Forum: Author Hangout

But what about my question?

AJ

My first comment answers your question.

Sorry, old fruitcake, you're not even in the right ballpark.

Look at the homepage. Under 'Older Stories', you'll see links for 'Top Long Stories' and 'Top Short Stories'. What is the boundary between them?

AJ

If you keep scrolling to the end of those pages, you will find what you seek.

Cheers
RS

Thank you.

I prefer the way JoyR spoon fed me the answer. Now how long till she changes my nappy. (Lies on floor, squalling, and waving limbs about.)

AJ

I'll apply the pressure washer

Ooh, water sports too ;-)

AJ

Sounds fun. Any chance of using whipped cream?

AJ

Here are three shovels, please take your pick.

But if you're taking your pickaxe, shouldn't someone else be doing the shovelling?

AJ

The blind carpenter picked up his hammer and saw.

I think wooden blinds are much classier than plastic ;)

AJ

I think wooden blinds are much classier than plastic ;)

I once passed a van while driving. On the side of the van was the company name — Blind Man

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.

What sort of pajamas do you wear such that the wearer's gender is obvious - split crotch?

AJ

I could tell by its tusks. -- Captain Spaulding.

Or, more easily by the obvious size differential. Plus, elephants rarely wear pants, as they don't fit into any of the 'Big & Tall' shops.

How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.

What sort of pajamas do you wear such that the wearer's gender is obvious

I'm editing my latest novel (a Western) and one of the corrections I'm making is to the pronoun for the MC's horse. In the MC's dialogue, the horse is referred to by name, he, or boy. It's a stallion. But as I go through the narrative, I keep finding "he" which I have to change to "it".

I'm not sure I understand that. If the readers have been told the horse is a stallion, I would have thought it better to use 'he' than 'it'.

AJ

That would be the modern attitude, but 'it' may be more correct for 19th century usage. It would take some research to be sure and I'm uncertain how to go about it.

Search for the terms and add a ':etymology' to the end, as that's the terminology used by English dictionaries the world over. It'll usually take you directly to the seldom-used etymology reference for any given word. I used word etymologies religiously, to ensure I understand the correct usage, particularly how meanings have changed over time (i.e. when it's appropriate to use which form).

I'm not sure I understand that. If the readers have been told the horse is a stallion, I would have thought it better to use 'he' than 'it'.

When you refer to an animal, it's "it." Now if there's a relationship between the person and the animal, it would be "he" which is what I do in the dialogue.

I just googled it. The first result was from Writer's Digest at: https://www.writersdigest.com/write-better-fiction/how-to-handle-animal-pronouns-he-she-or-it

An animal is referred as "it" unless the relationship is personal (like a pet that has a name). Then it's OK to use "he" or "she" when referring to the animal. This also applies to using "who" and "whom." If the animal has a personal relationship with the person, then use "who" or "whom." Otherwise you must exclusively use "which" or "that." Here's an example that incorporates both of these rules:

Now that I think about it, I wonder if other characters' dialogue should use "it." For example, when the bartender in the saloon refers to the MC's horse. There's no personal relationship between the bartender and the horse so it probably should be "it."

if the gender of the animal matters to the story. I think this would be a rare situation.

There's another stallion that matters to the story. A wild horse not broken yet. One used as a stud for breeding. I'd have to go back and see how the MC refers to it. It probably still should be "it" since there's no personal relationship.

I'm not suggesting that the use of more personal pronouns should be mandatory in such a case, but I think that if there is a valid reason for the story to stress the animal's gender, then the use of personal pronouns is not inappropriate even in the absence of a personal relationship with the animal.

Rather than if the animal is pet or has a personal relationship with a human, the rule should be whether the specific animal is a specific character in the story, rather than just a frequent reference (i.e. whether the horse has an personality and attitude or not).

I've even used the weather in one story, and many authors apply a specific he/she pronoun when they feature the weather in their stories, though I wasn't aware of that at then time.

It probably still should be "it" since there's no personal relationship.

Except possibly for the cowboy's wife or young daughter, who may continue 'milking' it on occasion. Catherine the Great wasn't the only one to get creative in her sex life. ;)

I'm surprised none of the 'experts' mention a cross-Atlantic divide. I've noticed British English authors are much more likely to personalise animal pronouns than American English authors, some of whom even depersonalise people. And that's okay in some style guides.

The results of my British English education are similar to the AP Style Guide according to Grammar Girl, but when not knowing an animal's gender I'd use 'it' for its quality of being gender-neutral rather than its quality of being impersonal. Same result, different reasoning.

AJ

And that's okay in some style guides.

I found this in an article suggesting "who" is fine with animals:

Plenty of style gurus, from the Chicago Manual to the American Psychological Society, forbid the use of humanoid pronouns to refer to animals.

So since I follow the CMoS, it's "it" for me in the narrative.

Now if the horse was the main character, I'd probably humanize it.

Bah, evil religionists preaching that animals can't have souls ;-)

AJ

Plenty of style gurus, from the Chicago Manual to the American Psychological Society, forbid the use of humanoid pronouns to refer to animals.

Colonel Mustard leapt on top of the fence, landing sure-footedly although it was barely half an inch wide. Then it arrogantly strode along the top of the fence until the overlap with the Smiths' garden. It was in luck, Princess was sunning itself on the lawn. If it could choose any cat to have kittens with, it would be it.

:)

AJ

Colonel Mustard leapt on top of the fence, landing sure-footedly although it was barely half an inch wide. Then it arrogantly strode along the top of the fence until the overlap with the Smiths' garden. It was in luck, Princess was sunning itself on the lawn. If it could choose any cat to have kittens with, it would be it.

Or, employing transferred epithets:

… leapt atop the sure-footed fence, though barely half an inch wide, arrogantly strolling along until reaching the Smith's garden, where Princess was sunning herself on the preening lawn, choosing her sexy masculine kittens' father.

You successfully employed one transferred epithet, I just though it worth keeping the trend going, rather than abandoning it after it's first use.

Not that I anticipate anyone here ever using the technique, but it's a handy tool to keep in your quivering author's arsenal. ;)

P.S. Now that was an example of obsessive commenting!

You successfully employed one transferred epithet

Did I? What was the adjective?

AJ

Did I? What was the adjective?

It was your "Then it arrogantly strode along the top of the fence", transferred adjectives are where the adjective replaces the subject, taken non their personality and traits. The technique is especially useful for mysteries, where you frequently show a crime being committed while hardly mentioning the suspect at all, using adjectives describing him to the things he handles (gloves, floor, dagger, pistol, etc.).

It takes a while to get the hang of it, and you can't use it terribly often, but in the right things, it's almost invisible to most readers and (when spotted) is a beautiful thing. Needless to say, I'm still trying to figure out when to use it. Once I do, I'll have to figure out the how.

It was your "Then it arrogantly strode along the top of the fence", transferred adjectives are where the adjective replaces the subject, taken non their personality and traits.

But that extract doesn't contain an adjective!

'Arrogantly' is an adverb, modifying 'strode'. And 'it', referring to Colonel Mustard, is the subject.

I don't recognise that as a transferred epithet.

AJ

But that extract doesn't contain an adjective!

Rereading the passage, it seems that you're correct. You used "it" instead of "he" because you're referring to a wild cat. I misinterpreted the generic pronoun as implying you were referring to the fence itself, which then proceed to 'walk arrogantly'.

My bad. As I said, I'm new at this, and when you're looking for examples, you sometimes see them everywhere, even when it's just ups wishing for some simple examples to convey the idea.

But, since I don't have any ready examples, I'll probably take a day or two and rewrite my one and only mystery prologue (where the killer's actions are detailed, without providing any clues as to who he is). Thus, it seems the perfect use to explore this particular technique, as I don't have any other mysteries in my current 'to-do' list.

Rereading the passage, it seems that you're correct. You used "it" instead of "he" because you're referring to a wild cat.

I was satirising the Chicago Manual of Style's insistence that animals should always be referred to by non-humanoid pronouns.

I believe Ernest has pointed out that CMoS originated as a style guide for non-fiction. That prescription for non-humanoid pronouns must be a hangover that it hasn't yet got around to addressing.

AJ

Bah, evil religionists preaching that animals can't have souls ;-)

That's not an 'evil' intent, but is dependent on the 'devine' nature of humans in the Catholic diaspora, (which still routinely blesses housepets every year). Thus only humans were granted souls, due to the special role God assigned humans in Genesis (when he and Satan split ways over God's insistence on treating humans better than the angels who routinely carried out his dirty work).

Now if the horse was the main character, I'd probably humanize it.

Just as you never personalize secondary or tertiary characters in any of your stories?

English authors are much more likely to personalise animal pronouns than American English authors, some of whom even depersonalise people.

Such as P.G. Wodehouse or Dickens, who frequently employed transferred epithets, eliminating the person for their sentences entirely:

… he sometimes caused his boots to creak, as if they laughed in a dry and suspicious way.

— Charles Dickens

Note: Transferred epithets are a rhetoric device, where the character is removed when assigning his emotions to the objects he wears or is near. Similar to a movie only showing a character's feet or hands, before panning back to reveal the context.

For example, when the bartender in the saloon refers to the MC's horse. There's no personal relationship between the bartender and the horse so it probably should be "it."

"I don't care what his name is, I ain't serving no friggin' horse in my bar, no matter whether he ponies up or not!"

I ain't serving no friggin' horse in my bar, no matter whether he ponies up or not!"

What if the horse is wearing your pajamas?

My understanding is that using a stallion as a riding horse (or other working horse) would be quite unusual. Stallions can get quite aggressive around other horses.

I didn't know that, but that works great in the story. The horse won't let anyone other than the MC near it. Except when a certain female character enters the story. The stallion is also kept in a stall in the barn while the other horses are in corrals.

The stallion is also kept in a stall in the barn while the other horses are in corrals.

So I assume that, while he fights the other stallions, he's fine with his fellow cow and sheep barn/stallmates? That logic only carries so far. But is practical in most cases.

So I assume that, while he fights the other stallions, he's fine with his fellow cow and sheep barn/stallmates? That logic only carries so far. But is practical in most cases.

It's a horse ranch. No cows and, heaven forbid, sheep. Although there are some chickens in the barn for their eggs and sometimes the meat.

It isn't that the stallion doesn't get along with horses. In fact, it produced a foal in the beginning of the story (and that mare and foal have a temporary stall in the barn until the foal is ready to go into the corral). It's people it's skittish with. Some would say mean or ornery. It won't let anyone ride it other than the MC. Although it will let the MC's gf near it and touch it (and also the new girl in the story).

But as I go through the narrative, I keep finding "he" which I have to change to "it".

"He", "she" and "it" aren't restricted to humans, though that's how the pronoun were originally used. As usually, English changes words over time to fit their everyday use, rather than adhering to outdated definitions (case in point: "decimate" meaning 'widespread' destruction rather than only the killing of 10%).

Language sticklers' pedanticism is pretty exasperating, as the best examples of writing (ex: Shakespeare) result from authors directly flouting the rules of basic sentence composition.

One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.

Obviously, he leapt out of a tree and stole them! (an outdated reference to a popular kid's joke in the U.S. during the 60s and 70s, though not nearly as funny. It's all in the delivery.)

Blind Man

Excellent author - wish we had more stories from him :(

AJ

I think wooden blinds are much classier than plastic ;)

I've always preferred the German metal blinds that fit inside the wall/window, though the ones I recall are already quite dated. Not only are they more secure, during severe storms, but they're easier to maintain and less prone to failure. But you're right, anything plastic (i.e. Chinese) or American just isn't worth the effort to piss on 'em!

Point of manufacture is irrelevant for the subject of plastic blinds. It doesn't matter where it's made, if it's made of plastic, it will be crap.

While that's true, most items build in Chinese factories (and destined to be shipped back overseas) have NO regulatory oversight, bypassing the laws in each country they're sold it.

At this point, that's a meaningless distinction, as the current administration has gutted our entire regulatory system, but it still follows that virtually anything shipped from China should be considered unsafe unless vetted through an independent source. Thus you're usually depending on the company ordering things in sweatshops to do the responsible thing, which isn't typically a wise choice. It at least works with Apple's reliably designed products, but doesn't help at all with their history of employing child labor overseas.

As for plastic itself, it's not what it was in the '50s, as there are now clear distinctions on the quality of the product. However, the main issue with ALL plastics (aside from the harm to the environment from products which never break down), is that they age very badly, become brittle and fragile over time, especially when directly exposed to sunlight for long.

I like my story like I like penis.

The longer the better.

Also, herpes free.

Aren't these two statements contradictory?

No, they're not directly related. The plastic never completely breaks down, just becomes brittle and breaks into small pieces of plastic. In other words, the plastic becomes utterly useless, yet never recycles into another organic substance like most things left to decay over time. In the end, all those small bits end up floating in dead areas of the ocean.

But there is a tiny bit of hope—a teeny, tiny one to be precise: Scientists have discovered that microscopic marine microbes are eating away at the plastic, causing trash to slowly break down.

Yeah, I'd heard about that, unfortunately, the amount they're capable of processing is minuscule, and as the plastic isn't the most viable of food sources, the particular microbes aren't likely to thrive anytime soon. :( I keep hoping that bleak view changes in time, but for now ...

Any idea how many words 50kb is?

Due to various technical reasons, we try to keep the length of each file served from the site below 55,000 characters (approximately 12,000 words).

That has to do with pages. I think I remember it had something to do with old browsers not being able to handle anything larger than that.

Any idea how many words 50kb is?

For most authors, an approximate answer can be found by dividing by 5.5, so about nine thousand. (Depending on the author, outliers can threaten 5 or 6.)

AJ

As I understand it, the average for most writers is between 5 and 6 characters per word.

I just divided the number of characters by the number of words in my soon to be released novel (541,173/101,241). The character count includes spaces and things like the number in the chapter heading (e.g., Chapter 1) counts as a word, but it comes out to 5.35 characters per word.

Technically, "Chapter 1" should count as two words.

It does. I said, "and things like the number in the chapter heading (e.g., Chapter 1) counts as a word." So "the number" is "1" which is only one character. Since the chapter has 39 chapters, there are 9 words with only one character and 30 words with only 2 characters.

And that's between 5 and 6 characters per word.

I was agreeing using my novel as an example.

Thank you.

AJ

CW, I see you've no intention of backing up the BS statement you made.

I started to, but it's too easy being pulled under into the rats' nest of political statements. Thus 'tis better letting sleeping dogs lie.

The ONLY way to clarify, document or validate the claim is to open a never-ending discussion of a few political parties, and it just ain't worth the grief.