Forum: Author Hangout

Would a comma not be recommended after 'vacation'? I was always taught to read a sentence and if you need to pause to take a breath, then a comma should be inserted (If there wasn't an 'and').

I prefer "I was often alone

In the paragraph the sentence was plucked from, the "alone" was the impact word (her friend was always out with her new boyfriend). I think it should be first. She was alone. And often. But who knows? When I edit it again I might see it your way. :)

the "alone" was the impact word

Interesting. For me the impact word is actually "often". We are always alone at some point, hence why the 'often' is important, because it creates the question as to why.

For me the impact word is actually "often"

The paragraph is about her best friend finding a boyfriend who takes her out once or twice a day during the Christmas break (they're still in high school but the guys are older and working). So she's not happy with her fiancee because he didn't take as many vacation days off as her best friend's boyfriend. So with her best friend dating day and night and her fiancee not taking her out, she feels alone. It's setting something up for what happens many chapters later.

It's the loneliness. Being neglected.

Context is everything and without the bigger picture, people are going to draw their own conclusions. Mind you, even with the bigger picture - which the reader would gain by reading the unabridged story - readers will still draw their own conclusions based on life experiences and their own bias.

Also, for some people, being alone is not a problem/issue, where-as being with people is, so they are going to perceive your story in a different way, regardless of what and how you phrase it.

I have the same knee-jerk reaction to the word 'that'. Seeing the word makes me revisit the sentence a couple of times, to see if I can do without.

I used to be like that. To the extent that during my editing I'm now adding "that" to sentences.

I used to be like that. To the extent that during my editing I'm now adding "that" to sentences.

As long as you don't ever use "Due to the fact that..."

It is a magic phrase that makes me close a story and never return.

As long as you don't ever use "Due to the fact that..."

It is a magic phrase that makes me close a story and never return

I (and I am genuine about this) don't even see what the issue is with that phrase. It has absolutely no effect on me what-so-ever, not one hackle raised.

Could you possibly elucidate as to why it annoys you so much?

Could you possibly elucidate as to why it annoys you so much?

While there are no absolutes, I find the phrase is usually a harbinger.

It is often used as a hackneyed way of shoehorning in something the author forgot to include earlier, and didn't care enough to take the time to explain away later; but still feels it is so important it needs to be said right at that very spot in the story.

In short, I think it is almost always a lazy way of telling instead of showing.

NOTE:
I am far from perfect so, please, no one take this as an attack on them, or their work. I am sure you can find a dozen, equally heinous crutches in my own stories, so I try my absolute best to NOT criticize other authors on here and the last thing I want or need is to get into a pissing contest.

Ahhh, I think I understand. Possibly the reason it has no effect on me could be due to the fact (sorry) that it's common verbal usage in my part of the globe. "Sorry, I can't come to the soup and sweet due to the fact that it clashes with the WRI meeting..." etc etc...

"Sorry, I can't come to the soup and sweet due to the fact that it clashes with the WRI meeting..." etc etc...

I suppose it is a cultural difference, but it sounds awkward to my ear, when read out loud. Now I am curious as well; do you actually find yourself using that phrase in conversation, or is it a written habit only?

I would prefer, "Sorry I can't come to the soup and sweet, it clashes with the WRI meeting..."

Or, if you abhor brevity, there is always:

"Sorry I can't come to the soup and sweet because it clashes with the WRI meeting..."

soup and sweet, it clashes with the WRI meeting

I wouldn't even use a comma or a semi-colon (don't know how to use them anyway...), I would simply remove the comma and replace it with 'as'.

"soup and sweet as it clashes with the WRI meeting.." (as) it both reads and sounds a lot better. ;)

should the comma be a semicolon?

It should probably be a colon as providing an explanation is one of its uses.

AJ

but should the comma be a semicolon?

Yeah, or a period. With the comma, it's a run-on sentence, but people talk in run-on sentences all the time and it's dialogue..

Now I am curious as well; do you actually find yourself using that phrase in conversation

I use it all the time in spoken conversation, as does my family and those I work with, hence my curiosity. I'm also intrigued by SB's reference suggesting that it's not so common in usage any more. I'm wondering if it's a regional, or possibly a class thing.

On the same subject, my partner almost descends into rage at people who start their sentences with "So,".

Humans are weird. Or at least, their foibles are...

I admit to nothing!

On the same subject, my partner almost descends into rage at people who start their sentences with "So,".

My wife goes into a rage because I begin many sentences with "No."

She thinks I'm saying "no" to the person I'm speaking to, telling them I disagree with what they said, which is usually her who I'm speaking to.

To be fair, there are a lot of people that do that. They're mostly called parents and they say "No" as soon as their spawn open their mouths....

As long as you don't ever use "Due to the fact that..."

It is a magic phrase that makes me close a story and never return.

682 SOL stories are off-limits to you, according to advanced search.

I would expect a smaller number but higher proportion of finestories stories to also be off-limits, but I no longer have access to premier facilities.

AJ

682 SOL stories are off-limits to you

According to Ngram, it was popular in the 1920s but not so much now.

That makes sense. It's a rather a formal turn of phrase which is anathema to millennials and zeros.

AJ

Putting in words like 'that' when they're not strictly necessary is a way of controlling the pace of a story. If you slow it down in the scene-setting parts, then the thrilling parts will appear more impactful.

(I'm probably wrong because I didn't pay money to 'writing experts' for that opinion.)

AJ

That could be rephrased;

"Now that I probably don't use that as much, it is true that I use that when the Writing Authorities would tell me that I shouldn't use that so that it sounds better than that.

The use of that removes the excessive use of it in the example that you posted.

Are you aware joyR, that (sic) you could actually almost get away with replacing 'that' in the above quote with 'onions'?

"Now onions, I probably don't use onions as much, it is true onions. I use onions when the Writing Authorities would tell me onions. I shouldn't use onions so onions sounds better than onions."

Did I also bring tears to your eyes?... Okay, I'll stop now...

Didn't Durham have a Fast Medium bowler named Graham Onions? I think he was capped by England but they didn't use him much.

AJ

No idea. Life is too short for cricket...

Are you aware joyR, that (sic) you could actually almost get away with replacing 'that' in the above quote with 'onions'?

If you want more realistic (but less funny) examples, try substituting 'like' or 'actually'.

AJ

Now I probably don't use it as much, but sometimes I use it when the Writing Authorities would tell me not to because it just sounds better. (Kind of like the word "just" for emphasis.)

I try to avoid terms like 'strong' or 'weak' because I believe they're a nebulous concept thought up by cash-hungry writing experts to gloss over the real underlying positive or negative aspects in a piece of writing, but I'd like to point out that, on the right occasion, deliberately 'overusing' words like 'was' and even 'that' can create a more memorable impression on the reader than not overusing them.

AJ

The word was may help you find these sentences, but it isn't the issue.

Exactly. Just like "ly" adverbs aren't the problem, but may point to the problem. As I said, it's a red flag to look at the sentence.

It's a writing issue called a 'Garden Path' sentence. You can't parse it as you read it, you have to read further ahead then go back and parse it.

AJ

The problem with this sentence is that "with" joins "I" with "Paul working" and "Debbie out with Mary" since it's written as one continuous thought.

I'm not sure that's true, but sometimes the author is not the best judge. To address your comment, I simply flipped the phrases (which got rid of the remaining "was"). So it's now:

With Paul working and Debbie out with Marty, that left me alone often during my Christmas vacation.

As to "show don't tell," this change has nothing to do with that. There is no more "showing" in the revised sentence. It has to do with how "was" can weaken sentence structure. "Was" is a red flag for "telling" when it's used like: "He was angry."

To see how the sentence works with the paragraph it's in, here's the chapter's opening paragraph.

After Debbie and Marty's first date, they went out every night. Some days twice, both during the day and again at night. I had never seen Debbie happier. Marty was older than us, out of school and working like Paul, but unlike Paul, he used his vacation days to be off through New Years Day. I had asked Paul multiple times to take more days off, but he simply shrugged and said he couldn't. With Paul working and Debbie out with Marty, that left me alone often during my Christmas vacation. So when Debbie came to my house before one of her nighttime dates, I was ecstatic. I looked up from my book when she burst into my bedroom.

Thanks for your suggestion. I like the change I made due to your comment.

As a reader (when I enjoy what I'm reading) I never notice the telling vs showing, the "Was" making a sentence weaker, overuse of adjectives

It's like when an author wrote a story using character-driven vs plot-driven. The reader will have no idea which technique the author used. In the end, it would be hard to determine (and who cares?).

The whole idea of the "rules" or principles or techniques for writing fiction is to make the reader enjoy it more. Not for the reader to say, "Wow, this author is great because he didn't use adverbs." In fact, if it takes the reader out of the story, it's bad. The techniques are ways to engage the reader, to engross them in the story, to surprise them, etc.

And techniques change. I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg — if authors start writing differently because readers now like to read differently, or if authors write differently so readers learn to enjoy reading that way more. I've used this example before. My wife has a masters in English Literature and Creative Writing. A few years ago she decided to re-read "Madam Bovary." She liked it way back, but now stopped reading because she found the writing stilted (her word). The novel didn't change, but her reading tastes had.

As to Stephen King and adverbs, you're right, he uses them a lot. I never read his book on writing fiction where that came from, but I assume he wasn't saying adverbs, per se, are bad. When he said "the road to hell is paved with adverbs," I'm assuming he meant putting adverbs on dialogue tags (telling vs showing).

As to "was" in my WIP where this example came from, doing a find on whole word found 3,067 of them in 141,519 words. I'm still writing so I haven't done a heavy edit yet. But I don't set out to eliminate the word "was." I look to see how I used it. And even if I use it to "tell" (rather than "show"), if it should be told and not shown, it's the right word to use.

As to "was" in my WIP where this example came from, doing a find on whole word found 3,067 of them in 141,519 words.

I can see how that would ignore all the occurrences of "swastika" and "wassailing", but wouldn't it also ignore occurrences of "wasn't"? ;-)

AJ

And tiswas and fatwas!

I demand perfection!

AJ

However, with a regular expression it should be possible.

Many years ago I used to be pretty competent at regular expressions. Now I wouldn't even know where to start :-(

We've already initiated a list of inclusions and exclusions and I'm sure there are several cases we haven't thought of. It's not as easy as programming an autonomous car, you know.

PS Bad luck in the quarter finals. I was cheering on Holland - my favourite is the subtitlerly-named 'vander Dog' - but the Dutch manager is an (English) imbecile and the players looked far less fitter than the French. The BBC commentator was struggling for words because most of the French team were non-white so terms like 'power' and 'physicality' were off-limits in case any snowflakes got upset. All the Dutch women with 'van' in their names were white - does that make them the 'white van women'?

AJ

If football isn't your religion, then what is? The wisdom of bearded old men who wore dresses? The US Constitution? Global Warming? ;-)

PS I've just discovered that van der Donk now plays for Olympique Lyonnaise. I thought she was still at Arsenal. Doh!

AJ

Just search for "was" and a space

That wouldn't find "wasn't."

but wouldn't it also ignore occurrences of "wasn't"? ;-)

I found 283 "wasn't".

But the number of "was"s is overstated because it also includes dialogue. And since this story is written in 1st-person, some of the narrative is like dialogue.

But I don't care how many "was"s I have. My goal isn't to eliminate them.

In the absence of a "like" button — LOL