Forum: Author Hangout

EDIT TO ADD: And she's just finished all eight published volumes of Diana Gabaldon's "Outlander" series, where everyone is getting laid almost at a "Game of Thrones" rate, so it's not the sex, even close-up and detailed sex, that put her off.

I don't have the link on this computer, but there was a blog post a few months back written by a Lesbian giving advice to her straight counterparts in regards to sex and dating. It was an interesting read from a straight male perspective.

At least within the experience of that blogger and her Lesbian friends, the rules of dating for them are very different than their straight counterparts. If they're on the prowl for someone new, and not in a relationship and "Want to jump someones bones" the Lesbians will go and do just that. If a relationship ensues, great. If not, well, they got it out of their system and move on. No stigma's for "being one of those girls who put out on the first date."

Their straight counterparts? Not so much. In the case of the blog post, what brought it on was her supposedly just talking to a straight friend who'd been dating a guy for (from memory) something like 6 months, and the entire reason she started going out with him was she wanted to "jump his bones" on sight, but 6 months in, the friend was still agonizing over the decision on whether or not to sleep with him.

The blogger's comment was that her friend was putting her self through an emotional wringer for no real apparent reason. Either the guy "is the one," is the "is the one for now," or he's "the one for right now." If he's the one for right now, having sex on the first date would have probably made it clear then and there, and saved her from a lot of emotional turmoil from there.

Likewise, sex with him on the first date wouldn't preclude him from still being the guy "for now.. or longer." It just removes (the prospect of) sex from being a primary part of the equation in terms of where the relationship develops from there. If it turns out the guy gets hung up on the sex, or you(as the female) do, well, you probably have the answer as to how that relationship is going to play out. Best to get that out in the open and handled at the onset, rather than after having spent months or even years getting yourself "invested" into a relationship that isn't likely to go very far all things considered.

...but that's a huge digression. The point on that was even going from the perspective of a straight woman as to "how things work" in some cases can turn out to be very different to how a lesbian or bisexual may view the same situation. They're likely to be playing by different rules, and the perspectives and roles will be different as a result.

I'll find it eventually. It was the Style Manual (Guide?) for the US Government Printing Office.

Most likely it was 'Manual' since the only 'guide' the military uses is the 'guide-on' for formations. :)

I'd have written it as:

When I worked as a technical writer I mostly wrote Mil-Spec manuals for the US Military. I had an excellent Style Guide which I seem to have misplaced. I'll find it eventually. It was the Style Manual (Guide?) for the US Government Printing Office.

***
To REP
***
Sorry, but Ernest's edits to remove two commas are absolutely correct, at least for a writer of fiction.
You could have commas in those two places, but they would be really stressing the following clause is very important.
It took me a lot of effort to find that many of the commas I was using early on where incorrect.
***
Firstly, my ideas were being corrupted by the only references I could find (those damn Style Guides), which insist commas are needed in various positions that really only apply to technical writers. In fiction they interrupt the readers natural flow from one idea to the next. When revising sentences to eliminate excess words I often conclude a sentence with one extra word, but one extra comma in the alternative, is better left alone.
***
Secondly, for some time I had the mistaken impression that the purpose of punctuation was to guide the reader where to make minor pauses while reading. That is not so. They do that for themselves from the context.
***
Ernest's explanation did not use correct terminology, but he was spot on with his concept of learn how to recognise what constitutes a "sentence fragment", and then learn the valid ways of joining fragments.
***
Commas can become complicated because they have several types of uses. They are used to separate both elements of lists and fragments of sentences. They are also used to separate a series of adjectives. Elements of lists may be anything from simple words to complex clauses. The thing (or one thing?) that makes them a list is that all have equal status in the way they relate the the introduction of the list. The important thing here is to decide whether you prefer to use serial (Oxford) commas or not, and then be consistent in using your choice.
***
What constitutes a sentence fragments can be a bit tricky. There are a few that must ALWAYS be validly separated from the main body of a sentence.
1. Dialogue and all attached attributions. For example: "Stop that!" she yelled furiously and then hit him.
The dialog fragment there ends with "furiously", because the attribution includes the subject and "speaking" verb and any adverbs or adjectives modifying them.
2. Interjections always constitute a separate fragment. That is any extra words just thrown in there with no connection to the main sentence, i.e. the rest of the sentence is unchanged if you remove them completely.
3. All kinds of asides, comments and explanations. If your sentence makes sense if you enclose it in parentheses, then you may use something else (often commas) to separate from the main body of the sentence – but you must use something.
4. There are also independent clauses. That is anything that makes sense if you place a full stop after it.

These are the types of fragments that must be separated, and the first rule is then the need or comma (or something more) unless they have a coordinating conjunction. The mnemonic to remember the most commonly used coordinating conjunctions is BOYFANS - and plus but, or, yet, for, as, nor, so - but anything else that means the same as well. Note there are eight common coordinating conjunctions and they all have only two or three letters.
***
I will not go on to describe introductory clauses and non-restrictive clauses which also require commas in technical writing. In fiction that is not mandatory. I rarely use them for introductory clauses, but usually try to for non-restrictive clauses when I can spot them.
Also, I cannot guarantee everything I've described here is totally accurate – but it is definitely quite close.

***

I apolgise for directing this lengthy lecture at you, much of which I am sure you do already know.
My MAIN REASON for this post is to describe the tool which helped me (finally) understand most of these concepts and get them right most of the time.
***
I downloaded and installed the free software from grammarly.com. It really took no more than clicking on the obvious button half a dozen times. Without doing any more it began checking the grammar of my emails as I was typing. [I think there is an extension for Word, etc., but I have not bothered with that].
***
In only a short time I can see the clarity and correctness of my writing has improved substantially.
I VERY HIGHLY RECOMMEND THE FREE PRODUCT TO OTHERS
***
There are two cautions I suggest to authors of fiction:
1. I almost routinely dismiss its flags for 'comma required after an introductory phrase'. Provided the idea in that clause flows naturally into the main body of the sentence, I let my readers read without insisting they make a pause.
2. I usually, not not always, accept its flags for 'comma unnecessary in a complex sentence', but sometimes leave them so that readers will pause because the next idea is important.

You're never going to find a single definitive reference manual, and it's naive for an author to choose one and treat it as authoritative.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE ...
PLEASE stop assuming that any mention of any guide or resource by someone implies they will slavishly do whatever it specifies.
Is it really necessary that every post containing any mention of any guide or resource must contain detailed caveats that there are no guides that are truly suitable?
Isn't that obvious enough if I say I have used this tool and highly recommend it to others - BUT I almost routinely ignore one type of suggestion it makes, and selectively reject another type.
I was very specific in stating my "rules" mat not be totally accurate, but were close.
I was attempting to describe a principle that commas should be decided on the basis of fragments. For some type of fragments (speech and imperatives) I don't think I have ever seen anything suggesting there is not a right way of doing - but for others they become optional, and some more optional than others (e.g. nonrestrictive usually, restrictive usually not)
I'm not a moron. I don't think anyone here is a moron.
PLEASE give others the benefit of the doubt that they know not to slavishly follow anything.
Almost every time I look up any guide to see what it says, my NEXT question is whether there are good enough reasons to reject what it states for the sentence I am considering.

I put in appropriate commas to aid readers as a matter of routine and it's not wrong to do so.

Can we agree there could be large differences in the number of commas two authors put in the same text without either ever being wrong?

Dear Awnlee,
I expect there really is very little difference between out opinions: that when looking at the same sentence we would rarely differ about where we would always, never, or sometimes place a comma (or some other mark). Your sometimes may be more often than mine currently is, but neither is wrong.
* * *
I expect a short time ago, we probably would have disagreed on a number of the always and never positions. Given the difference in our levels of experience, I presume the consensus among others would (almost) always have been you were right, and I was wrong.
* * *
The purpose of my post was to describe how a newcomer has managed to achieve a level of competence closer to yours. Yes, I am using a software tool, but I always decide whether the suggestions it makes are what I want for this sentence. I know the grammarly.com tool is designed for technical writers, and will often be utterly inappropriate for my informal writing.
* * *
I wrote my post mainly because Ernest mentioned "fragments" in a post to REP about how to avoid systemic overuse or under-use of commas, i.e. not agreeing with us about what is a never, and what is an always.
THAT IS PRECISELY the thing that using grammerly.com has been helped me understand. I think I finally have an understanding of how to identify various types of fragments (e.g. dialogue [plus attribution], dependent and restrictive clauses) and where those start and end.
It has helped me identify points where something is needed to join fragments. The possible options are usually limited and I make my artistic choices in each individual case.
* * *
My purpose was not to instruct experienced writers about what is right or wrong: it was to describe the experience of one relative newcomer - for other relative newcomers - the process I used that helped improve my writing.

Please continue to share your learning experiences. Others, including myself, are or have been in the same position.

Thank you for that encouragement.
To summarise my experience, I found it very helpful to have tool stating: In this sentence, a technical writer would be required to do such and such - and THEN making my decision as a human writing informally.

Personally, I agree that engaging in sex removes the issue of when to have sex,. I disagree with the concept(Blogger's or yours) of having sex making the determination of where the relationship will go clearer. Engaging in sex adds elements to the equation and distorts both parties view of the relationship.

Looking at the blog again, I summarized poorly. Here's the link:

http://elitedaily.com/dating/using-sex-to-manipulate-men/1496297/

When I started dating women in my early 20s, I experienced a shift in logic. In my experience, there's no stigma about having sex early in a relationship between two women. I've had sex early on and I've waited several months, but regardless of the timeline, sex isn't needed to rope the ladies into wanting something more.

But after 30 years on the Earth, I've realized that if anyone, boy or girl, authentically likes you, they won't neglect you after you have sex with them.

Ladies, you are not just a vagina. You have far more to offer than sex. The right guy won't feel like he's "done with you" after he has sex with you. He will feel like he's just starting to get to know you.

Men have sex with women they 'like' but do not 'love' all the time. Those relationships often end after the first sexual encounter; where do you think the term 'One Night Stand' came from. In other cases, the man, woman, or both use the other for sex until one of them tires of the other or one of them decides to end a relationship that is going nowhere.

From the gist of her blog, I think she's fine with the idea of one night stands.

As to sex being a variable in relationships, yes it is. It's a trope for some writers with regards to "terrible personality, but amazing in the sack."

However, it does remove the promise or prospect of sex from the table. Which allows the other things to develop more on their own.

The best cure for that, is to put the story aside and let your brain percolate in peace while you focus on other things. I'd suggest writing something else until you have a better grasp on the subject matter. I typically put most of my stories aside for months until I've worked out the major story issues.

Oh in this case, it's largely self-doubt. I have few doubts that if I sat down and started to write it, the thing would flow quite freely. The concern, and self-doubt, comes into play in regards to being able to write a convincing female Main Character within that context.

This particular story has been rattling around for well over a decade, and it's acquired a rather significant amount of "head canon" over those years. There still are a few other issues I've been kicking around that have more to do with the world setting than the character herself, but she's rather intimidating in her own right.

I'm actually not a believer in the whole cultural appropriation thing, so I'm going to write about anyone or anything I want to write about. That said, like others I want to produce the best thing I can.

Oh, I'm not too concerned about the cultural appropriation thing either. If anything, I'm a big fan of "Out of many, one" expression and the implied cultural melting pot concept of the United States, which ironically enough, one its face is staunchly against Multi-culturalism when you consider it fully. So in that respect I'm all FOR cultural appropriation in that context. I'll take(appropriate) whichever aspects of another culture or "lifestyle" I find to be desirable, and make it my own, and to hell with everyone else.

After all, that is the quintessential part of the "melting pot" when speaking in terms of metallurgy in that time frame. The metals that didn't "burn off" in that state should make what survives stronger. (Of course, in the modern age of alloys, we know that isn't completely the case, and sometimes the reverse can be true, but the concept itself still stands fairly well: Test everything about your own culture, test everything about different cultures, evaluate honestly. Take the best that is offered between the options, discard anything that doesn't "measure up.")

Now as to the other context of "cultural appropriation," where we're talking caricatures of various cultures and ethnicities, and portraying them in overly negative ways. That is something I'm agreeable to correcting the relevant misconceptions, but not to outright banning well-intentioned albeit misguided efforts to show some form of respect towards those groups.