posted
All right, so here is the situation. I have been editing up a storm in my novel. I got to a chapter, and got stuck. So, I figure, I need a break from editing, so I decide to read a book, and get me back into the writing mode. I pick one up from pile, “Sons of the Oak,” David Farland. His first book in the series really helped me, when I bogged down in the writing of my novel, a couple months before I joined hatrack.
So here is my rant. We are told as aspiring writers to read the works of successful writers to see how they do it. But lately, and Sons of the Oak is just the last in the line of books I have looked at by other authors that have me confused. Many of the “rules” that scream “amateur”, they seem to be doing. And David Farland, by no means is the worst of the authors I have looked at. In fact he is one of the better, and I have a lot of work to do, to only dream of his level of talent. But still, it hurts when I am trying so hard to eliminate some of these errors, and improve my writing by doing so, only to find all the books in my library are making the same “basic” mistakes I am.
Here goes:
I skipped the prologue, sorry, not a big fan of those, and this one didn’t catch my eye.
In the first 7 pages of the first chapter.
1) POV-head-hopping- I settled into Fallion’s POV. Thought it switched at one point to his younger brothers. On a re-read found it didn’t. But it did switch to Waggit’s POV, even so far as going into his thoughts. It’s not like he switched back and forth all the time, but he did switch. And the main reason I came up with was so he allowed us to get a description of Fallion.
2)he/she said – alternatives I found on the first 7 pages: agreed, growled, warned, added, argued, whispered, offered, asked, answered, demanded. I understand “whispered, asked.” And using some of the others sparingly, but I guess my idea of sparingly is different. Maybe I am just eliminating too many from my writing. To be honest, it would make it easier had I left some, versus spending the time to edit it so the dialogue, and beats would show it all on its own.
3)-ly’s after the tag – soberly, eagerly, softly. I was under the impression that “softly” was truly the only one of the 3 to use. Let’s understand that 3 times isn’t a lot. But I only consider “softly the acceptable one. take “eagerly” There was no need for him to use it. The boy’s head snapped up, and the dialogue clearly showed it. In this forum, every critique would have had me cut it.
4)Italics – using italics to emphasize a word. I don’t know what a lot is. But, again I feel it wasn’t necessary to use it 2 sentences in a row. The first page, no less. My guess is over the book, it would probably come to 1 time a page. I don’t think I use it at all. It so ingrained in me, that it is not a good thing.
I apologize. I am going crazy, and this is in no way an attempt to discredit David Farland. The books I have read of his have been enjoyed immensely. And I can still learn a lot from him. He just happened to be the book I grabbed today, probably because of the “paper thread.” I know I can learn so much from him still, and should concentrate on those. It’s just when I see, such a well-known author “breaking” the rules, or at least my interpretation of the rules, I begin wondering if I have the rules all wrong, or am carrying them to far.
Any thoughts anyone?
And please, no bashing of the author, I don’t want this to be a “hate thread.” I am just trying to understand and get out of this editing funk that I fell into this morning.
JeanneT and IB, I know, by the last thread, you two are familiar with his works. I would love to hear your opinions on this. Am I so stuck in an editing POV, that I can’t read his book as a reader, or am I being too harsh and a stickler for what I perceive the rules to be?
posted
First off; I'll have to plead guilty for not reading all the way through your post, but I think I read enough to understand what you are saying.
I'm new enough at this that I've been studying several books on writing and the do's and don't's of editing your work. One of the main things that all of them say is not to use professional or well-known authors as a guideline for writing your first novel. The thing is that almost anything a best selling author will write will be accepted for publication just because the author's name alone will sell books, and as long as it's not a total piece of junk. LOL So, minor errors are usually overlooked. At least this is how I took it. First time authors are not allowed these privilages, but after you become better known, then the rules may be less strict.
I, too, have noticed how a "name" author breaks the rules quite frequently, and especially after I've read my resource books on the subject. Doesn't seem quite fair, but that's the way I see it.
posted
As I said in the other thread, I loved the first Runelords series. But Sons of the Oak was a great disapointment. I felt it was shallow and I never felt or cared for the characters. They did not seem like real entities. I've read about 100+ pages of Worldbinder, hoping it might be an improvement, and haven't yet been able to finish it.
I've had similar problems with Bright of the Sky by Kay Kenyon. I've also read 100+ pages, but don't know if I can continue.
posted
Two things guide me when it comes to rules;
From C. J. Cherryh on writing: Follow no rule off a cliff.
Follow every rule even if it's inconvenient. Life is easier when you don't have to beg forgiveness. It's less trouble to ask permission.
One thing that your conundrum indicates to me is that you're maturing as a writer. Looking for technique and practice in accompished authors' writing will reveal that every rule is broken, more often in novels than in shorts, in my experience. Whether they're defects is a matter of opinion. I think if a broken rule detracts from the reading experience, it's a flaw. If it encourages closer attention to a particularly meaningful passage, maybe it's an effective rhetorical device.
Is the broken rule creating a rhetorical virtue or a grammatical vice? In Cormac McCarthy's novels, he employs polysyndetons for physical descriptions to slow down tempo. Many fans of his work think McCarthy's polysyndetons are a rhetorical virtue. To others it's a horror of horrors. Grammar school teachers consider it an unnacceptable grammatical vice. Polysyndeton: employing multiple conjunctions joining multiple clauses. Then there's the opposite, asyndeton, the absence of conjuntions between clauses.
McCarthy also omits apostrophes in contractions. Cant, dont, wont, didnt, but not it's/its. Brad Land effectively immitated McCarthy's stylistic choices in Goat. Virtue or vice is a matter of opinion.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
The fact is that David Farland could write utter dreck (which in my opinion he usually does not, but that doesn't mean some of his novels aren't better than others) and still sell it. His name on a title is a guarantee that people will pick the book up. His name will probably guarantee a place on the best seller list.
That doesn't mean a first time author can do the same thing.
Breaking rules. The only rule is that there ARE no rules. There are guidelines that help. You are doing well -- most of us who aren't already best selling authors are doing well -- to keep those guidelines in mind. If we sprinkle 'ly' adverbs in our tags, an editor will notice and our work will end up in a dust bin.
Now the fact that established authors aren't properly edited is something that irritates me. It does them no favor. But it is a fact of publishing life. I happen to think that the book in question is a long way from one of Dave's best and would have been improved by a strong editorial hand. A strong editorial hand rarely even exists in publishing any more.
Edit: So to answer what I think your question really was, no, the fact that he can get away with that doesn't mean that you can--or should for that matter.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
Just a quick note, 'cause I've been horribly swamped....
Not super familiar with any Farland/Wolverton books, though the name rings a bell. The issues you point out I also noticed on a reread of one of my all-time favorite books by my absolute all-time favorite author. The book in question is also high fantasy (as I assume Sons of the Oak to be) and these apparent errors were scattered all across the page. Seeing this and recognizing it made me realize two things.
1. Rules can be broken and still sell. 2. There is probably a reason why these rules were broken.
That second point is what stuck with me - why would a pro author with credits to his name make errors that every self-help writing book says are amateurish and dire? I think part of the issue here is that the style of prose a reader expects in high fantasy is supposed to be slightly elevated and overly descriptive, using more florid language and a profusion of adverbs and dialogue attributions. The words used are likely intended to create a sense of flow and grandeur suitable to high fantasy, whereas a hard-edged detective story would probably use more sparse diction, choosing simpler sentence structure and making more abrupt grammatical choices.
If you read something that sticks out as bad, there are either two things going on - the writer is simply bad, or the writer made these choices for a reason. Since Mr. Farland isn't likely a bad writer (not something I can personally vouch for, though), it isn't out of the realm of possibility that he chose to break these rules for a reason.
posted
I don't agree that the "rules" of good writing are any different for high fantasy than for any other genre, Wolfe_Boy.
As a regular reader of high fantasy I certainly do NOT expect florid writing and an over-use of adjectives and adverbs. Have you read the best writers of fantasy such as Martin? The best writing in fantasy brings the same elements as the best writing in any genre.
But you will find floridly written fantasy just as you will find info-dumpy science fiction. That hardly means it's what a reader looks for or what makes the genre good--quite the contrary. And even a good writer has a novel that is less than their best.
Telling fantasy writers to do florid writing because it is expected in the genre is the worst advice I can imagine.
How is the best fantasy written?
Here is an excerpt from a book that grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and didn't let me go.
quote:The morning dawned clear and cold, with a crispness that hinted at the end of summer. They set off at daybreak to see a man beheaded, twenty in all, and Bran rode among them, nervous with excitment. This was the first time he had been deemed old enough to go with his lord father and his brothers to see the king's justice done. It was the ninth year of summer and the seventh of Bran's life.
Notice a lot of adverbs in that? No? I thought not.
Unfortunately, writers aren't always the best at editing their own work--even good writers with a lot of experience. So it happens that at times writers you expect more from end up with a book on the shelf that is less than you expect.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
Or maybe it's all a ploy... they _tell_ us not to write this way, but that's precisely what sells! (I told you I see conspiracies everywhere).
Though I haven't read Farland's books I have thought the same thing about books by other famous authors. I've read through their writing advice then been frustrated when they seem to do the very things they're adamant against. Is Sons of Oak and early book for Farland? That could be why--he hadn't developed his own technique.
Most of my reading friends don't notice points 1-3 unless they are high-minded literary types or writers of fiction themselves. As for point No. 4, I've heard that some of this stuff is added by the editor.
So, now when I read a book that "breaks" the rules (and I'm with others here that rules are meant to be broken) I try to take a step back, note that it bothers me, think about how I might rephrase a passage here or there and if the rephrasing makes it better or makes no difference. Then, I put away my style editor and focus on the story.
posted
A lot of the rules are broken because it is easy to do so. Sloppy mistakes are possible even for a very skilled writer, esp if they aren't being held to higher standards they used to be.
Posts: 303 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeanne, I have read all of Martin's recent stuff.... he tends to straddle the line between high and low fantasy more than the specific books I was mentioning, which were written in a specifically Tolkien-esque fashion. Perhaps that changes the way he writes - I don't know, and can't speak specifically to the decisions Mr. Martin makes.
I'm not espousing that all writers of high fantasy write overly florid passages, overuse or abuse adverbs & adjectives, and delve deep into the realms of purple prose, by any means. Just that the tone of a book can be set by an authors choice of diction and grammar and word usage, by his or her choices of POV, depth, and a variety of other factors. That sometimes, these choices are made for specific reasons, by people who know what the rules are and consciously break them. I am as much (if not more) of an adverb hater as the average Hatracker, but when writers I know and enjoy use them, it is sensible to assume that they might be making certain choices for certain reasons.
posted
I won't argue that choices of wording, diction, grammar, PoV affect the tone of a novel. Certainly they do. And certainly at times an author deliberately breaks "rules" because for an effect. Don't we all at times use sentence fragmants (one of the most frequently broken rules) becuase it sounds right in dialogue or gives a crisp and brusque tone. The more experienced the author the more free they are to break those "rules."
That being said, every single writer I can think of at one time or another does less than their best work simply because of carelessness, the demands of a publisher or the pressures of a deadline. Look at Martin and A Feast for Crows.
By the way, I disagree on the issue of Martin writing low fantasy. It is dark, but that doesn't make it low or even straddling. You don't have to write Tolkienesque to be high fantasy. Just my opinion, obviously. And I am thankful to Martin for having broken that mold. (By the way, I don't consider Farland to be Tolkienesque either and he also writes high fantasy in my opinion.)
The Farland novel in question was not one of his early ones. I still don't think it's one of his better novels, again a matter of opinion although far less for a slight over-use of adverbs than for reasons of characterization and plot.
quote:A lot of the rules are broken because it is easy to do so. Sloppy mistakes are possible even for a very skilled writer, esp if they aren't being held to higher standards they used to be.
I agree.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
Addressing the question of applying writing "rules":
1) We, as infrequently-published/non-published writers, are not hurting ourselves by adhering to "rules" that better our prose. Yes, rules can be--and at times should be--broken, but if we can avoiding breaking those "rules", why shouldn't we? Why shoot yourself in the foot, because Johnny Popular got away with it?
I recently read Genghis: Birth of an Empire by Conn Iggulden and loved it despite it's flaws. Yes, it hopped PoV (and wasn't omniscient), but it didn't happen enough to drag me out of the story. If he'd separated three sentences from a brother's pov, then separated it again to hop back, in the same scene, it would have tripped me for a page or two here and there. Would I copy the tactic, no. I'd rethink the scene until it worked from Temujin's PoV.
2) Hatrack, as you no doubt have noticed, is a tougher crowd than your average reader. I believe it's impossible to please everyone here, but if you get the majority to say they'd read on, that's an achievement. That's part of what endears this community to me, there's no room for shmoozers. I want a critiquer--or series of critiquers--to point out my weak spots. That's what makes me better.
3) I haven't heard a steadfast "rule" or "guideline" covering the use of italics to emphasize a word. (Other than the prose is supposed to become "invisible"--or make the story the source of attention instead of the style.) It is a matter for debate. It doesn't tear me out of a story--it works the oposite way for me, it takes me deeper. Often, italicized sections are automatically connected with inner dialogue for me, so I don't mind them.
Always do your best to tell the story without the words getting in the way.
As far as books go, even if you normally like the author, you'll find ones that you don't. Life is short, too short for fighting through a read you don't enjoy.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
I fear I will never be able to read a book with the same eyes I once did before I took on this writing endeavor. After JeanneT’s excerpt from Feast of Crow I decided to check it out again. I remember the prologue as one I loved. I just read the first page again today mind you, and ironically, the very first sentence, has “Garad urged.” There is an “asked softly,” a “he put in,” a “he replied,” and a “Garad pointed out,” also on the same page. That’s in half a page. One I loved the first time I read it. *Bangs head into wall*
Anyways, thank you, for your help. I just needed a little hand holding today to insure those are good rules to adhere to.
Incidentally, I myself limit strange tags, I would gather no more than 1 a chapter. Although I must admit, I find my characters nodding an awful lot. I am beginning to think they have nervous twitches.
posted
Actually that quote is from the far, far better A Game of Thrones rather than A Feast for Crows which I found disappointing. It is from the first chapter, not the prologue.
I don't think even in that Martin over-used adverbs--but as IB pointed out, someone like Martin can darn well use them if he pleases and no one will say a word.
You and I are different cases entirely. LOL
Edit: To study Martin at his best, which I do, I recommend Thrones.
I absolutely cut all "strange" tags, but would I if I were Jane Popular? Maybe not. In a first draft, my characters nod like bobble-head dolls but even then not in the tag. I slap them out of their twitches in revision. LOL
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
JeanneT ,you're right, it was A Game of Thrones, I still have in my hand. I blame it on the heat. I loved the book. I have yet to make it through A Feast of Crows though, most of my favorite characters aren't in it.
My main reason for picking up books at this point is, I'm trying to work on adding the details to my writing, that little bit of description, a sentence here and there that can make a scene all that more real without bogging down the reader. I struggle at it, unlike my posts, I fear my writing has become too lean.
And instead of finding the inspiration I am looking for, I am getting hung up on "saidisms" and such. I need to kick this habit, and get back to what I started the day looking for, ways of slipping in details.
Edited: I just got your edit. I think I'll slap my MC around awhile as well, although he does drink a lot, the shaking might be acceptable in his case. Thanks.
[This message has been edited by Tiergan (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
Since I was a little girl, I have loved adverbs. They were always my favorite part of speech (perhaps because they were so easy to find on grammar tests). You can only imagine my chagrin, when, after becoming a writer, I discovered how terrible maligned they were.
Every adverb I pulled out of my book was torturous, and I felt like I was part of some strange fad that would fade away. (Remember the days when people were afraid to write with adverbs? What boring books those seem to be now)
But I realized that the thing that improved my writing was not eliminating adverbs, but what I replaced them with. I had to ask questions like, "How does laughing merrily look different from regular laughter? Does it sound different?" and so on. My descriptions have improved a lot (although that is still one of the weak points of my writing).
Someday, when I am famous enough to casually break the rules, I will happily fill all the pages with my long neglected words. I still slyly insert them here and there and dream longingly of the day that no one will notice.
On to my real poihnt--most of my favorite authors don't follow the rules at all. Lots of them are classics, and somehow those long dead authors get away with stuff we never could.
Now that I'm looking, I especially notice things like lack of hook pages and pages of info dumping before anything even remotely interesting happens switching POV mid sentence my beloved adverbs, often used in this shocking way:
Those were all from the same page of one book by the way
I don't think good writing is always about following the rules. It's about making your story so interesting that people forget that they are looking for mistakes.
quote:Lots of them are classics, and somehow those long dead authors get away with stuff we never could.
Very true. They wrote in a different age for a different audience.
And as much as I have enjoyed some of those adverb using writers, I'm part of that audience that is distressed by florid writing, so I don't expect to ever go to it. While an 'ly' adverb occasionally sneaks its way in, I bash it over the head when it's found.
posted
Seriously? I never thought of writing as 'florid'. Eww. What a dreadful thought. Whenever I see an 'ly' word in my writing, I sigh, roll up my sleeves and try to figure out what I was really trying to say. Description has never come easily for me.
Edited because I couldn't decide which smilies I wanted in my post. Did I want the one playfully winking? or one mischievously sticking out her tongue? Decisions, decisions...
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited June 10, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited June 10, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited June 10, 2008).]
posted
I think my overuse of adjectives and adverbs comes from school. "Write a 1,000 word essay on *insert subject*."
I would finish and discover it was 200 words short. Arrgh! Pull out the thesaurus, insert adverbs/adjectives until the 1,000 word minimum has been reached.
I am currently reading (my bathroom book--have to fill every moment with learning!) The First Five Pages by Noah Lukeman. It's made me really try and tighten up my manuscripts.
Now, instead of thumbing through the thesaurus for more words to add, I use it to find stronger verbs or more succinct adjectives. (I'm only 1/3 of the way through the book--like I said, it's in the bathroom--but I've highlighted half of what I've read.)
On another note: I, too have found myself picking up on less-than-smooth writing from authors I love. If I forget that I'm reading a book, I figure the author has done his/her job. It's when I start becoming a critic instead of a reader that I notice more of the inconsistencies.
posted
Eliminating adverbs takes up a lot more space.
quote:Arram said angrily
is a lot less words than
quote:Without warning, he threw the small statue against the wall, where it shattered into a million pieces. He closed his eyes, willing himself to calm down.
quote:Without warning, he threw the small statue against the wall, where it shattered into a million pieces. He closed his eyes, willing himself to calm down.
gives a much stronger picture of the character.
Is shorter necessarily better?
(Anyone read Poe's The Cask of Amontillado? He has such (frequently morbid) beautiful prose.)
posted
It's a heckuva lot more work to write something like that though. And I guess that's exactly the point--
Posts: 938 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point wasn't whether shorter or longer is better, but that getting rid of adverbs is frequently shorter since instead you substitute a single stronger verb. I would consider this a better example of what I'm talking about:
He walked erratically across the hall.
as opposed to
He staggered across the hall.
However, I did consider your example wordy and at the same time not very descriptive. Without warning (would one ever give warning?), he threw(stronger verb might be nice) the small statue(not a strong description--plaster statuette maybe?) against the wall, where it shattered into a million pieces (seems redundant--if it broke into two or three pieces surely you wouldn't say that it shattered). He closed his eyes, willing himself to calm down. (a bit of a "tell.")
So I would consider this stronger: He dashed the plaster statuette against the wall where it shattered. Closing his eyes, he took a calming breath.
Sometimes shorter is better. Sometimes longer is better. It isn't the length.
Edit: *snickers* If it were IB, he'd be pounding his head on the keyboard about now. Heaven knows, I am sometimes argumentative, but only generally in the friendliest meaning way. Please, don't take offense. I enjoy debating these details.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
quote:Please, don't take offense. I enjoy debating these details.
I'm not offended at all. If it makes me a better writer, then debate away! The sentence I used is a paraphrase of an actual sentence in my novel. My feelings may have been more hurt if it had been the actual sentence, but I didn't take the time to find it, and I sincerely hope it didn't say 'shattered into a million pieces' because that truly is redundant.
I used it because there really had been an adverb there, but before I could replace it, I had to take the time to imagine the room he was in, which was something I hadn't done before.
The room was Arram's office, and sitting on his desk was a statue of a dragon. As he got more agitated, he'd picked up the statue and had been tossing it back and forth between his hands.
Every bit of that description was added when I took the time to think what it would look like if Arram did something 'angrily'.
Perhaps I'm an extreme example, but I think that these rules for good writing are there to help us strengthen the weak areas in our books, not to force us to lose our unique voices.
After reading posts from both you and IB, I can imagine both of you pounding your head against the wall about my writing, which is why I hope someday you'll critique something I've written.
quote:I think that these rules for good writing are there to help us strengthen the weak areas in our books, not to force us to lose our unique voices.
Oh, I agree. It's too easy to fall into the habit (I know from experience) of using wimpy verbs or non-descriptive nouns. These guidelines help us look for that and, as you say, strengthen our writing.
And writing in specifics rather than generalities does force us to see what we're writing about and then give the reader a window into that world. Of course, we don't want to fill in every piece of furniture of the world. That leaves nothing for the reader to do. But a chair there and a table against the wall gives them something to work with.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 10, 2008).]
quote:I fear I will never be able to read a book with the same eyes I once did before I took on this writing endeavor.
That's the price you pay for learning more about writing. The best I can say about a book now is that I am anxious to get back to it. I never say "I couldn't put it down" any more. <sigh!>
And in direct response to your question, Tiergan, I'd like to point out that there are two basic aspects to fiction that writers should be aware of (and work to improve). One is the actual writing (what you're talking about, Tiergan), and the other is the storytelling.
In the world of popular fiction, good storytelling will cover a multitude of writing evils (sloppiness, rule-breaking, etc), as you have noticed.
So while we spend a lot of time and energy on improving our writing around here, if the stories we're telling aren't absolutely gripping, the only thing we have to fall back on is to get our writing as close to perfect as possible.
Nit-picking someone's writing can be pretty easy compared to helping someone turn an adequate story into a gripping one. That's one reason I try to encourage brainstorming stories here as well as critiquing the first 13 lines. They're both good ways to learn to improve your own writing.
posted
They're just rules. One of the delights of story-telling is you can change the rules--of life, of science, even of writing. As Kathleen says, the real thing is to get the story writ--and read.
posted
The last several years, I've had a rigid rule of going through my work and rewriting passages with words ending in "-ly." (One of the joys of computer word processing is that it's easy to track these down now.) I can't say it's helped much, but I thought the results read better.
I took it a little further with my last thing---cutting out every "have / has / had" I could find. A one-shot thing that suited the story. Unless I missed something, I took out all but one "had"---that in twenty-thousand-words.
I don't know whether I'll keep at it this way, but it's worked for me so far. (I dread the idea of doing it with something at novel length.)
I don't think there are any hard-and-fast rules of writing---it's something you have to play by ear. Write something that suits you, in a way that suits you---you can worry about revising things later.
(I'm suspicious of rules-laid-down-by-writers because I've seen that in practice they don't necessarily follow them. A couple of examples: Heinlein laid down five strict rules, but later evidence showed he didn't follow them himself. And Asimov bragged about how clear his writing was, but neglected to mention his love of big words and odd turns of phrase.)
((Oh, by the way...I don't edit my posts here the same way I edit my stories. These posts are usually off-the-top-of-my-head writing, with changes as I go along, and once-in-a-while a quick revision later. So it's bound to be a little sloppy and unrefined.))
quote: Without warning, he threw the small statue against the wall, where it shattered into a million pieces. He closed his eyes, willing himself to calm down.
became:
quote: He dashed the plaster statuette against the wall where it shattered. Closing his eyes, he took a calming breath.
but could be characterized as:
quote: Squeezing the Oscar for best book adaptation's neck, IB yelled, "Are you daft?" He flung the statuette and it shattered against the wall. Still shaking, he closed his eyes and inhaled deep.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited June 11, 2008).]
...and you're back to the adverb. Drat. It's all just one big circle.
quote:The last several years, I've had a rigid rule of going through my work and rewriting passages with words ending in "-ly." (One of the joys of computer word processing is that it's easy to track these down now.) I can't say it's helped much, but I thought the results read better. I took it a little further with my last thing---cutting out every "have / has / had" I could find. A one-shot thing that suited the story. Unless I missed something, I took out all but one "had"---that in twenty-thousand-words
I don't follow many rules rigidly (I just can't stop myself. Maybe I need help!) but I love my word processor's tracker also. One problem I used to have is the use of the phrase a little. It was a little annoying to read.
posted
With me it was "bit" which was a bit annoying as well and just. And "then"... I once used my auto-replace to take out every instance of "then" in a novel.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
At times you need to modify. "He said softly . ." is different than "he whispered."
If you can put the words together well and draw the reader in, the things we call "mistakes" or rule breaking vanish.
In the statue breaking example, I'd kill the "without warning" since what happened before will show whether or not there was a "warning." But the example shows three valid ways to write the same action and convey the same information.
No rule applies every time. BUT if you break one, know you are and know why.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited June 11, 2008).]
posted
Ugh. I'd forgotten about my overuse of the word "then". Don't get me started.
Once I changed a characters name half way through the book and used auto replace. I can't even remember the name at the moment, but it was a piece of lots of other words. (i.e. suddenly jacket became scottet.) Use Replace very carefully. Thank heavens for the undo button.
posted
Unwritten/JeanneT, This is good editing/cutting practice. I'll give it a go. quote: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without warning, he threw the small statue against the wall, where it shattered into a million pieces. He closed his eyes, willing himself to calm down.
quote:Suddenly, he smashed the statuette against the wall--shattering it. Then closed his eyes, willing himself calm.
Ironically, I added an adverb after cutting. (I assumed the statue was already referenced (described), so "the statue" should suffice. "Where it shattered" (still too wordy) becomes "... shattering it". Then I added then. (Sorry JeanneT, I couldn't resist) "... To calm down." (too wordy) becomes "... calm."
quote:He smashed the plaster statuette against the wall--shattering it. Then closed his eyes, adding a calming breath.
JeanneT, I decided to keep your "plaster" . (to resolve the ambiguity of what broke--the statuette? or the wall?) "small statue" to "statuette", by the way, was a nice cut. 'Dashed'is stronger tone wise, but it's also a bit ambiguous. (dashed can mean smashed, but it can also mean 'ran fast' or rushed) It's possible to picture him running it against the wall. Although I do love aliteration,'Wall where' is awkward and unnecessary. 'Closing his eyes' is ambiguous. With "He closed his eyes"--I know he closed them. Starting with "closing his eyes", could lead to an entirely different place. For example; Closing his eyes, he decided later, would have been the smart thing to do. While it's true, "... he took a calming breath." resolves the ambiguity, it does so only after the comma's pause. (hence, its awkwardness, for me) "closing ... he took" mixes tenses. (present then past)
Damn, it's nearly 2 am. . That's all I have time for. Gotta get some sleep. Bye all.
posted
Don't use "replace all"...just use "replace," and look at each one before you change. Better yet, just use "find."
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lots of words have more than one usage. I don't worry about that if it's clear from the context which I think it is there. When somene dashes something against a wall, I'm not going to think they ran to do it.
Smashes isn't bad though. I'm fine with it as an alternative.
I do think getting rid of the where makes the sentence flow better.
The fact that a sentence could go in another direction from the beginning isn't a problem. Most sentences could. The important thing is that the actions be simultaneous which they are in this instance. I am a bit baffled at the concept that you should be able to tell the second clause by the first.
(Please don't get me started on tenses. I'll give you a link if you need some help with it) Using more than one tense in a single sentence is perfectly acceptable, even necessary at times. I'm not sure where people get the idea that it's not.
In this case it's a present participle and that construction is grammatically and stylistically correct. To get technical it probably involves a progressive aspect showing that his eyes continue to be closed.
However, "Then closed his eyes, adding a calming breath." is a sentence fragment. Insert a "he" before closed. I'm a bit concerned about the logic of this sentence though. How do you add a calming breath to closed eyes. I'm trying to picture that.
While I wouldn't want to over-use the structure, participle phrases can give variety to your writing to use occasionally. The "then" is just a way of trying not to repeat starting the sentence with "he." (I'm assuming the fragment was a typing error) It is also redundant since obviously the next sentences shows something he does "then." We assume chronological order. To me it would be better to go with the sentence structure I originally suggested.
If you want to avoid the participle phrase (and it really isn't a good idea to start sentence with them too often) you could say: With a deep breath, he told himself to calm down... or something like that.
My take on the editing thing.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 13, 2008).]
posted
The first and last word on "rules"--follow each one until you understand its purpose thoroughly. Once you master the reason behind the rule, you no longer need the rule.
One of my law school professors embraced this same principle. He told us: "There are ten rules to cross-examination. A virtuoso litigator will violate them all the time. But YOU are unlikely ever to be masters of this difficult craft. YOU will accept these rules as Biblical commandmants, and if God is merciful, you will achieve some level of minimal competence."
quote:Heaven knows, I am sometimes argumentative, but only generally in the friendliest meaning way. Please, don't take offense. I enjoy debating these details.
I'm the same way JeanneT. I love a good debate. Let's keep it clean shall we, and not go all ad hominem. O.k.?
Quite true. However, when writing, I believe it is the readers perspective that counts (context wise),not the writers. "He dashed", while definitely stronger in tone then "he threw", and more stylish (dashing? ), is ambiguous , imo. My default for ‘dashed’ is 'sprinted' (ran fast). The writer has the image, but the reader only gets the words, in the order they're presented. Have you ever seen a gestalt painting or sketch? Two people looking at the same picture, can see two very different things, depending on where in the drawing their eyes fixate first. The old crone/young woman, is probably one of the most famous of these. The old woman is shown in close up. She has a huge nose with a wart on it. If you change your starting point, the crone’s nose becomes the young one’s body, and the wart the other’s ear.
quote:I don't worry about that if it's clear from the context which I think it is there.
There are three problems I see here. First, we both started with insider knowledge—that ‘dashed’ was supposed to replace ‘threw’, and that “closing his eyes, he took a calming breath” was supposed to reference his anger. It’s very hard to try to not know (unknow?, forget?) something, once you know it! Second, I think it is . . . therefore it is, is not logic I care to trust. (I’ve been bitten by it too many times) And third, Relying on later context can be problematic--annoying. For a real world example; some doors in malls and men's restrooms have handles on them, with 'push' embossed in the metal, instead of having the more intuitive pushplate. While a user can resolve the problem from the later context of the sign, they shouldn't need to. Artistic attachments (style vs. function) can jar there, as they can here, in reading.
quote:When somene dashes something against a wall, I'm not going to think they ran to do it.
Again, I believe it's the readers perspective that's paramount. If one starts with the 'sprinted' default context, then encounter 'the plaster statuette', is there enough conflict there to change the default? That depends on where you visualize the statuette's starting location.(Remember, there's very little setting context here) If you visualize a museum or wealthy man's house, a statuette might be displayed on a shelf, or on pedestal near a wall. It's not difficult to imagine such a statuette being knocked into the wall by someone’s mad dash. Then, "Closing his eyes, he took a calming breath" reads as him stopping and catching his breath.(stopping, because people don't usually run with their eyes closed) If you still had the ‘threw’ stuck in your head, then that interpretation would probably be dominant--and you would probably picture the statuette starting in his hand. (Context can be relative.)
quote:Smashes isn't bad though. I'm fine with it as an alternative.
I do think getting rid of the where makes the sentence flow better.
Thanks. I’m sure there are some other words that would work as well,slammed for instance. (I’m not trying to score brownie points here. I’m trying to make some points.)
quote:The fact that a sentence could go in another direction from the beginning isn't a problem. Most sentences could
It is a problem, if you’re one of the people lead astray . . . and have to backtrack to confirm a meaning. So what I’m really talking about here are probabilities, rather than just possibilities. (Hence, my use of the term ambiguous)
After the plaster statuette smashes into the wall, we get "Closing his eyes, he ...". One might logically expect plaster pieces to rebound. (Especially if they use your default, “he threw" interpretation of 'dashed'.) Closing ones eyes in this scenario, would be in response to those pieces flying. (Hence, my "Closing his eyes, he... decided later, would have been wise). That was following my thought process— of what I expected to come next.(not necessarily exactly that, of course, but something along those lines.) I think this would be the first logical connection to make with his eyes closing, since the smashing directly proceeds it. (Not a reaction to anger)
quote:The important thing is that the actions be simultaneous which they are in this instance.
As I said previously, “closing his eyes” (by itself) is not an action, but is instead, a reference to an action)
quote:I am a bit baffled at the concept that you should be able to tell the second clause by the first.
You seem to be implying that I said, or at least meant, this. (I didn’t and I don’t.) I do, however, believe that readers have expectations about what will follow based upon what came before. And I think it’s important that we, as writers, be aware of those expectations. I think the appropriate concept in this case is “cause and effect”. Stories are built on foundations—word by word, image by image, and scene by scene. In reference to context, I definitely believe prior context is more important than post context, for the above reasons.
quote:(Please don't get me started on tenses. I'll give you a link if you need some help with it)
I don’t believe I need tense help. (For the time being, I think I’m tense enough. ) It's true though, that it has been a while since I learned this stuff. I think most of us play it by ear a lot of the time-- with being grammatically correct, only an after thought. I would be interested, though, in seeing a site that uses present particle as you used it. (I.e., without the usual ‘to be’ verb, and without a typical qualifying clause following it.)(I couldn’t find any.)(That, of course, doesn’t mean for sure that there aren’t any.) Passive structures are by their nature more open to interpretation, and I think they should be used with extreme caution, and/or not at all.
quote:Using more than one tense in a single sentence is perfectly acceptable, even necessary at times. I'm not sure where people get the idea that it's not.
I’m not sure where they get it either . . . just as I’m not sure where you got the idea that I believe that. I used mixed tenses in both my takes. Unwritten’s and yours. (Check for yourself.) I also qualified what I was getting at afterward in parenthesis-- (past to present) I don’t think that it’s wrong, just that it's not as natural sounding to me as when it’s used in chronological order. I may be somewhat at fault for your misinterpretation, since my sentence was a bit short. (I ask to be excused in this instance, since it was 2:00 a.m., and I was tired.)
quote:In this case it's a present participle and that construction is grammatically . . . correct.
I think it is more important to be clear/concise. Also, it remains to be seen (by me at least) whether your usage of present participle is so.(grammatically correct that is)
quote:. . . and stylistically correct.
Sorry, there aint no such animal. (“Stylistically correct”-- is a value judgment.) (I.e., subjective.) “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
quote:To get technical it probably involves a progressive aspect showing that his eyes continue to be closed.
Technically speaking, “progressive” and “continued to be closed” are antithetical (Opposite in meaning). I assume you meant “ . . . continued closing”, or perhaps “ . . . continue closing.” “Continued to be closed” means that his eyes stayed closed. (I.e., continued to be in a closed state.)
quote:However, "Then closed his eyes, adding a calming breath." is a sentence fragment.
Yep, it sure is. So what? As long as the meaning remains clear, I believe fragments are fine. Isn’t that what this whole topic by Tiergan is about?
quote:Insert a "he" before closed.
No . . . I don’t think I will. That would be both redundant and unnecessary. Since both the ’he’ in the prior sentence, and the ‘his’ in the same sentence, provide sufficient context. Heck, even without both, I think one can use fragments and be clear here. For example; (“ Eyes closed . . . check. Calming breath . . . check.)
quote:I'm a bit concerned about the logic of this sentence though. How do you add a calming breath to closed eyes. I'm trying to picture that.
The easy answer here is, you don’t, and I didn’t. You changed the action, ”He closed his eyes” to the static state, ”closed eyes”! In debating, that is called a “straw man tactic”, and is a BIG NO, NO! (I trust that this was an accident, since you seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing different states. (Closing is not logically equivalent to closed. Dying is not dead, etc.)
quote:While I wouldn't want to over-use the structure, participle phrases can give variety to your writing to use occasionally.
Agreed.
quote:The "then" is just a way of trying not to repeat starting the sentence with "he."
It also establishes sequence—(This, and then that.) Or is used in conditional statements—(If this, then that.) And probably in some other cases, I can’t think of at this moment. Although, I will concede that sometimes it is redundant.
quote:(I'm assuming the fragment was a typing error)
(I have to assume your being sarcastic here?) There is a pretty low probability that I would miss both the ‘h’ and the ‘e’.
It is also redundant since obviously the next sentences shows something he does "then."
(Your joking, right?)(O.k., which is it then? “sentence shows”? or “sentences show”? Not that it really matters, since there are no sentences after the one with ‘then’ in it. There is a following clause in that same sentence, but the ‘adding’ performs the same function as ‘then’, there.
quote:We assume chronological order.
Who’s we? Are you royal? (Speak for yourself, please.) Your posts here seem pretty heavy with declarative statements. And even an imperative one, “Insert 'he'.” Nothing draws me faster into a debate, then a declarative statement I disagree with. Or someone telling me what I must do.
If you assume chronological order, then why would you not assume that information would be assimilated in that order?
quote:To me it would be better to go with the sentence structure I originally suggested.
Go right ahead . . . no ones stopping you. I certainly don’t tell other writers how they must write-- I offer advice and examples-- The writer is always free to take or leave what he chooses.
quote:If you want to avoid the participle phrase . . . you could say: With a deep breath, he told himself to calm down... or something like that.
I could, but then I’d be stuck wondering how he told himself that, when he was taking a breath. Did he modulate his breathing sound as he sucked in and out?
quote: “ . . . (and it really isn't a good idea to start sentence with them too often)”
Agreed. (mentally inserts an ‘a’ after start)
quote:My take on the editing thing.
And you’re welcome to it JeanneT. . . This is an “Open discussions forum”, after all. If everybody agreed all the time, then there wouldn’t be much for us to discuss, now would there.
Steve
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 18, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 18, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 18, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 19, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 19, 2008).]
posted
Rules are a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Thats pretty much the whole deal as far as I'm concerned.
Posts: 2626 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Simon Says, did you like my sentence or not?
When I think of "smashed" I think of someone hitting a statue against the wall, where "threw", while not as expressive, conveys a sense of distance--the statue had to leave his hands and travel before it hit the wall. (And that's how it happened.)
[This message has been edited by Unwritten (edited June 18, 2008).]
posted
Actually, I agree with a lot of what JeanneT said in her critique. I do think you could have used more/and stronger adjectives and verbs. Plus a little cutting.
quote:When I think of "smashed" I think of someone hitting a statue against the wall, where "threw", while not as expressive, conveys a sense of distance
I agree. However, I was trying (didn't always succeed though) to use only what you printed there. (Not the later description-- of him picking A small dragon dragon statue up from a desk and flipping it between his hands.) As I wrote in my response to JeanneT, starting with a picture of the statuette in his hands, leads me most of the time to her interpretation.
quote:the statue had to leave his hands and travel before it hit the wall.
If that is what you had in mind, then yes . . . it's fine--clear and simple.
quote:(And that's how it happened.)
Are you speaking from personal experience here?
A note. If it really is a red dragon statuette, as I think I recall, then I think you out to be sure that there is no ambiguity about what shatters (the statuette and/or the wall). My reasoning is thus: A red statue brings to mind ( for me at least) an Asian setting. The 'wall', therefore, might be flimsier than the stereotypical western wall. (exluding the Great Wall of China, of course ) I'm not positive, but I think classical/conservative Japanese walls might be made of shatterable materials and designs. For example; woven reeds , rice paper. Or maybe out of glass (If they're super rich). Another Asian wall that might shatter (but probably wouldn't splatter) is an adobe, or earthen wall. It all depends on the setting. I Hope that helps. Steve
[This message has been edited by SimonSays (edited June 19, 2008).]
posted
I just reread your dragon statue bit . . . and it wasn't red after all. I guess I just red that into it on my own. Posts: 38 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The easy answer here is, you don’t, and I didn’t. You changed the action, ”He closed his eyes” to the static state, ”closed eyes”! In debating, that is called a “straw man tactic”, and is a BIG NO, NO! (I trust that this was an accident, since you seem to be having some difficulty distinguishing different states. (Closing is not logically equivalent to closed. Dying is not dead, etc.)
No, I was not making a straw man argument and you're making an ad hominem one by personally attacking me. You also seem to have some difficulty in understand the meaning of a continuing state. "dying" isn't something that is only one instant. It implies happing over a period of time. The same is true of "closing."
quote:(I have to assume your being sarcastic here?) There is a pretty low probability that I would miss both the ‘h’ and the ‘e’.
So you are incapable of ever inadvertantly leaving a word out? I'll take your word for it, but people do it all the time. While you were being sarcastic, I was not.
quote:No . . . I don’t think I will. That would be both redundant and unnecessary.
Then as I pointed out, "Then closed his eyes, adding a calming breath." is a sentence fragment and there is no stylistic reason for one. The sentence has no subject. You can't pull one out of the previous sentence. The context may be clear, but the sentence is ungrammatical, therefore, the word "he" is neither redundant nor unnecessary. I have no objection to sentence fragments if they serve a purpose. That sentence simply appears incomplete and awkward to my eye.
SimonSays, since you seem to be a bit confused about participles, I'll give a link to a Purdue University site which has a good overview on them. They have to be used with a "to be" verb? No.
Here is an example taken from that site since I don't feel like making up my own example and the overall sentence structure is exactly the same as the one I used.
(As a reminder, here is the sentence you objected to:
And in case you're going to ask, yes, I do consider Purdue University to be authoritative.
Since you were so kind as to admit that I could do this the way I liked, and you seem to be in the mood for an argument which I'm not, I have nothing further to say on the subject.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited June 19, 2008).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
