Forum: Author Hangout

I like to ensure what I am saying in a story is clear to my reader.

That's when the author doesn't trust the reader to understand what he's "showing." So he tells what he showed or about to show. I do that too, but I usually get rid of it during editing.

ETA: I didn't mean this to be a "show don't tell" or "don't show and tell the same thing." My first example is simply having unnecessary words.

I shook my head no, that I didn't know.

He already told the reader that he "shook his head no" to the question. Then he explained what that meant.

He already told the reader that he "shook his head no" to the question. Then he explained what that meant.

I'm curious about the "no" there. My English teachers would have struck that word through as superfluous and not idiomatic, and I am pretty sure that until ten years ago, I hardly ever came about the expressions "shake so.'s head no" or "nod so.'s head yes". It seems they are getting more common over the last few years, though, even though I only ever encounter them in writing and have never heard someone talk that way yet. But then, I'm not a native speaker and don't live in an English speaking part of the world, so my picture is limited. Is the addition of the "no" or "yes" generally acceptable, or is it perhaps a regional or cultural thing?

I'm curious about the "no" there.

I didn't want to get too picky so I didn't mention that, but I believe "no" is an unneeded word.

You shake your head side to side which is no. You nod up and down which is yes.

But it's not bad, just like "stand up" vs just "stand." How many ways can you stand? But I use "stand up" sometimes and "stand" other times, whichever sounds right.

but I believe "no" is an unneeded word.

I don't know about you and other people, but when I'm thinking about something that I need to respond to, I frequently nod or shake my head slightly. Those head movements are in response to my thoughts - not an answer to what I was asked.

Thus, I would say Yes and No are needed for clarity.

Thus, I would say Yes and No are needed for clarity.

As I said, whatever sounds right (or is right for what you're trying to get across to the reader).

shouldn't the yes or no be dialog

That is one way to handle it.

Bob indicated No by shaking his head

Fran nodded to indicate Yes.

Thus, I would say Yes and No are needed for clarity.

In my case, I'd consider those exceptions, as not everyone does that. Thus you'd only need to add the extra clarification for the exceptions, rather than the general rule.

Rather than saying "He nodded yes", I'd add something like "Bob nodded to indicate he was following the conversation" or "Susan nodded, eager to relate her own experiences". (Though, as usual, there are better ways of showing these responses, rather than actively telling readers what their motivations were.)

That way, you can leave the regular nods and shakes unadorned. ;D

My understanding is that was a conscious choice made in reaction to the conquest and forced religious conversions by the Ottoman Empire so that they could gesture no and be misunderstood as yes while the sword was at their throat.

Thanks. That's a useful explanation I wasn't familiar with. I'm sure it'll come in handy someday (as soon as I write a book about someone from the Ottoman Empire). 'D

But it's not bad, just like "stand up" vs just "stand." How many ways can you stand? But I use "stand up" sometimes and "stand" other times, whichever sounds right.

Given your penchant for ex-military types, I would be surprised if you'd never used 'stand down'. ;)

AJ

I didn't want to get too picky so I didn't mention that, but I believe "no" is an unneeded word.

You shake your head side to side which is no. You nod up and down which is yes.

But it's not bad, just like "stand up" vs just "stand." How many ways can you stand? But I use "stand up" sometimes and "stand" other times, whichever sounds right.

None of those are 'wrong', grammatically, but as you say, they're utterly unnecessary, thus they tend to remain in when they should get cut during editing.

Just as there are only so many ways to stand ("up" is the only one that makes sense): the same typically applies to "sit", "jump" and "leap".

For those of us who already write overly complex sentences, it's especially important to remove these 'extra' words in order to make the sentences parsable (?). Generally, it's okay to have multiple threads in a single sentence, but when you do, you want to keep each distinct thread as clear and simple as possible (typically by removing such unnecessary terms as "want to", "distinct" and "and simple"!).

SOL is very much Western oriented. My characters nod or shake their heads and I assume readers will understand that means 'yes' and 'no' respectively.

Other authors have non-Western settings with non-Western characters and they tend to elaborate on what the nod and shake means, because they differ across cultures.

AJ

That's when the author doesn't trust the reader to understand what he's "showing." So he tells what he showed or about to show. I do that too, but I usually get rid of it during editing.

Or, for many of us, we use the proper techniques, but repeated complaints (typically from the same readers) force us to double down and make what's expressed with showing explicit by telling readers what's going on, so they aren't caught blindsided later.

I see this more of a problem with certain readers skimming over lengthy dialogue passages, rather than the showing techniques being faulty. :( But it's frustrating to work hard to prepare the reader for changes in the story, only to get complaints later because they weren't paying attention.

Or, for many of us, we use the proper techniques, but repeated complaints (typically from the same readers) force us to double down and make what's expressed with showing explicit by telling readers what's going on

Showing expects a certain level of reading comprehension. That's why children's books are more telling. I would guess it would be a problem for someone whose first language isn't English or they aren't proficient in English.

Showing expects a certain level of reading comprehension. That's why children's books are more telling. I would guess it would be a problem for someone whose first language isn't English or they aren't proficient in English.

Alas, except for a few, my readers are mostly Americans and fairly well educated. Unforunately, I've learned that since I mix extensive dialogue into my sex scenes, readers tend to skip over them entirely and then bitch about how the 'story makes no sense' when they resume (that's why I've largely stopped writing sex scenes in most of my books). So I'm guessing something similar happens here. My readers are intelligent, but for one reason or another, they skim over the necessary sections and then fumble with what's happening afterwards. :(

Usually, if someone doesn't understand an 'Americanism', or a strange turn of phrase, they'll ask about it, though the internet makes it simple enough to look the answers up yourself, nowadays.

Just curious. How do you know your readers are mostly Americans? Fairly well educated? Tend to skip over dialogue?

Aside from writing about Americans IN American locals, I've learned over time. But mostly, early on, before they yanked the support, I did multiple Google Analytics on my sites. That showed the full range of different countries accessing my sites (a large variety), but the overwhelming majority (well over 92%, though I can't remember the specific number anymore) were Americans.

Generally, I'd get questions when something I said confused non-Americans/non-native English speakers, but most (regardless of background) accept American stories because they've watched enough American TV shows and movies to feel comfortable with the dialogue, common motifs and cliches.

Thus, I specifically target my story towards those reading my stories, and also the 'American' theme of my stories. I make no apologies for it, but I do try to be cautious about providing enough context so readers can figure out what's going on without having to Google details constantly.

He describes the ship in excruciating detail

That's a different kind of wordy.

That's not extra words to get the point across, but rather simply getting into too much detail or description. I think it's common in SciFi.

He describes the ship in excruciating detail

That's a different kind of wordy.

That's not extra words to get the point across, but rather simply getting into too much detail or description. I think it's common in SciFi.

That usage (often based on an author's background research showing through, even though it has no direct impact on the story) is similar to flowery literary descriptions (i.e. describing the graffiti on the wall, or the ivy blossoms on the side of the building). Though, in the first, the author typically can't 'kill their darlings' and yank the unnecessary text, while in the second it's a particular narrative style (though, while useful, those are best kept at a minimum) to establish a setting, rather than a constant background prattle for the entire story.