tolerance for uncertainty'? Something about 'protocols' and sf readers
happily reading along with unfamiliar words that would boggle mainstream
readers. I was certainly on the extremely tolerant end of that spectrum:
right-brained I'd call it, just skimming along for a general idea when
details are unclear.
I think this case is a bit different tho, even aside from 'confusion'
fitting the content.
As for me not minding 'the ungrammaticality' of comma splices per se....
Recently there were some quite good comments about puncuation as auditory,
showing intonation and rhythm (old fashioned) -- vs punctuation as logical
(modern). I think in some contexts (not this one) I hear comma splices as a
whole category in itself, along with colons, semi-colons, full stops, etc.
Just as a semi-colon is a milder, quicker pause than a full stop or colon,
a comma splice is milder yet. (Contexts/voices where nothing exists EXCEPT
periods and commas, are rather different. :-)
I remember some years ago reading a non-fiction book by some literate
senior in the William Morris lit agency iirc, with a sentence something
like "Foreign rights are complicated, he had better leave them with the
publisher." I don't think it was a mistake, I think he was using it for a
particular intonation with a particular shade of meaning. (Which I just did
too! -- thanks, backbrain.)
R.L.
Zeborah
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:41:33 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>
> > The problem with the comma splices is not simply that they're
> > ungrammatical; not even simply that by that ungrammaticality they'll
> > alienate a large chunk of the readers; but also that even for those
> > readers who can cope with ungrammaticality for whatever reason _they
> > make it extremely difficult to understand what's going on_.
>
> Er, that's the general idea of the passage (and the corridor, too :-). The
> passage is filtered through a pv character who is confused, cannot focus,
> cannot process 'the unfamiliar'. It's probably just good luck that this
> passage happened to be about someone being dragged along from one thing to
> the next without explanation or pauses. :-)
It's one thing for the character to be confused; it's another for the
reader to be. Just as it's one thing for the character to be bored and
another for the reader to be bored; or one thing for the character to be
screaming in agony and another for the reader to be screaming in agony.
In each case the former is good while the latter is likely to be more
than a tad prejudicial to the reader being willing to continue to do you
the honour of perusing your books.
To look at it another way: even if you do want to confuse your reader,
it's important to have control over exactly *what* you're confusing them
about.
R.L.
> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:41:33 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>>
>>> The problem with the comma splices is not simply that they're
>>> ungrammatical; not even simply that by that ungrammaticality they'll
>>> alienate a large chunk of the readers; but also that even for those
>>> readers who can cope with ungrammaticality for whatever reason _they
>>> make it extremely difficult to understand what's going on_.
>>
>> Er, that's the general idea of the passage (and the corridor, too :-). The
>> passage is filtered through a pv character who is confused, cannot focus,
>> cannot process 'the unfamiliar'. It's probably just good luck that this
>> passage happened to be about someone being dragged along from one thing to
>> the next without explanation or pauses. :-)
>
> It's one thing for the character to be confused; it's another for the
> reader to be. Just as it's one thing for the character to be bored and
> another for the reader to be bored; or one thing for the character to be
> screaming in agony and another for the reader to be screaming in agony.
Otoh, sometimes it's nice for a reader to share a characters' happiness,
sadness, excitement, etc.
There might be a line between 'difficult to understand what's going on' and
a sort of 'confusion' that throws one out of the story.
/snip/
> To look at it another way: even if you do want to confuse your reader,
> it's important to have control over exactly *what* you're confusing them
> about.
Did someone say otherwise? I said a few comma splices might be reasonable
for this voice in this context; presumably the right few.
Here's one I left in my version of one bit:
Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
was un-level.
Does this comma confuse you?
Here's how I'd rate some more comma splices from the OP:
He was being dragged by two men, one either
side, the pressure from their grip against his tunic irritated and
stung his already hurting body.
Bad. I'd change the verbs to 'irritating and stinging'.
As he regained clarity he was able to
make out a long corridor, the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
was uneven, even his escorts stumbled occasionally, it was dimly lit
with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along each
wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach of the door that
he noticed it.
That's way too many (short of raving hysteria) and they're connecting
disparate things. Iirc the only one I left was above, 'rushed, much'.
The men lowered Filepp down to his haunches, the gentle nature of it
made Filepp feel slightly more comfortable, as one of the men beat a
worn fist upon the knots of deep oak.
Don't like it; I'd change 'made' to 'making'.
Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm.
I don't like this comma splice because 'as he inhaled' seems to belong with
'lungs' till we hit 'it seemed' and have to recast.
The comma after 'of himself' is a problem too. I like having this all in
one sentence but it's really too many commas each with a different use.
Each
limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural.
This one seems almost okay to me, they're very closely related. But still
it's a little confusing, I'd probably recast it with 'throbbing'.
(Ok, there's another one. But I wouldn't use a comma splice for 'This one
seems okay to me, the clauses are very closely related.' Tho some people
might.)
The minutes passed like days, until he
finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.
Bad. Quite unrelated. The man deserves a full stop and sentence of his own.
He stumbled
across the threshold, he was regaining some strength but had little
weight to support as his escorts relieved him of the mass.
Bad. The second clause is too much for a comma splice to support, and the
whole is too complex. Something like "He stumbled, he was feeling worse."
would be more reasonable.
They had entered a circular chamber, large torches with mutual flames
burned every few feet around the room, the room was of stone but the
air was not as bitter as in the corridor.
Phooey.
Filepp felt a genuine warmth from the mans
genuine smile, he had not seen such obvious kindness in a long time.
This has problems and probably wouldn't be worth making into the sort of
comma splice that would please me. Tho a good comma spliced sentence would
be a good way to end the passage (for us oddballs who recognize them).
As for comma splices in another sort of context, here's another comma
splice of mine from an earlier post on this:
Then 'dragged' gave me quite a wrong picture, I saw him flat on the floor.
R.L.
intermittent connections, typing fast
Patricia C. Wrede
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:41:33 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>
>> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Right now, you're using commas for just about
>>>>>> everything, and they really can't bear quite that much
>>>>>> weight.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I think a few of them, even comma splices, might be reasonable
>>> for this voice in this context. Of course it would be up to the editor.
>>
>> The problem with the comma splices is not simply that they're
>> ungrammatical; not even simply that by that ungrammaticality they'll
>> alienate a large chunk of the readers; but also that even for those
>> readers who can cope with ungrammaticality for whatever reason _they
>> make it extremely difficult to understand what's going on_.
>
>
> Er, that's the general idea of the passage (and the corridor, too :-). The
> passage is filtered through a pv character who is confused, cannot focus,
> cannot process 'the unfamiliar'. It's probably just good luck that this
> passage happened to be about someone being dragged along from one thing to
> the next without explanation or pauses. :-)
You're falling afoul of the imitative fallacy here -- thinking that because
the character is experiencing something, the prose should evoke the same
reaction in the reader. The classic obviously-wrongheaded example is a
scene in which the character is bored to tears; you *really* don't want your
readers bored to tears by the prose of that scene, no matter what the
character is feeling or how tightly filtered the viewpoint. You want the
reader to *recognize* that the character is bored to tears without
*themselves* being bored *with your book*, because if they're bored with
your book, they stop reading.
> I do agree (and so did Miles) that he used too many comma splices etc and
> should often have made things more clear; I'd keep just a few for
> seasoning.
There is a truism that says one must know the rules before one can
successfully break them. There are very few actual rules for writing, but
grammar, spelling, and punctuation are among them. Miles is still young and
in school and *learning* some of these rules; he will have plenty of time to
discover whether this is *actually* his preferred style, or whether it is
simply something that he fell into because he didn't yet have a full range
of writing tools (including punctuation) at his disposal.
> Whether an editor would be alienated by the few I'd keep (or perhaps just
> change them without getting upset, as zie would any other too-informal
> usage) is another question, of course.
The problem with comma splices and other non-grammatical usages is doing
them in such a way that editors and readers can tell they are *on purpose*,
for a specific effect, and not a matter of ignorance of the rules. If one
is, in fact, unclear on the rules, one is far, far better off not attempting
this kind of thing.
> I suppose some MS might get thrown off the slush pile for an occasional
> comma splice, so the safe thing might be to keep one file with the way you
> want the voice to sound, but submit another file that's been sanitized. If
> it gets bought, then during editing you might ask the editor if you could
> put some of them back in (perhaps citing similar ones in books published
> by
> that house).
I cannot begin to properly express how bad an idea this is.
In the first place, editors do not have a checklist of things for which they
will reject a manuscript -- they're not going to say "well, it's a great
story, but the author has a few comma splices, so out it goes." Not ever.
In the second place, the editor buys the story you send; doing a
bait-and-switch with a "sanitized" file and one that's really "how you want
the voice to sound" is going to put the editor off, right there. If you
think your version, containing deliberate comma splices with malice
aforethought, is the "real" one, then that's what you submit. If you did it
right, the editor will buy it. You absolutely do not want to point out to
the editor that his house is in the habit of publishing books that contain
punctuation and grammatical errors; this is a good way to persuade the
editor that you are an insensitive jerk from whom he will never, ever buy
anything else because working with you is just too irritating and life is
too short for that (no joke, I've heard this said by three different
editors, at three different publishers, about three different authors...one
of whom is a bestselling award-winner).
> Recently there were some quite good comments about puncuation as auditory,
> showing intonation and rhythm (old fashioned) -- vs punctuation as logical
> (modern). I think in some contexts (not this one) I hear comma splices as
> a
> whole category in itself, along with colons, semi-colons, full stops, etc.
That is why comma splices have been perfectly acceptable *in dialog* for
years and years. In the narrative, it depends on the author's style and
skill. And while Miles has improved enormously since he first arrived on
rasfc, he doesn't yet have the skill to pull off what you are suggesting.
> I remember some years ago reading a non-fiction book by some literate
> senior in the William Morris lit agency iirc, with a sentence something
> like "Foreign rights are complicated, he had better leave them with the
> publisher." I don't think it was a mistake, I think he was using it for a
> particular intonation with a particular shade of meaning. (Which I just
> did
> too! -- thanks, backbrain.)
Taken out of context, the agent's statement looks like a mistake to me. The
construction of your sentence is different; it is a slightly expanded
version of "I think this, not that," in which the comma in the middle is
exactly right. Because your sentence puts the negative "I don't think this"
first, you have to repeat the subject and verb in order to say what you
mean, but the structure is a comparison of two thoughts. As you give it
here, the quoted sentence is just wrong -- that should be a semi-colon
between the clauses, and there's no reason to leave it off. It is possible
that the exact phrasing of the original is somewhat different, enough to
make the comma work for some reason.
Patricia C. Wrede
Cyli
wrote:
>> also don't understand why you talk about a "reply", since nobody's
>>asked anything (or is this in an earlier bit?) And I don't understand
>>who is entering, or why Filepp assumes the man has received a reply
>>(because he entered? -- as suggested by "as". What is the logic there?)
>
>
>
>> entered, closing the door behind him, with a swift flash of light..
>
>
>>I have no idea what that flash of light is about. Does closing the door
>>cause a light to flash? Where is the light coming from? Is this
>>connected with Filepp assuming the man had received a reply, and if not,
>>why is it in the same sentence?
>
>1) You knock because you require permission to enter..
>2) The light comes from the other - brighter room, to which the door
>has just been opened.
I got those two easily. Flowed for me.
>3) The definition of mutual: 'Reciprocal, common to both or all." Large
>torches burnt with mutual flames, AKA large torches burnt with equally
>large flames.
The word mutual snagged my mind the way the floor snagged the protags
feet. Equal would have suited me better.
--
r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.
R.L.
> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> news:rb05lcpcge9r.1bqvbwjcirffk$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> I think that sort of thing is especially important with verbs that
>> produce a more or less lasting condition, and soon afterwards get used as
>> modifiers. "The table was sanded and polished till it gleamed. ... The
>> polished table drew much attention."
>>
>> To me that reads smoothly, whereas the following would boggle me for a
>> moment:
>>
>> "The carpenter sanded the table and polished it till it gleamed. ... The
>> polished table drew much attention."
Okay, my example might have been clearer in past perfect:
"The table had been sanded and polished till it gleamed. .... The polished
table drew much attention."
vs
"The carpenter had sanded the table and polished it till it gleamed. ...
The polished table drew much attention."
>> (Hm, for some reason that sounds like
>> Hans Christian Andersen.)
One person's boggle is another's zeugma(sp?).
> That's at least partly a matter of taste and preference. It might also be a
> matter of context -- your second version, for instance, would make a very
> fine transition, in omniscient viewpoint, between a scene about the
> carpenter and a scene on the sales floor or at a dinner party.
Yes, it would; if the carpenter was important to the story, and/or you
wanted a zeugma between 'polished' as active verb and 'polished' as
modifier of table.
/snip example/
> Context makes all the difference in the world. That's part of why There Is
> No One True Way -- some things work in one context, but don't work in a
> different one that *looks* as if it's almost exactly the same. It's all in
> that "almost."
Yes. I think one reason I bounce off a lot of popular US detective series
I see at a friend's home, is that each sentence seems to work in
isolation only; none of what Catja and I were calling 'lianas' connecting
them (tho we were talking about lianas between scenes, rather than between
sentences or clauses).
R.L.
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:isfhli92r9l4.10...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:16:41 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
[...]
>> To look at it another way: even if you do want to
>> confuse your reader, it's important to have control over
>> exactly *what* you're confusing them about.
> Did someone say otherwise? I said a few comma splices
> might be reasonable for this voice in this context;
> presumably the right few.
> Here's one I left in my version of one bit:
> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to make out the long
> corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was un-level.
> Does this comma confuse you?
It does something even worse: if I read this sentence in a
published book, the comma splice and 'un-level' would go a
long way towards convincing me that the author had a tin ear
and the editor was incompetent. (Granted, there may be some
context in which this sentence would work -- there usually
is, no matter how bizarre the construction! -- but it would
have to be distinctly out of the ordinary.)
[...]
Brian
R.L.
> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> news:14dozo689r0wh$.pt45inkroh9n.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:41:33 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>>
>>> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
/snip much imaginative stuff/
>> Recently there were some quite good comments about puncuation as auditory,
>> showing intonation and rhythm (old fashioned) -- vs punctuation as logical
>> (modern). I think in some contexts (not this one) I hear comma splices as
>> a whole category in itself, along with colons, semi-colons, full stops, etc.
>
> That is why comma splices have been perfectly acceptable *in dialog* for
> years and years. In the narrative, it depends on the author's style and
> skill.
/snip assumption/
>> I remember some years ago reading a non-fiction book by some literate
>> senior in the William Morris lit agency iirc, with a sentence something
>> like "Foreign rights are complicated, he had better leave them with the
>> publisher." I don't think it was a mistake, I think he was using it for a
>> particular intonation with a particular shade of meaning. (Which I just
>> did too! -- thanks, backbrain.)
/snip/
> As you give it
> here, the quoted sentence is just wrong -- that should be a semi-colon
> between the clauses, and there's no reason to leave it off. It is possible
> that the exact phrasing of the original is somewhat different, enough to
> make the comma work for some reason.
<searches memory>
It may have been more like, "Foreign rights are too complicated for the
author to handle, he had better leave them with the publisher."
R.L.
bad phone lines
R.L.
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:20:43 -0800, "R.L."
> <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
> <news:19t8bqvhdom7i$.1701jvir...@40tude.net> in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 02:59:51 -0500, Brian M. Scott wrote:
/snip/
> I don't: as I said last time, we're not tightly embedded in
> Filepp's mind here. The PoV is Filepp's, but the voice is
> somewhat distant and has a distinct touch of the external
> observer to it.
/snip/
>> and this is very close to 'right there in his thoughts'
>> filtered tight third
>
> No, it isn't: there's far too much distance.
At the risk of confusing Miles' centipede....
Whether he wants 'in Filepp's thoughts' or 'distant' and 'touch of external
observer' is Miles' choice. He might decide to change the parts that are
giving you that impression. Could you note which phrases seem to you
'distant' and 'external'?
R.L.
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:fclfs88ezb9w.15...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 19:59:29 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
>> news:14dozo689r0wh$.pt45inkroh9n.dlg@40tude.net...
[...]
>>> Recently there were some quite good comments about
>>> puncuation as auditory, showing intonation and rhythm
>>> (old fashioned) -- vs punctuation as logical (modern).
>>> I think in some contexts (not this one) I hear comma
>>> splices as a whole category in itself, along with
>>> colons, semi-colons, full stops, etc.
>> That is why comma splices have been perfectly acceptable
>> *in dialog* for years and years. In the narrative, it
>> depends on the author's style and skill.
> /snip assumption/
What you snipped:
And while Miles has improved enormously since he
first arrived on rasfc, he doesn't yet have the skill to
pull off what you are suggesting.
That's an assessment, not an assumption, and a professional
one to boot. I think that most who have commented would
agree with it. Certainly I do: that's why I didn't comment
directly on the passage: I'm a line editor at heart, and I
was afraid of dwelling on the technical problems and
understating the enormous improvement.
If you can't even distinguish an assumption from a
conclusion based on observation, why should anyone take your
comments seriously (apart from trying to minimize the
damage)?
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:2c4d0tgw3r68.7...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 13:30:02 -0500, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 01:20:43 -0800, "R.L."
>> <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
>> <news:19t8bqvhdom7i$.1701jvir...@40tude.net> in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
[...]
>> I don't: as I said last time, we're not tightly embedded in
>> Filepp's mind here. The PoV is Filepp's, but the voice is
>> somewhat distant and has a distinct touch of the external
>> observer to it.
> /snip/
>>> and this is very close to 'right there in his thoughts'
>>> filtered tight third
>> No, it isn't: there's far too much distance.
> At the risk of confusing Miles' centipede....
> Whether he wants 'in Filepp's thoughts' or 'distant' and
> 'touch of external observer' is Miles' choice.
Absolutely, though whether he succeeds in producing the
chosen effect depends on his control of the language.
> He might decide to change the parts that are giving you
> that impression. Could you note which phrases seem to you
> 'distant' and 'external'?
No, and not because I'm being difficult. It really isn't a
matter of specific phrases; it's the tone of the passage
taken as a whole. I could try rewriting it with a more
intimate focus to illustrate the difference, but since my
natural voice seems to be omniscient, I'm not sure that I
could carry it off successfully, and at this point in the
school year I just don't have the time to take a really
serious stab at it anyway.
Brian
R.L. Delamancha
< looks for Miles >
Maybe I should clarify.... Nothing in this post was intended as personal
advice or suggestion for you-particular -- or advice or suggestion for
anyone, for that matter. I was just speculating about the issues, making
comments that might interest others here (and occasionally using a
you-generic, which I probably shouldn't have).
R.L.
'Delamancha' is a flag indicating a meta-comment
delam...@alzum.com remove z
nar...@gmail.com
> > It's been humbling and inspiring. Thanks.
>
> Inspiration is good. Figuring out that most of what one starts off
> "knowing" makes a good/bad opening/dialog/action scene/transition/etc. is
> wrong, or at least, merely one possible way out of tens or hundreds of
> equally useful alternatives is better.
>
> (You can get away with making almost the same critical comments, without
> getting *quite* so much flak for them, if you say things like "*I* really
> dislike this; it feels passive *to me* and *I* like active openings."
> People may still argue that it's not passive, but they're much less likely
> to tell you you're wrong -- after all, *you* know what you like and don't
> like.)
I was genuinely impressed with the criticism of my criticism. It
definitely occurred to me that I'd be a grumpy person when I critted
those peices the other day and that I could have done it more
sensitively and effectively. It seems to me that I haven't offended
anyone so much as provoked vigorous responses.
As far as writing goes, I've been a big fish in a small pond for too
long, it's good to be exposed to people who can effective criticism of
my thinking.
Nick
Zeborah
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:16:41 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>
> > It's one thing for the character to be confused; it's another for the
> > reader to be. Just as it's one thing for the character to be bored and
> > another for the reader to be bored; or one thing for the character to be
> > screaming in agony and another for the reader to be screaming in agony.
>
> Otoh, sometimes it's nice for a reader to share a characters' happiness,
> sadness, excitement, etc.
>
> There might be a line between 'difficult to understand what's going on' and
> a sort of 'confusion' that throws one out of the story.
It's the latter I was talking about to start with.
> > To look at it another way: even if you do want to confuse your reader,
> > it's important to have control over exactly *what* you're confusing them
> > about.
>
> Did someone say otherwise? I said a few comma splices might be reasonable
> for this voice in this context; presumably the right few.
The way you've phrased yourself in this thread has suggested that you
believe, and want Miles to believe, that he should feel free to use as
many comma splices as he likes without going to the effort of learning
why they're generally a bad thing. I'm responding to this subtext of
the phrasing.
> Here's one I left in my version of one bit:
> Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
> make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> was un-level.
>
> Does this comma confuse you?
Confuse? No. Jolt? Horribly. As I read "much of the rock" I'm
expecting an ellipsis ("the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
unlevel" for example, though it's still very inelegant and not just
because of 'unlevel') and the unexpected "was" jars.
And not in the way that the protagonist is being jarred by the cracks in
the ground; in the way that throws me out of the story entirely.
R.L.
> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 12:16:41 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
/snip/
Let's leave out the 'un-level', go back to 'uneven'.*
Slowly regaining clarity he was able to make out the long corridor; the
masons had been rushed, much of the rock was uneven.
>> Does this comma confuse you?
>
> Confuse? No. Jolt? Horribly. As I read "much of the rock" I'm
> expecting an ellipsis /snip/
Me too, somewhat; and I was a little bothered by it, as that ellipsis would
be too formal and fancy for that voice, especially in that situation, I
felt.
>and the unexpected "was" jars.
Well, it was a little unexpected, required a little readjustment. But I
found it a relief, as feeling to me more suited to the voice and situation.
> And not in the way that the protagonist is being jarred by the cracks in
> the ground; in the way that throws me out of the story entirely.
Hm, that seems an extreme reaction. Are there any authors whose non-dialog
comma splices you can tolerate? What about E.M. Forster?
R.L.
* Woops, I guess this was a comma splice too; did it bother you?
Let's leave out the 'un-level', go back to 'uneven'.
R.L.
> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> news:14dozo689r0wh$.pt45inkroh9n.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 09:41:33 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>>
>>> R.L. <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:36:26 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
/snip/
> In the second place, the editor buys the story you send; doing a
> bait-and-switch with a "sanitized" file and one that's really "how you want
> the voice to sound" is going to put the editor off, right there.
Sorry, but you've got me a little curious.
Suppose that, long before any kind of line edits, during substantive
editing, she received a letter saying, among other things: "Thanks for
suggesting recasting chapters x-y in very tight third, Colonel Blimble's
pv; it's working well. At times the pv gets so tightly filtered that his
speech tricks are creeping into his third person voice as well. He's not
thinking as many comma splices as Forster's characters ... yet.... I'm
enclosing a snippet. Might this be any kind of a problem?"
Doubtless the editor would tear up your contract and blacklist you forever.
R.L.
Zeborah
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 20:51:20 +1300, Zeborah wrote:
>
> > And not in the way that the protagonist is being jarred by the cracks in
> > the ground; in the way that throws me out of the story entirely.
>
> Hm, that seems an extreme reaction. Are there any authors whose non-dialog
> comma splices you can tolerate? What about E.M. Forster?
I've never had the pleasure; perhaps you could give an example.
> * Woops, I guess this was a comma splice too; did it bother you?
> Let's leave out the 'un-level', go back to 'uneven'.
No, it's not one, unless you intended "go back" to be 2nd person
imperative. It is an informal phrasing which is appropriate for a
newsgroup posting but would be inappropriate for a great many fictional
voices. Non-standard spellings (like 'woops') don't bother me in a
usenet post either, but would in fiction unless there was an extremely
good reason for it(*).
Zeborah
(*) "Flowers For Algernon" is an extremely good reason.
Tim S
> "Tim S" <T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ekq89a$qi6$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk
>
>> Miles wrote:
>>> This is an alternative beginning to something I started - and had
>>> critted, some time ago:
>> The actual content is mostly good, but your punctuation appears to be
>> guided by the motto "when in doubt, use a comma". Unfortunately, this
>> doesn't help the reader understand the relationship between successive
>> statements...
>
> I know exactly where he's coming from. I thought the content was
> good too. I like the slightly odd turn of phrase.
Yes, me too.
>
> I agree that relatively trivial but significant errors are getting
> in the way of the writing and it is probably worth learning to
> fix them now.
> As everyone knows, I also have poor punctuation and editing skills
> and life would be a lot easier if I didn't.
I did think of you ...
> My advice would be to spend some time learning how to do the boring
> stuff
> because it actually allows you to control how your work is read.
> For years I divided writing into the important stuff - the content
> and the unimportant stuff - punctuation etc. It has taken me
> ages to recognise that the unimportant stuff is important too, because
> like a musical score it gives the reader necessary clues as to how
> to interpret the content.
Sometimes dubious punctuation is confusing or misleading, but even when
it isn't, I (and readers like me) can't help noticing it and being
distracted by it. It's like stones in your shoes -- they may be small,
but that doesn't mean they're easy to ignore.
Tim
Patricia C. Wrede
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
Patricia C. Wrede
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:30:34 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>
>> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
>> news:rb05lcpcge9r.1bqvbwjcirffk$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> Hans Christian Andersen.)
>
> One person's boggle is another's zeugma(sp?).
Uh, you do realize that you are responding here to *your own comment*?
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
<nar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1165131681.6...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> I was genuinely impressed with the criticism of my criticism. It
> definitely occurred to me that I'd be a grumpy person when I critted
> those peices the other day and that I could have done it more
> sensitively and effectively. It seems to me that I haven't offended
> anyone so much as provoked vigorous responses.
We're pretty tough-minded around here, as long as people stay reasonably
polite, and you've been participating for long enough for folks to give you
at least some benefit of the doubt -- it's not as if you showed up and
started making condescending comments to people, or patronizing folks.
Also, we're all here because we like a good vigorous discussion, and you
don't get that by getting offended every time somebody disagrees with you.
> As far as writing goes, I've been a big fish in a small pond for too
> long, it's good to be exposed to people who can effective criticism of
> my thinking.
See, that's the kind of attitude that makes you fit right in...
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
> Nicola Browne wrote:
>> My advice would be to spend some time learning how to do the boring
>> stuff
>> because it actually allows you to control how your work is read.
>> For years I divided writing into the important stuff - the content
>> and the unimportant stuff - punctuation etc. It has taken me
>> ages to recognise that the unimportant stuff is important too, because
>> like a musical score it gives the reader necessary clues as to how
>> to interpret the content.
I always looked at it as being like touch-typing -- learning to touch-type
took me a year-long class in high school, but after that, I didn't have to
think about where my fingers needed to go, which freed up valuable brain
cells for thinking about what to say and how to say it. Learning correct
punctuation, syntax, and grammar has much the same effect -- I don't have to
stop and consider whether this or that is the right way to punctuate
something, unless I'm deliberately doing something non-standard for effect.
And I don't have to spend lots of extra time editing my work to correct the
punctuation later on.
Quite apart from that, punctuation is a useful tool, and I like having as
many nice, sharp tools in my writing toolkit as I can manage to haul around
with me. The classic example is the two ways of punctuating the sentence
"woman without her man is nothing": "Woman, without her man, is nothing."
vs. "Woman -- without her, man is nothing." It's all in the position of the
commas...
> Sometimes dubious punctuation is confusing or misleading, but even when it
> isn't, I (and readers like me) can't help noticing it and being distracted
> by it. It's like stones in your shoes -- they may be small, but that
> doesn't mean they're easy to ignore.
Yes, exactly. I automatically make a three-quarters' stop at a semi-colon;
if the author has used comma splices instead, I'm constantly having to
correct my reading. It's like driving fast on a really old log-paved
road -- bumpity bumpity bump.
Patricia C. Wrede
Patricia C. Wrede
"R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
Nothing I said so much as implied this; I find your attempt at sarcasm to be
disingenuous in the extreme.
Furthermore, you are changing your own ground rules. In the part you
snipped, *your own* example said:
If it [the story] gets bought, then during editing you
might ask the editor if you could put some of them [the comma
splices] back in (perhaps citing similar ones in books
published
by that house).
This is a very different situation from the one you just proposed. In this
version, we have an editor who has bought a story without comma splices, and
who is then asked by the author, without prompting from the editor, if the
author can make significant stylistic changes to the piece (they'd be
assumed to be significant, or there'd have been no point in the author
taking them out in the first place). It's a bait-and-switch -- I sent you
this piece because I thought you'd accept it, but I *really* want you to
publish this rewrite *that I didn't think you'd buy if you saw it first.*
In the second version you proposed, above, the editor has bought a story
without comma splices and *asked for revisions to a tighter viewpoint*, and
the newby author is asking the editor just how far it is acceptable to go in
filtering the viewpoint. This sort of thing is quite common -- newby
authors tend to be very nervous about getting it right (I certainly was),
and editors are accustomed to being patient and answering such questions.
And I'd appreciate some specific cites of comma-splice examples from
Forester, if you are going to use him as an authority. I just went and
pulled the first of the Hornblower books, and didn't spot any on a quick
skim, and I'm not going through the whole series for you.
Patricia C. Wrede
David Friedman
"Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
> news:1ullvg4i1r8ln.14dyec46kskp9$.dlg@40tude.net...
...
> > Suppose that, long before any kind of line edits, during substantive
> > editing, she received a letter saying, among other things: "Thanks for
> > suggesting recasting chapters x-y in very tight third, Colonel Blimble's
> > pv; it's working well. At times the pv gets so tightly filtered that his
> > speech tricks are creeping into his third person voice as well. He's not
> > thinking as many comma splices as Forster's characters ... yet.... I'm
> > enclosing a snippet. Might this be any kind of a problem?"
> >
> > Doubtless the editor would tear up your contract and blacklist you
> > forever.
...
> This is a very different situation from the one you just proposed. In this
> version, we have an editor who has bought a story without comma splices, and
> who is then asked by the author, without prompting from the editor, if the
> author can make significant stylistic changes to the piece (they'd be
> assumed to be significant, or there'd have been no point in the author
> taking them out in the first place). It's a bait-and-switch -- I sent you
> this piece because I thought you'd accept it, but I *really* want you to
> publish this rewrite *that I didn't think you'd buy if you saw it first.*
>
> In the second version you proposed, above, the editor has bought a story
> without comma splices and *asked for revisions to a tighter viewpoint*, and
> the newby author is asking the editor just how far it is acceptable to go in
> filtering the viewpoint. This sort of thing is quite common -- newby
> authors tend to be very nervous about getting it right (I certainly was),
> and editors are accustomed to being patient and answering such questions.
When I was discussing _Harald_ with my editor, I asked her to look for
particular categories of mistakes that I thought I was making and point
them out so I could fix them, and she did; the initiative was mine, not
hers. That doesn't seem very different from my submitting it, realizing
that there was a category of changes that ought to be made, and making
them after it was accepted.
In R.L.'s example, if I understand it, the author has already decided on
the changes before submitting the (unchanged) version. I agree that that
is dishonest, but how would the editor distinguish it from my case?
> And I'd appreciate some specific cites of comma-splice examples from
> Forester, if you are going to use him as an authority. I just went and
> pulled the first of the Hornblower books, and didn't spot any on a quick
> skim, and I'm not going through the whole series for you.
The Hornblower books were written by Forester, but not by E.M. Forester
(or Forster).
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Patricia C. Wrede
news:ddfr-533D1E.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> When I was discussing _Harald_ with my editor, I asked her to look for
> particular categories of mistakes that I thought I was making and point
> them out so I could fix them, and she did; the initiative was mine, not
> hers. That doesn't seem very different from my submitting it, realizing
> that there was a category of changes that ought to be made, and making
> them after it was accepted.
>
> In R.L.'s example, if I understand it, the author has already decided on
> the changes before submitting the (unchanged) version. I agree that that
> is dishonest, but how would the editor distinguish it from my case?
Well, for starters, *you* asked *her* to point out places where changes were
needed, and only then made the changes. I suppose it would be possible for
an author to ask the editor for recommendations, hoping/expecting the editor
to recommend "changes" to bits the author had already altered, but that
seems unnecessarily roundabout.
Mostly, the way the editor would know in R.L.'s cases is that her author
tells the editor "Hey, by the way, I have this other version of the story
that I think is better, but I didn't send it in because I didn't think you'd
buy it, and now that you bought the one I sent in, I want you to look at the
one *I* like." A paranoid author who buys into the whole
editorial-checklist myth could, certainly, *lie* and say "Oh, I've rewritten
the piece since I submitted it -- would you like to look at the newer
version?" and probably get away with it, or even just make "revisions" that
involve starting with the unchanged file full of comma splices, and not
mentioning it. But that wasn't what Rosemary was proposing. And I don't
think that "you can get away with doing this" is a particularly good reason
for dishonest behavior.
Jumping through all these hoops is, IMO, *stupid*. If the author feels
strongly about including the comma splices, he/she should submit the story
with comma splices in. If the editor buys it, he knows what he's gotten and
he's much more likely to be on the author's side when time comes to fight
with the copy-editor for each and every comma splice. If the author can't
get anybody to buy the story with the comma splices, then something about
that story probably just isn't working (maybe it's the style, maybe it's
something else), and she won't be deluding herself that the *real* story
(with splices) would sell if only the vile, rigid, rules-bound editors would
look at it.
>> And I'd appreciate some specific cites of comma-splice examples from
>> Forester, if you are going to use him as an authority. I just went and
>> pulled the first of the Hornblower books, and didn't spot any on a quick
>> skim, and I'm not going through the whole series for you.
>
> The Hornblower books were written by Forester, but not by E.M. Forester
> (or Forster).
Oops. My bad. I'd still like cites, though; my library is currently in
chaos due to rearranging some bookshelves, and finding *anything* is pretty
hit-and-miss. I'm actually pretty chuffed that I could find the Forester,
even if it *was* the wrong thing...
Patricia C. Wrede
Carl Dershem
news:12n5prp...@corp.supernews.com:
Hey - being a writer means often talking to yourself. Might as well get
some mileage out of it! :)
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
Tim S
> "Tim S" <T...@timsilverman.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:ekugvp$e2m$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>> Sometimes dubious punctuation is confusing or misleading, but even when it
>> isn't, I (and readers like me) can't help noticing it and being distracted
>> by it. It's like stones in your shoes -- they may be small, but that
>> doesn't mean they're easy to ignore.
>
> Yes, exactly. I automatically make a three-quarters' stop at a semi-colon;
> if the author has used comma splices instead, I'm constantly having to
> correct my reading. It's like driving fast on a really old log-paved
> road -- bumpity bumpity bump.
Going off at a slight tangent from this -- I think this point is also
relevant for people who need to edit as they go along because they can't
move on to the next bit until they've got the current bit right. If
you're the sort of writer for whom (e.g.) punctuation problems are
almost physically painful, then the whole "shity fuRsT DRahgt" thing
looks like someone advising you, upon your realising you have a small
stone in your boot just as you are about to set out on a 20-mile hike,
that you should just get straight on with the hike instead of getting
the stone out first. I often like to read over what I've just written,
whenever I come to a pause and am thinking where to go next. Obvious
errors of wording, punctuation, continuity, etc, would be an awful
distraction if I left them in.
(Obviously different people need to get different things right -- some
people need to get the words right but don't care so much about the
punctuation, etc.)
Tim
David Friedman
Project Gutenberg is your friend:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2604 (The Longest Journey)
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2641 (A Room with a View)
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2891 (Howards End)
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2948 (Where Angels Fear to Tread)
Patricia C. Wrede
> In article <12n5vnp...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > The Hornblower books were written by Forester, but not by E.M. Forester
>> > (or Forster).
>>
>> Oops. My bad. I'd still like cites, though; my library is currently in
>> chaos due to rearranging some bookshelves, and finding *anything* is
>> pretty
>> hit-and-miss. I'm actually pretty chuffed that I could find the
>> Forester,
>> even if it *was* the wrong thing...
>
> Project Gutenberg is your friend:
Good grief. I thought those books were too recent to be out of copyright
yet. Thanks.
Patricia C. Wrede
R.L.
> "Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote in
> news:12n5prp...@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
>> news:1ux0rx5q8xba9.1...@40tude.net...
>>> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:30:34 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
>>>
>>>> "R.L." <see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in message
>>>> news:rb05lcpcge9r.1bqvbwjcirffk$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>>> (Hm, for some reason that sounds like
>>>>> Hans Christian Andersen.)
>>>
>>> One person's boggle is another's zeugma(sp?).
>>
>> Uh, you do realize that you are responding here to *your own comment*?
Yes.
> Hey - being a writer means often talking to yourself. Might as well get
> some mileage out of it! :)
Dialog of the time traveller.
R.L.
R.L.
> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-533D1E.0...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>> In article <12n5t6p...@corp.supernews.com>,
>> "Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote:
> Mostly, the way the editor would know in R.L.'s cases is that her author
> tells the editor "Hey, by the way, I have this other version of the story
> that I think is better, but I didn't send it in because I didn't think you'd
> buy it, and now that you bought the one I sent in, I want you to look at the
> one *I* like."
Or more realistically: "As long as I'm re-doing section x of vol one per
your request, I've been thinking about the pv voice, which feels a little
bland to me. Long ago I had it so tightly filtered that Colonel Blimple was
even thinking in comma splices; would that be too extreme, do you think?
Here's a snippet."
/snip/
> If the author can't
> get anybody to buy the story with the comma splices, then something about
> that story probably just isn't working (maybe it's the style, maybe it's
> something else), and she won't be deluding herself that the *real* story
> (with splices) would sell if only the vile, rigid, rules-bound editors would
> look at it.
Yes. I would have thought such minor things weren't important; the editor
would just change them if she didn't like them (or ask the author to), like
any other too-informal usage. But people on the thread seemed to be making
quite a fuss about any comma splices at all.
My point (which might actually be a serious suggestion) is that people
should keep backups of earlier versions. Especially if they're about to
make a lot of changes not by their own feeling and judgment, but to follow
someone else's 'rules'! Whether those 'rules' are about 'no omni' or 'no
passive voice' or 'no adverbs' or 'no semi-colons' or grammaticallity or
what!
R.L.
Brian M. Scott
<see...@no-spams.coms> wrote in
<news:1h6nbjqziztdp$.936h1yno...@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 10:44:44 -0600, Patricia C. Wrede wrote:
[...]
>> If the author can't get anybody to buy the story with
>> the comma splices, then something about that story
>> probably just isn't working (maybe it's the style, maybe
>> it's something else), and she won't be deluding herself
>> that the *real* story (with splices) would sell if only
>> the vile, rigid, rules-bound editors would look at it.
> Yes. I would have thought such minor things weren't
> important; the editor would just change them if she
> didn't like them (or ask the author to), like any other
> too-informal usage.
They become important when they continually throw the reader
-- and editors are readers -- out of the story.
> But people on the thread seemed to be making quite a fuss
> about any comma splices at all.
Mm, let's see.
'The problem with comma splices and other
non-grammatical usages is doing them in such a
way that editors and readers can tell they are
*on purpose*, for a specific effect, and not a
matter of ignorance of the rules.'
'This isn't dialogue, or even an extremely tight,
right-there-in-his-thoughts third person PoV,
so comma splices and neologisms like "un-level"
are out of place.'
'The actual content is mostly good, but your
punctuation appears to be guided by the motto
"when in doubt, use a comma".'
The first two explicitly recognize that comma splices can be
legitimate, and even the last by no means goes so far as to
say that they should never be used.
Brian
Zeborah
> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-59E001.1...@news.isp.giganews.com...
[E.M.Forster]
> > Project Gutenberg is your friend:
> <snip list>
>
> Good grief. I thought those books were too recent to be out of copyright
> yet. Thanks.
I skimmed through various random pages of one last night and couldn't
find any comma splices whatsoever, even in dialogue or letters. A
google search I did subsequently (on <Forster "comma splice"> iirc) came
up with various people referring to Forster as justification for
allowing the things; the best ones, with actual quotes from him, were
unfortunately links to articles in JSTOR (a wonderful full text database
which I have access to through work, but very clunky to quote from as
it's primarily in page-at-a-time pdf format). I didn't like any of the
examples they quoted out of context, though it's possible that context
would improve them.
Zeborah
lclough
I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
Brenda
--
---------
Brenda W. Clough
http://www.sff.net/people/Brenda/
Recent short fiction:
FUTURE WASHINGTON (WSFA Press, October '05)
http://www.futurewashington.com
FIRST HEROES (TOR, May '04)
http://members.aol.com/wenamun/firstheroes.html
Nicola Browne
news:ly35134b40nf$.1vsklmykibzkx$.d...@40tude.net
> > No, and not because I'm being difficult. It really isn't a
> matter of specific phrases; it's the tone of the passage
> taken as a whole. I could try rewriting it with a more
> intimate focus to illustrate the difference, but since my
> natural voice seems to be omniscient, I'm not sure that I
> could carry it off successfully, and at this point in the
> school year I just don't have the time to take a really
> serious stab at it anyway.
>
I agree with Brian - it is pretty distant. The reader does not
get access to Filepp's thought in a direct way.
Take this. The perspective is close but objective and
nor intimate. The writer is watching Filepp watch himself.
'Now that all was still, Filepp became more conscious of himself, the
thunder of his heart, the gust of his breathe, each paining his lungs,
as he inhaled it seemed a blade was brandished upon his diaphragm. Each
limb seemed unsuited for his torso, they throbbed as if unnatural. He
sat in silent anguish in the wake of the remaining man, waiting for the
hinges to creak his fate. The minutes passed like days, until he
finally recognised voices beyond the door, the man had noticed it too
and put a hand on Filepp's shoulder.'
I would make it more intimate by allowing the reader a glimpse inside
Filepp's head.(I don't know anything about him so I'm afraid
I've made him someone else) Introducing questions
and more direct reference to his thoughts and feeling changes the focus
of the piece. The writer is participating in Filepp's
expereince of himself.
'Now that all was still, the thundering of his heart seemed loud.
Surely they would know how scared he was? Did he want that?
Every gust of breath brought a knife slice of pain to his lungs,
a stab to his diagram. He must gain control, of himself, if nothing
else. What was it the teacher said? 'A man without self mastery can
master nothing.' It had seemed a nonsense then and now that he
understood it, he did not know how to achieve it. What would happen
when the hinges of the door creaked open? What would they do to
him then? He tried to measure time by counting his panting breaths.
He lost count as he thought of another question: how would it
feel when the breathing stopped?
Personally, I quite like the distant tone of the original, but
if Miles wants to bring the focus in closer - the self questioning
techinque is quite an easy way to draw the reader in.
Nicky
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
James A. Donald
> thinking that because the character is experiencing
> something, the prose should evoke the same reaction in
> the reader. The classic obviously-wrongheaded example
> is a scene in which the character is bored to tears;
> you *really* don't want your readers bored to tears by
> the prose of that scene, no matter what the character
> is feeling or how tightly filtered the viewpoint.
The typical problem, and the problem that I have, is
that the character is in a situation that is frightening
and confusing, and I want to build the reader's
identification with the character, so I show the
situation from tight third - the character and narrator
is frightened, angry, and confused, so his narration
will unavoidably be confusing.
The only way to avoid this is to tell it in omniscient,
but if I tell it in omniscient, then I have to have
already built the reader's identification with the
character. Seems to me that an omniscient description
of people having a hard time is not automatically going
to get the reader to care.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
R.L.
/snip/
> [E.M.Forster]
>
> I skimmed through various random pages of one last night and couldn't
> find any comma splices whatsoever, even in dialogue or letters. A
> google search I did subsequently (on <Forster "comma splice"> iirc) came
> up with various people referring to Forster as justification for
> allowing the things; the best ones, with actual quotes from him, were
> unfortunately links to articles in JSTOR (a wonderful full text database
> which I have access to through work, but very clunky to quote from as
> it's primarily in page-at-a-time pdf format). I didn't like any of the
> examples they quoted out of context, though it's possible that context
> would improve them.
All but one of the Forster quotes I've seen in such sources looked like
they were from his first person opinion pieces. One might have been from
fiction:
He could not stand the insecurities that are customary between officials,
he refused to make use of the face-saving apparatus that they so liberally
employ.
I can't imagine wanting to use something like that myself, it's too long.
Some Google references also mentioned Samuel Beckett, Somerset Maugham, and
John Updike. I've been blogging a lot of notes at
http://houseboatonstyx.livejournal.com/ Quite a few interesting things are
only through JSTOR, I'll see if my library account can get me there Monday.
R.L.
Patricia C. Wrede
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:urq6n29qlpf4rsngd...@4ax.com...
> The typical problem, and the problem that I have, is
> that the character is in a situation that is frightening
> and confusing, and I want to build the reader's
> identification with the character, so I show the
> situation from tight third - the character and narrator
> is frightened, angry, and confused, so his narration
> will unavoidably be confusing.
>
> The only way to avoid this is to tell it in omniscient,
> but if I tell it in omniscient, then I have to have
> already built the reader's identification with the
> character. Seems to me that an omniscient description
> of people having a hard time is not automatically going
> to get the reader to care.
There are ways. I can't think of a good example for "confusing," off the
top of my head, but "boring"...there is an absolutely fantastic scene in
Ellen Kushner's "Swordspoint," in which her swordsman character has been
dragged to his first theatrical performance and is bored, bored, stunningly
bored by it, to the point of having no idea of the plot or anything else.
For two pages. And it's rib-crackingly funny, at least to me and a good
many other folks I know, even though it's largely a tightly filtered view of
the thoughts of someone bored out of his skull.
One can also adopt the same angle of view as a first-person narrative --
that is, most first-person viewpoint stories are not narrated
*simultaneously* with the action (because while the confusing action is
going on, the first-person narrator is much too busy to be writing stuff
down); instead, the first-person narrator is looking back a few minutes or
hours and sorting out events a bit more clearly than they would have been
experienced at the moment they happened.
It's like dialog -- you have to balance realism with the fact that what
you're writing isn't a transcription of actual human speech, complete with
"ums" and "ers" and digressions, but a *model* of human speech, close enough
to suggest the real thing without making the reader wade through a lot of
unnecessary stuff. Same with confusing narrative -- you have to balance the
degree of confusion you show with the fact that you're not trying to do a
moment-by-moment transcription of the exact sensations and thoughts the
viewpoint character had, but telling a story. Exactly *where* the balance
is between the realistic and the simplified model of
dialog/behavior/storytelling, is an artistic choice that different writers
make in different ways.
Patricia C. Wrede
David Friedman
wrote:
> I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
> It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
> authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
>
That's tricky. What defines a "grammatical mistake?"
I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
very long time.
Is the use of the predicate nominative a grammatical mistake, due to
trying to import Latin grammar into English, or is its nonuse a mistake,
as I think many grammar books have claimed?
R.L.
> In article <FKIch.2309$Qa7.184@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
>> It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
>> authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
>>
>
> That's tricky. What defines a "grammatical mistake?"
Um-hm.
> I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
> grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
> the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
> very long time.
Which makes it imo not a mistake but a choice.
Offhand, I'd say the issue with comma splices per se is where to draw the
line between conversational use (allowed) and third person narrative
(dubious). Iirc Patricia was saying that because it occurs in speech it is
allowed in written fictional dialog. Further points on the continuum might
be first person informal narrative, first person essay, third person arty
stream of consciousness sort of thing, very highly filtered tight third of
a person in a fuzzy state, other filtered tight third....
Wherever you draw the line, there's the question of whether a particular
comma splice sentence works.
R.L.
Julian Flood
>> Uh, you do realize that you are responding here to *your own comment*?
>
> Hey - being a writer means often talking to yourself. Might as well get
> some mileage out of it! :)
It' _so_ difficult to keep track of who you are sometimes.
JF
Gruff
> In article <FKIch.2309$Qa7.184@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
>> It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
>> authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
>>
>
> That's tricky. What defines a "grammatical mistake?"
>
> I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
> grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
> the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
> very long time.
>
Gruff
--
Nanotechnology socks and towels. Intrigued?
Find out more: www.agactive.co.uk
(If you want to buy these as Christmas presents, email me
because I can get my rascf friends a "matesrates" discount)
Helen Hall
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>
>I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
>grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
>the language.
Ah! Now there's your mistake right there in thinking that language is
logical. This very soon becomes apparent if you try to learn to speak
another language, and find that the "rules" are completely different
with regard to what has to agree with what.
I mean, should adjectives go before the noun or after it? Should the
form of the verb change if you're talking about plural rather than
singular things? English does one thing; other languages do another.
Which is "right", which is "logical"?
Helen
--
Helen, Gwynedd, Wales *** http://www.baradel.demon.co.uk
_A Legacy of War_, a fantasy murder mystery, now on the web at:
http://helenkenyon.livejournal.com/413.html
Nick Argall
"Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:12n5qgn...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> We're pretty tough-minded around here, as long as people stay reasonably
> polite, and you've been participating for long enough for folks to give
> you at least some benefit of the doubt -- it's not as if you showed up and
> started making condescending comments to people, or patronizing folks.
> Also, we're all here because we like a good vigorous discussion, and you
> don't get that by getting offended every time somebody disagrees with you.
That is my favorite thing about Usenet in general, actually. It's a
rough-and-tumble corner of the internet where people can tolerate a bit of
roughness and tumbling is par for the course :) Back when I started with
newsgroups, I was a bit more delicate than I am now, but I learned!
>> As far as writing goes, I've been a big fish in a small pond for too
>> long, it's good to be exposed to people who can effective criticism of
>> my thinking.
>
> See, that's the kind of attitude that makes you fit right in...
Thank you :D (And you refrained from the grammar and spelling flame! You
have class.)
Nick
Patricia C. Wrede
"Nick Argall" <nar...@gmail.removethisbit.com> wrote in message
news:4573e4be$0$16558$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
>
> "Patricia C. Wrede" <pwred...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:12n5qgn...@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>> As far as writing goes, I've been a big fish in a small pond for too
>>> long, it's good to be exposed to people who can effective criticism of
>>> my thinking.
>>
>> See, that's the kind of attitude that makes you fit right in...
>
> Thank you :D (And you refrained from the grammar and spelling flame! You
> have class.)
Wha...? Oh, you mean the comma splice. But I've said all along: comma
splices are perfectly acceptable in *dialog*. And Usenet is essentially a
conversation. Not to mention, you weren't asking for crit of the post. :)
Patricia C. Wrede
Gerry Quinn
page...@swcp.com says...
> > Here's mine, changing a few words too:
> >
> > Slowly regaining clarity he was able to
> > make out the long corridor; the masons had been rushed, much of the rock
> > was un-level. Even his escorts stumbled occasionally. The corridor was
> > dimly lit with a pair of torches burning in harmony every so often along
> > each wall but it was not until Filepp was within arms reach that he noticed
> > a closed /oak/whatever/ door.
>
> Mine:
>
> > Slowly regaining clarity he realized he was being dragged down
> a long corridor. The masons must have been rushed; much of the
> rock floor was unevenly cut. Even his escorts stumbled on it. Pairs
> of torches lit the corridor, burning in harmony every so often along
> each wall; but it was not until he was within arms' reach of it hat he
> recognized a closed /oak/whatever/ door directly ahead (or on the
> right or whatever).
For me this slows down the pace. And that suggests that Miles'
original comma splices, though clearly excessive, were doing
*something* for the narrative, intended or not. Because when I read it
first I had an impression of things happening at great speed, at least
relative to the disorientated Filepp.
Miles never actually said he was being dragged fast, but that was
certainly the impression I got. In your version I get no sense of
urgency.
A lot of little things seem to contribute to the effect, and to be fair
a lot of them were outside the quoted paragraph. The comma splice
after "rushed" certainly does contribute, in my opinion - it makes the
word "rushed" leak slightly into the whole ambience. In your version
it gets boxed in tidily as applying to the masons - which is logically
correct, but doesn't leave the concept hanging in the reader's mind.
Let me have a go:
As he regained clarity he was able to make out a long corridor. The
masons had been rushed - much of the rock was uneven, and even his
escorts stumbled occasionally. It was dimly lit by pairs of torches on
opposite walls, and Filepp didn't notice the door until he was within
arms reach of it.
I'm not gone on "harmony", again for reasons of ambience, and "every so
often" is redundant since the interval is not specified. Also I think
that if the door is going to loom up suddenly, it's better that it
precede "within arms reach".
- Gerry Quinn
Brian M. Scott
<gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> David Friedman wrote:
>> In article <FKIch.2309$Qa7.184@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
>> wrote:
>>> I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
>>> It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
>>> authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
>> That's tricky. What defines a "grammatical mistake?"
>> I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
>> grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
>> the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
>> very long time.
> What do you use in its place?
Don't know about David, but I use generic 'he', 'he or she', or a
sentence that avoids the issue. (If I were starting from scratch
with only the existing resources of English, I'd go with generic
'he' for male speakers and generic 'she' for female speakers.
David Weber seems to have come up with the same idea, and I think
that I've seen someone else use it, too.)
Brian
Gruff
disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
normal. Also, in cases where the gender isn't known "they" seems more
streamlined and less misleading than the alternatives, but I can only
recall hearing it in police descriptions which are hardly the model of
grammatical excellence.
Brian M. Scott
<gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote in
rec.arts.sf.composition:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:42:25 +0000, Gruff
>> <gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote in
>> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>>> David Friedman wrote:
[...]
>>>> I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
>>>> grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
>>>> the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
>>>> very long time.
>>> What do you use in its place?
>> Don't know about David, but I use generic 'he', 'he or she', or a
>> sentence that avoids the issue. (If I were starting from scratch
>> with only the existing resources of English, I'd go with generic
>> 'he' for male speakers and generic 'she' for female speakers.
>> David Weber seems to have come up with the same idea, and I think
>> that I've seen someone else use it, too.)
> I've heard people use 'they' where they were deliberately avoiding
> disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
> normal.
I've grown accustomed to it, but I still find it a bit jarring.
[...]
Brian
Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)
> I've heard people use 'they' where they were deliberately avoiding
> disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
> normal. Also, in cases where the gender isn't known "they" seems more
> streamlined and less misleading than the alternatives, but I can only
> recall hearing it in police descriptions which are hardly the model of
> grammatical excellence.
My basic perspective on singular "they" is that I'll stop using it when
people stop it with this singular "you" nonsense.
--
Darkhawk - H. A. Nicoll - http://aelfhame.net/~darkhawk/
They are one person, they are two alone
They are three together, they are for each other
- "Helplessly Hoping", Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young
Suzanne Blom
"Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)" <dark...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1hptk9p.1y57g0zu5owvqN%dark...@mindspring.com...
> Gruff <gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> I've heard people use 'they' where they were deliberately avoiding
>> disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
>> normal. Also, in cases where the gender isn't known "they" seems more
>> streamlined and less misleading than the alternatives, but I can only
>> recall hearing it in police descriptions which are hardly the model of
>> grammatical excellence.
>
> My basic perspective on singular "they" is that I'll stop using it when
> people stop it with this singular "you" nonsense.
>
David Friedman
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 05:42:25 +0000, Gruff
> <gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote in
> rec.arts.sf.composition:
>
> > David Friedman wrote:
>
> >> In article <FKIch.2309$Qa7.184@trnddc03>, lclough <clo...@erols.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> I just reread a number of them, and can recall no comma splices.
> >>> It is worth pointing out that even if well-known and popular
> >>> authors make grammatical mistakes, that doesn make them RIGHT.
>
> >> That's tricky. What defines a "grammatical mistake?"
>
> >> I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
> >> grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
> >> the language. But it has been used by otherwise competent writers for a
> >> very long time.
>
> > What do you use in its place?
>
> Don't know about David, but I use generic 'he', 'he or she', or a
> sentence that avoids the issue.
That describes my policy as well.
David Friedman
Helen Hall <use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ddfr-57D104.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >
> >I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
> >grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
> >the language.
>
> Ah! Now there's your mistake right there in thinking that language is
> logical. This very soon becomes apparent if you try to learn to speak
> another language, and find that the "rules" are completely different
> with regard to what has to agree with what.
>
> I mean, should adjectives go before the noun or after it? Should the
> form of the verb change if you're talking about plural rather than
> singular things? English does one thing; other languages do another.
> Which is "right", which is "logical"?
1. I didn't say the logic of language, I said the logic of "the
language"--a specific language. The fact that different languages have
different rules is irrelevant.
2. But as it happens, it appears that all human languages do have
certain arbitrary characteristics in common, an observation that goes
back to Chomsky and suggests that language is in part hardwired in
humans, despite the enormous variation among human languages.
David Friedman
dark...@mindspring.com (Darkhawk (H. Nicoll)) wrote:
> Gruff <gruffsta...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > I've heard people use 'they' where they were deliberately avoiding
> > disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
> > normal. Also, in cases where the gender isn't known "they" seems more
> > streamlined and less misleading than the alternatives, but I can only
> > recall hearing it in police descriptions which are hardly the model of
> > grammatical excellence.
>
> My basic perspective on singular "they" is that I'll stop using it when
> people stop it with this singular "you" nonsense.
A fine idea.
Do you want to return to "thee" and eliminate the useful familiar/not
familiar distinction--which not many people seem to take advantage of
nowadays--or do you have a proposed neologism?
Bill Swears
used to use it regularly, but writing has stopped that particular habit.
Too many first readers insist on correcting it, when, in my opinion at
least, English simply has no correct gender nonspecific individual
reference.
Bill
--
Ourdebate.com lifts free debate between writers and dilutes it with ads.
rec.arts.sf.composition is a USENET group, and can be accessed for free.
Ourdebate.com therefore sucks (the life from discourse),
and dribbles (deceit when integrity would have worked just as well).
nyra
>
> In message <ddfr-57D104.1...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >
> >I regard the use of "they" for singular gender indefinite as a
> >grammatical mistake. It grates on my ear, and it violates the logic of
> >the language.
>
> Ah! Now there's your mistake right there in thinking that language is
> logical. This very soon becomes apparent if you try to learn to speak
> another language, and find that the "rules" are completely different
> with regard to what has to agree with what.
I think David's 'logic of *the* language' (emphasis by me) refers to
English specifically; i don't consider English exemplarily logical,
either, though. I guessed David was talking about 'basic' rules, but
i'm not sure (and very fundamental rules can still be broken, as in
'The police are investigating the case.').
> I mean, should adjectives go before the noun or after it?
Even worse, should a possessive pronoun agree in gender with the
possessor or the possession? Regardless of what logic says, i think
that there exist real languages in which it agrees with either, with
both and with neither.
--
's morgens: zorgen, 's avonds: min,
brengt het kruipen van de spin
Helen Hall
<wsw...@gci.net> writes
>>
>Since English has no gender nonspecific he/she, I prefer they to it. I
>used to use it regularly, but writing has stopped that particular
>habit. Too many first readers insist on correcting it, when, in my
>opinion at least, English simply has no correct gender nonspecific
>individual reference.
>
it's usually possible to rephrase so that it's not necessary.
Helen Hall
Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
>In article <PHnXxvAI...@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
> Helen Hall <use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I mean, should adjectives go before the noun or after it? Should the
>> form of the verb change if you're talking about plural rather than
>> singular things? English does one thing; other languages do another.
>> Which is "right", which is "logical"?
>
>1. I didn't say the logic of language, I said the logic of "the
>language"--a specific language. The fact that different languages have
>different rules is irrelevant.
>
logic. For example why do we string adjectives in a particular order? Is
it more logical to say, "the big red tractor" than "the red big
tractor"? I don't actually think that logic is the deciding factor
there. Why do I say my height is five foot four, but the tape measures
in feet?
And as Darkhawk says, if "you" can be both plural and singular, then so
can "they".
Zeborah
> I've heard people use 'they' where they were deliberately avoiding
> disclosing the gender. It did sound odd initially but quickly sounded
> normal. Also, in cases where the gender isn't known "they" seems more
> streamlined and less misleading than the alternatives, but I can only
> recall hearing it in police descriptions which are hardly the model of
> grammatical excellence.
It's quite common. Language Log has even noted an occurence of
singular"-they when the gender *was* known. It took me a while to
google it because a) they appear to have written quite a lot of things
about toilet paper, fouling one of my search terms, and b) apparently I
can't spell graffiti. But finally:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001582.html
Then there's the follow-up about how singular 'they' is verbally and
plenarily inspired of God:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003485.html
Zeborah
--
Gravity is no joke.
http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/
rasfc FAQ: http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html
Zeborah
> In message <ddfr-F2A703.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >1. I didn't say the logic of language, I said the logic of "the
> >language"--a specific language. The fact that different languages have
> >different rules is irrelevant.
> >
> But my point is that how any language works has nothing to do with
> logic. For example why do we string adjectives in a particular order? Is
> it more logical to say, "the big red tractor" than "the red big
> tractor"? I don't actually think that logic is the deciding factor
> there.
I believe there is logic there, but it's *complicated* logic.
>Why do I say my height is five foot four, but the tape measures
> in feet?
"foot" there is a count word(1); similar to "head [of cattle]". OTOH
it's also similar to "pair [of shoes]" but 'pair' takes the plural, as
do I think most other count and measure words in English. Possibly foot
and head don't take the plural precisely to distinguish them from the
non-count usages, though this logic doesn't hold for "hands" (in
measuring a horse, frex).
Languages are like fizzbin.
> And as Darkhawk says, if "you" can be both plural and singular,
And also "we". :-) (And sheep and police, each for different reasons,
and so forth.)
>then so
> can "they".
Which is pretty much as logical as any other word in the English
language.
Zeborah
(1) For which there is proper linguistic jargon; at least two or three
different proper linguistic jargon, what's more, yet I can never
remember any of them.
David Friedman
Helen Hall <use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ddfr-F2A703.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>, David
> Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> writes
> >In article <PHnXxvAI...@baradel.demon.co.uk>,
> > Helen Hall <use...@delete.this.baradel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> I mean, should adjectives go before the noun or after it? Should the
> >> form of the verb change if you're talking about plural rather than
> >> singular things? English does one thing; other languages do another.
> >> Which is "right", which is "logical"?
> >
> >1. I didn't say the logic of language, I said the logic of "the
> >language"--a specific language. The fact that different languages have
> >different rules is irrelevant.
> >
> But my point is that how any language works has nothing to do with
> logic.
Hence one cannot predict that an adjective in French agrees in gender
with its noun? That a verb in English agrees in number with its subject?
Both of those are cases of languages that have a logic to them, and on
the whole conform to them.
I think what you are asking is whether there is a logical basis for a
language having a particular logic to it, which isn't what I was talking
about.