Forum: Author Hangout

Thanks. That's reassuring. I was just worried that I'd unintentionally left the phrasing misleading, causing unnecessary confusion. Again, when two separate editors misread the same sentence, it's an indication that the sentence is overly confusing.

Again, when two separate editors misread the same sentence, it's an indication that the sentence is overly confusing.

A confusing sentence is a different issue in my mind.

A confusing sentence is a different issue in my mind.

Just because the people who should know better are still stumbling over it, I rephrased it slightly, moving the more open, generic terminology (like "it" and "open"):

Somehow, I expect there's much more to the story, but your leaving [out significant details] makes everyone want to hear more.

However it affects them,

I believe that Word's grammar checker is thrown because there is usually a comma after "however." But that's why you have to analyze the sentence to see if it's an error or even if you want it to be wrong for sentence flow.

I believe that Word's grammar checker is thrown because there is usually a comma after "however." But that's why you have to analyze the sentence to see if it's an error or even if you want it to be wrong for sentence flow.

Yep, that's what I assumed. I was merely flagging the behavior, to contrast it with how the spell-checker was addressing the leading initial propositions (by using on-the-fly decisions). Again, I've got no problem ignoring terrible advice, but when I've got nothing to base my decision on, I'd rather avoid making one based on either partial or improper advice.

In general, I'm pretty confident I know how to respond, but I was hoping to get some feedback, concerning how other authors might respond. After all, it's easier being stupid when you're not the only fool rushing off the cliff! 'D

I've got nothing to base my decision on,

This is Grammar Girl's take on "Have you ever wondered how to use a comma with however (or if you even should)? Here's the scoop on using commas and semicolons with however, therefore, and other conjunctive adverbs and transition words."

https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/commas-with-transition-words

This is Grammar Girl's take on "Have you ever wondered how to use a comma with however (or if you even should)? Here's the scoop on using commas and semicolons with however, therefore, and other conjunctive adverbs and transition words."

Well, that's a lot of answers for questions I never asked. What I did ask, is whether there's a handy rule like the one-word transitional clauses, where you can often bypass adding a comma if it leaves a single word by standing all by itself in the middle of the sentence.

Hint: Rather than digging out the esoteric semicolon whenever you get into trouble, the very need for one is a warning sign that your entire sentence is already overly complicated, and needs tø be broken into multiple sentences.

I'm still a firm believer in the 'NEVER use semicolons' club!

I'm still a firm believer in the 'NEVER use semicolons' club!

I've read the "rule" that they're not be used in fiction (eg., Kurt Vonnegut), but I see them in traditionally published novels and they don't bother me.

I've read the "rule" that they're not be used in fiction (eg., Kurt Vonnegut), but I see them in traditionally published novels and they don't bother me.

I'm not opposed to them because of any 'moral' values. Rather, I see them as pointless. If you can easily resolve any semicolon use by simply splitting the sentence at the exact point where the semicolon is used, then why friggin' bother? Once you reach that point, semicolons become meaningless.

If you can easily resolve any semicolon use by simply splitting the sentence at the exact point where the semicolon is used, then why friggin' bother?

Because the two independent clauses are so related you point that out with a semicolon rather than make them two sentences.

If you can easily resolve any semicolon use by simply splitting the sentence at the exact point where the semicolon is used, then why friggin' bother?

Because the two independent clauses are so related you point that out with a semicolon rather than make them two sentences.

Despite loving complicated sentences with various associated thoughts, the best way to convey a thoughts—however complicated the sentence—is to express each single thought as a separate sentence. That way, readers can more easily process it. If you start tossing in conflicting thoughts, or introducing exceptions, then readers tend to struggle with grasping wth you're trying to say.

If you start tossing in conflicting thoughts, or introducing exceptions,

No, it's just the opposite. They're not conflicting. They're associated. The semicolon ties them together.

Butcher's Copyediting, the Penguin Guide to Punctuation and New Hart's Rules all say the same thing about semicolons: 'It divides two or more main clauses that are closely related or parallel to each other, and that could stand as sentences in their own right.' (New Hart's Rules)

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."
—LEO TOLSTOY, ANNA KARENINA

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
—LP HARTLEY, THE GO-BETWEEN

"She plants a fierce kick against the door; it leaves a dirty boot print but barely vibrates the heavy hinges."
—ISAAC MARION, THE BURNING WORLD

No, it's just the opposite. They're not conflicting. They're associated. The semicolon ties them together.

That may be so, but generally in fiction—especially literary fiction—associated themes are better handled via m-dashes. The key, though, is that most readers will only process a single thought at a time, ago those associated ideas tend to be shoved aside and ignored, while the attention grabbing punctuation marks them in the user's memory. Thus the associated comments, offset by m-dashes, are particularly good for foreshadowing or their associated red herrings. Since there readers will focus on the main theme of the sentence, they'll file away the clues about what's to come, only recalling them when they're later revealed in the story in a grand 'Aha!' moment.

For me, every time an editors inserts a semicolon, I immediately divide the sentence in two (largely because it wasn't intended as a competing main theme of the sentence, and weren't planned that way).

associated themes are better handled via m-dashes.

An em-dash in fiction is primarily used instead of parentheses and a colon.

An em-dash in fiction is primarily used instead of parentheses and a colon.

Generally, to introduce asides where you introduce explanatory references. The asides are not competing 'main themes' of a sentence, but secondary themes that often introduce conflicting points.

Ahh, but that's only in English, AFAIK it's the only language where the em-dash is used in this way. For all of us foreigners the em-dash is just weird, especially because its use without separating blanks!

Don't worry, it's not just non-English speakers. The m-dash is only used in fiction novels, and like the ellipses, has completely different uses from any other publication. However, they both allow authors to introduce speaking nuances through punctuation that they'd otherwise need to explain in great detail each time it occurs. In short, it's shorthand for spoken dialogue.

P.S. It's especially for those who primarily read non-fiction, biographies, professional or business book and who aren't familiar with the oddball punctuation. Unfortunately, I've now gotten so used to it that I use it constantly.

And then the article I quote from above (https://www.liminalpages.com/semicolons-fiction) even has this little tidbit.

One of the best things about fiction is that we can sometimes disregard the rules in the name of style and effect. Fragment sentences? Why not. Sentences starting with a connecting word? Throw them in. They all have their place.

And because fiction uses fragment sentences and sentences starting with connecting words ('and', 'but', 'so', 'yet', 'or', 'nor' and 'for'), it makes sense that semicolons can be used to connect these kinds of sentences. It's a kind of meta-logic. Broken rules within broken rules.

"A pause; it ended horribly."
—F SCOTT FITZGERALD, THE GREAT GATSBY

"Fog in the eyes and throats of ancient Greenwich pensioners, wheezing by the firesides of the wards; fog in the stem and bowl of the afternoon pipe of the wrathful skipper, down in his close cabin; fog cruelly pinching the toes and fingers of his shivering little 'prentice boy on deck."
—CHARLES DICKENS, BLEAK HOUSE

having only half a colon does seem kind of unhealthy. :)

I'm not that big on colons either, as I'd rather just flush everything out. Easy in/easy out! But there's really no reason to keep convoluted sentences with conflicting main themes.

And I'd strongly suggesting ignoring the syntax checker in whatever word processor you're using. AI isn't that advanced as yet.

That's certainly reasonable advice ... except I wouldn't be adding commas to any initial proposition is the latest 2019 version of Word for Mac wasn't flagging each and every one! I hadn't been, figuring they were simply 'conversation uses' rather than formal writing, even though my editors would occasionally flag them.

My issue isn't that they're flagging the usage, it's that there doesn't appear to be any standards concerning their usage.

But I agree with your point about questioning my editors on it, which is why I use so many on each of my stories. While each catch what the others miss, they also help to counterbalance each other, when they suggest different guidelines.

But I've long ago turned off most grammar suggestions, but again, since the newer version of Word seemed to be slightly better, I've been paying a little more attention to it, despite the advice offering normally being fairly brain-dead! But, mostly I'm just railing to vent some frustration.

And, no, my editors don't mistake my "their" and "they're" usages, they just aren't familiar with these 'non-standard' uses of these terms. They typically flag then on their second or their passes, where the terms seem to stand out, while the context is apparent on a standard editing pass.

You can always change it to:

"…to the story, but by leaving it open it makes…"

Sensible advice, and a less awkward patch to an otherwise overly complex sentiment. Thanks. I appreciate the advice.

Somehow, I expect there's much more to the story, but your leaving it open makes everyone want to hear more.

Or you could convert the gerund to a participle by knocking off the 'r' from 'your'.

Personally I wouldn't change my story just because the editors weren't up to the job - that's the tail wagging the dog.

AJ

Personally I wouldn't change my story just because the editors weren't up to the job - that's the tail wagging the dog.

Generally, I don't (and in one case, I suspect the editor was doing a brief scan, to see whether he missed anything, and made a knee-jerk reaction rather than seriously thinking it through). However, when a couple of editors trip over the same thing, I see it as a yellow-flag. If they trip over the usage, then how many readers will trip over the same thing?

If they trip over the usage, then how many readers will trip over the same thing?

The 'editors' weren't reporting that they couldn't understand the sentence, therefore I would expect readers to be able to understand it too.

AJ