Forum: Author Hangout

Now the movie "Courage Under Fire" gave a different account of a scene from different viewpoints, but that was intertwined in the investigation. That was interesting.

I've seen that technique used successfully, but it's often told in flashbacks, so instead of the same scene being repeated, each flashback provides more detail about the initial scene, which was never fully explained beforehand. That way, the author doesn't simply rehash old details, but reveals information relevant to the investigation. It's also a favorite for psychological stories, where the MC may not remember details accurately (though remaining unsure about their guilt or innocence).

However, flashbacks are another technique which is difficult to master.

Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon retold the same event, a murder, from the viewpoints of four people. It is considered one of the great movies of all time.

That any writer's worst critics are other writers including themselves.

I really critique my writing and stories, but my editors make me look like a beginner in criticising the writing.

Most of the time its to try and improve your skills for future stories.

True, but also take what I've learned and go back over the stories I've written to see if I can polish them up a bit more. The end result is they become an easier read. The other aspect is the many threads discussing how to write and craft a story also leave me thinking about ways and means to do better in the next story, and also help me to not try to use ways that don't appear to work.

The other aspect is the many threads discussing how to write and craft a story also leave me thinking about ways and means to do better in the next story, and also help me to not try to use ways that don't appear to work.

I think education is only half learning how to do things, the other half being what NOT to try in the first place. That's why the school of hard knocks has such a high attendance, but such a low graduation rate.

I think you might be conflating two things, though it's understandable why you would. Switching viewpoints during a scene, even with some overlapping content, isn't quite the same as retelling the scene from a different point of view. There probably are cases where the latter would work, but they're rare.

I may not have been as clear as I should have been. I was not referring to a change in point of view. For example:

"He walked into the room and headed straight for the bar and poured himself a scotch. And another.

"She watched him from her seat in the corner beside the dresser. She saw that he'd evidently missed the shoes peeking from beneath the curtain and the revolver barrel slowly extending from between the folds of the curtain, because if he had noticed he surely would have done something about it.

"As it turned out it didn't matter. The figure behind the curtain tripped and fell flat tangled up in the fabric, and one quick swing with the bottle of scotch was enough to keep him quiet until the police arrived.

"Shame about the scotch, however."

There you go. Three points of view (two 3rd limited, one 3rd universal). [EDIT: Oops. It's really one 3rd universal and one 3rd limited.] Moves the plot forward. No significant repetition. No sweat.

No, I referred to the practice, often in first-person but not always, when one character narrates the scene, and then a second character narrates the scene (or a chapter with one or more scenes---doesn't matter) but the second character does not tell us anything new.

EDIT: In other words, it's a change in point of view, yes, but not one that advances the plot or tells us anything important that we hadn't already learned.

So I asked if anyone had seen it done successfully and why it worked.

I confess I don't get the idea of chapters alternating between authors (why?), but am always up for seeing it done well.

In addition to it not generally being identical scenes, having separate authors made each character's voice feel distinct.

George R. R. Martin does this in Game of Thrones, where each chapter is from the point of view of a different character, and sometimes cover the same scene, but not often.

bb

Some are blindly stuck in the standards of the traditional dead tree publishers, while others see that the space here is largely free, that there is little cost but effort, and see little to no value in being deliberately economical with words.

My wife is deep into the Outlander series by Diana Gabaldon, and now the TV series as well. Gabaldon has done eight volumes so far, c. 800 pages each, with a ninth and tenth promised. To hear my wife tell it, every detail (and there are a gazillion and a half of them) matters.

To me it's beginning to sound like Gabaldon keeps thinking up messes for the two, Claire and Jamie, to get into, and she's mining 18th century Scottish and American histories to do it.

One will need more than one's garden-variety sex story, no matter how many guys and gals get boffed or how far back into prehistoric times they go, to capture a dead tree publisher's interest, however.

OTOH historical costume romances continue to be big. If the sex is very very good---and according to my spouse in Outlander it is, in the books as well as the TV series---so much the better.

bb

Connecting words make sentences longer and more liable to mistakes

They also require more mental gymnastics to figure out. Breaking one long complex sentence into several short simple sentences is almost always more efficient, simply because each sentence conveys a single idea. If the reader is obligated to carry one idea across several subtopics, it wears on them and they tend to get distracted and miss the point.

That's why I often set the mostly arbitrary limit of 20 word sentences. I'll allow longer sentences if it's needed, but I find I can usually prune them without hurting the story, and they end up working better.

Personally, I find that kind of writing outside of fast paced action scenes to be very annoying, it feels as if the writer is insulting my intelligence.

Again, I'm not applying it willy-nilly, but just to my longest sentences (those over 20-30 words), and only then if the sentences can stand alone without losing something. I didn't come to this realization lightly, as I've always written complicated sentences. It's one of my signature styles, but I've learned the story is strengthened by reviewing the sentences and paring a few of them down.

However, like Ross, I question your utter refusal to even consider such a step. You don't need to focus on it as intently as us, but your utter rejection of the concept seems a bit ... absolute. I wonder what you mother did to you as a child to cause such a response now?

As far as slowing down the pace, I typically do that with reflective passages, where the characters reflect on the meaning of events, rather than on recording specific actions and events. Those sections do include much longer sentences, but they also become more difficult to decipher, thus my concern when I encounter them.

However, to balance our argument about this topic, I've whittled down my writing style significantly, discovering I couldn't edit my stories down in size, so I decided to write using fewer words. That's helped my writing style, but readers aren't as happy (my scores have generally been down since I adopted it). I'm addressing it by increasing my chapter sizes and exploring more 'slow, reflective passages', so all too much focus on 'efficiency' isn't ideal. Instead, it's a learning process. You eventually realize you've got to learn a new way to compose sentences, and you go overboard, only to pull back once you realize the effects the changes have. However, I'm still glad I've struggled with it as much as I have, because I'm slowly becoming the author I eventually want to be.

In my opinion, it almost never, by itself, makes writing bad. On my top ten list of things that make for bad writing (as a reader) it's number 28.

Okay, in that case, since it's specifically #28, I've gotta ask, what's #29 (just so I can compare it to my own imaginary scale so we can argue about your valuation).

You call my rejection absolute, yet I see not one tiny speck of moderation in your descriptions of this step.

In mine, I use my 'arbitrary limit' as a guide, rather than as a rule. It simply notes something that's worth checking to ensure there isn't an issue, rather than something that has to be changed.

When did reviewing chapters and making revisions become an unpardonable sin? I'm not saying you can't write long, complex sentences, or that they necessarily need to be modified, just that it's worth considering.

@Ross

They are the very chapters I did read and my inner editor approved of so highly.
If you're saying you now think your sentences were too long, I had no problems reading them.

Thanks a lot. Essentially, you're echoing what my readers seem to be saying in their scores, that DS is right and that I'm obsessing over something they have no issues with.

I'd like to think all this effort is paying off in the long run.

On the plus side, while my scores have dropped, my book sales and positive reviews have climbed, so it's a bit of a mixed bag. Instead, I see it as more a reflection that I like tackling difficult topics and oddball techniques which don't always pan out.

I'm not saying you can't write long, complex sentences

Except every time you say it, that's exactly what it sounds like you're saying.

Every time I've said it, I've specifically said that I use the 20+ word sentences as a warning to review the sentences for issues, NOT that I replaced every single instance. Long complex sentences isn't a sin, but it's a sign the sentences might be confusing and thus it's good to review them. That's ALL I said! It's only a warning sign, not a flag to change the sentence.

By the way, my general rule is OVER 25 words, though while I'm at it, I'll often casually check anything over 20 words too, though they aren't as likely to indicate anything.

P.S. That's why I was commenting on your 'absolute' refusal to consider it, because I was saying 'watch for this', and you seemed to be arguing "NEVER, EVER modify any sentence whatsoever".

No, I was arguing that using length in and of itself as a criteria for when or why to modify is silly.

Sadly it seems to be the trendy thing to do for the next ten minutes. Some of the so-called 'writing experts' are snake-oil peddlers, inventing imaginary wrongs that novice writers 'must' correct or they won't get published.

A certain supposed expert has written a book entitled 'The Word Loss Diet'. They kept getting rejected by publishers and took some 20 years to realise it was because they were too wordy. They still haven't been published - the book is a self-published e-book. Physician heal thyself!

AJ

In my case, I used to write towards an equally imaginary goal of 6,000 words per chapter, and would then try to edit down. However, while many here on the forum comment on how they typically cut 30+% off each chapter they're first revision, I was lucky if I could trim 15%.

Fearing such lengthy novels (350,000 words) would hurt my success in the broader market, I eventually decided the only way to write shorter novels was to write more concisely (i.e. not allowing my writing to get out of hand initially).

Most readers want books that engage them and that they can finish quickly (so it doesn't interfere with their busy lives). This runs counter to the SOL mantra, where many readers are retired and have plenty of idle time to read, especially since they mostly read a single chapter at a time, and prefer investing significant time in each chapter.

However, as I said, I went from one extreme (too many words) to another (too short of chapters that were 'event driven' and skimped on the necessary 'reflective' chapters that tend to define the characters). I didn't avoid reflective passages, but focusing on 'events' kept me focused on those singular events, rather than just writing until I hit an imaginary limit.

The strategy worked, to an extent. My writing grew strong (in my opinion) as my review grew more glowing, though my scores dropped (not substantially, but my scores were my lowest). After reflecting on how to address the issue, I moved to 'a day in the life' chapters, which simply advanced the story a day at a time. That kept the writing concise, while also allowing the characters to slow down and compose themselves. However, at this point, I won't see how successful this latest style is for another couple books, as I've still got another book (Zombie Leza) to post in the interim. It'll be interesting to see whether readers respond positively, and whether I get more (or fewer) positive reviews.

while many here on the forum comment on how they typically cut 30+% off each chapter they're first revision, I was lucky if I could trim 15%.

I usually find my chapters increase in length after editing. But then I'm a readability nazi and I'm constantly concerned whether the reader can discern who is speaking or who is doing what to whom.

I read a two person dialogue scene on SOL yesterday in which the author omitted dialogue tags after identifying the initial speaker. All seemed to be going well, following the one speaker per paragraph convention, until towards the bottom of the screen, Speaker A said something that only Speaker B could have known. I worked back, having been ejected from the story, trying in vain to find where I had gone wrong. I think it's bad writing if even the author loses track of whose turn it is to speak.

I also read part of a dead tree book. One action scene was indecipherable because there were lots of hes and hims flying around and it was difficult to work out which referred to whom. (I wonder whether it was a hack translation job - does Swedish have more cases than English?)

Most readers want books that engage them and that they can finish quickly

Those objectives are contrary. A short story with terse writing does not allow for sufficient character development for readers to identify with the participants.

AJ

All seemed to be going well, following the one speaker per paragraph convention, until towards the bottom of the screen, Speaker A said something that only Speaker B could have known. I worked back, having been ejected from the story, trying in vain to find where I had gone wrong. I think it's bad writing if even the author loses track of whose turn it is to speak.

Please, everyone, let's not start a discussion on the following subject again.

AJ,

If you can, please check the story where you say you lost track of the speakers. One thing I've noticed (and had a lot of heated discussion on) is some SoL authors use the Quotation Convention of no end apostrophe (quote mark) when they have multiple paragraph dialogue by one speaker. The lack of the punctuation mark is hard to spot most of the time. Nor does it help when they have do that with short paragraphs because there's a slight change of subject by the same speaker and they make it a new paragraph instead of keeping it as one.

...................

As I said, no need to discuss the rights or wrongs of this here, just asking AJ to check if that's what happened.

I mean, I thought we all agreed, eventually, when the convention is required and how to use it when required, BUT it is always wrong to write in a way that requires its use (except, perhaps, in speeches that are hundreds of words long, and still with extreme care).

To EB, I will delete this post and drop the subject forever if anyone suggests we did not all end up in complete agreement. ;)

Er hmm, I still use the dropped quote method frequently, and although I've had readers comment on others sections as being 'confusing', I've never gotten a complaint that readers got lost because of a dropped quote.

(Not to belabor the point, just reminding everyone that we did not agree that the use of dropped quotes is a bad idea. Ernest didn't like it because he wasn't exposed to it, and thus found it more distracting than useful. According to most American (and many European) authors, they have no problems with it.)

But attributions in general can be problematic. If you have multiple people speaking at once, it gets confusing even when you can see who's speaking. Then, many authors try to eliminate the constant duplication of names in close proximity, often exacerbating the problem (mia culpa).

Ernest's solution is to rely on 'action identifiers', where you break paragraphs with actions which indirectly identify the speaker, which helps and also aleves the constant "he said" repetitions.

As a reader, I'm involved in the story and normally don't notice if a paragraph had or did not have an opening or closing quotation mark. Once a speaker is identified, I normally rely on what is being said to determine when the speaker's dialog has ended. I then rely on the author identifying who has taken up the dialog. The new content is often enough to identify the new speaker, but in a multi-speaker exchange it is best to add a "John said" identifier. But, this convention can become distracting in two-speaker dialog that has short passages.

Thus, as a writer I am not hung-up on which convention is correct for they both seem to work; the selected convention's application is better in some stories than other. Personally, I like and use the dropped quote convention. Mostly because it is what I am accustomed to seeing and I think it gives the reader a signal as to who is speaking if they missed the other signals the author gave them.

no end apostrophe (quote mark) when they have multiple paragraph dialogue by one speaker

I've been caught out by that many times so I always check.

AJ

I think it's bad writing if even the author loses track of whose turn it is to speak.

AJ, the problem doesn't sound as if it is related to whose turn it is to speak.

It seems more likely that the author knew what B would do and added it to the story prior to B doing it.

I've done it while reviewing and updating a story, because I forgot where I was in the story's timeline. Fortunately, I seem to have found my mistakes before posting my stories. At least, no one has pointed that out as one of my errors.

the author knew what B would do and added it to the story prior to B doing it

I've seen a few of those but no, I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case on this occasion.

AJ

A certain supposed expert has written a book entitled 'The Word Loss Diet'. They kept getting rejected by publishers and took some 20 years to realise it was because they were too wordy. They still haven't been published - the book is a self-published e-book. Physician heal thyself!

Most of the 'how to write' books on the market fit into this category as they're largely written by unsuccessful (often 'never-published' authors). Alternatively, many moderately successful authors books seemed focused less on encouraging authors than to limit competition (by suggesting they do things almost guaranteed to limit their sales).

One of the best books in the field, by Steven Kind, was written largely because he was SO successful, he really didn't care how well other authors succeeded!

You are one of the few writers I've found on the site whose language does NOT get my inner editor jumping up and down, and wanting to take a chainsaw to all the superfluous words I spot. ;)

In that case, I suggest you check out the first chapters in my early stories, either "Catalyst" ("An Unknown Attraction") or "The Great Death" ("Love and Family During the Great Death"), and compare my earlier techniques with my newer style. You may be surprised at the differences.

I've never read any of your stories, but thanks for the warning. I would not want to read anything written by someone who holds the views you appear to be expressing.

Play nice, boys. You can respectfully disagree without insulting each other. That's how bridges get burned (or lunatics elected).

If the meaning is not change one iota by removing them, then it is not changed by leaving them in. Removing them does not and can not reduce confusion.

Basically this is true, but not always so.

It really comes down to how relevant it is to the story. As a classic example was a scene in Shiloh - the original took about 1,000 words to describe a room in fine detail. After discussion with The Scot he reduced the description to about 150 words because all the fine detail of the cloth patterns wasn't relevant to the story and the long flowery descriptions only detracted from the story.

In short, what you write has to be relevant and not detracting.

it is the hooks which keep a reader returning. They don't have to be at a chapter end - they could be in a prior chapter and simply mentioned from time to time.

That's what the overarching main story conflict does. As each mini-conflict is resolved, you reinforce the major conflict, reminding readers what's at stake. That doesn't require dangling someone off a cliff or tying them to a railroad track. Sometimes, a simple reminder somewhere in the chapter about the grander conflict keeps it in readers' minds.

Sometimes, a simple reminder somewhere in the chapter about the grander conflict keeps it in readers' minds.

Example:

Tom watched the car burn with the two assassins trapped inside, grinned, stood, and walked away while thinking, That's two of the killers down, only eighty-four left to find and eliminate.

That lets you know this chapter about 2 executions is finished and the main plot to eradicate the terrorist group is still going on.

It's only here at SoL have I seen it applied to fictional character dialogue

While I agree that the prior discussion should not be brought up again, I disagree with it being a convention only used here at SOL. All you have to do is pickup a paperback novel and you will see it used elsewhere.

All you have to do is pickup a paperback novel and you will see it used elsewhere.

I've thousands of paperback novels and I'd not seen it used in them. As I said in my previous post It's only here at SoL have I seen it ...

edit to add - If you've seen it elsewhere it may be used by publishers or authors I don't read.

I've thousands of paperback novels and I'd not seen it used in them.

I checked about 8, but not all, of my favorite authors EB. John Dalmas uses the dropped quote convention. There may be other authors that use the convention that I do not read - keep in mind that 8 out of thousands of professional authors is not a decent statistical sample.

The remaining 7 authors avoid the issue. When the have a series of pure dialog paragraphs, they use Ping-Pong dialog. When they do extend a character's dialog more than one paragraph, they generally place the dialog first and follow it with narrative, which requires the use of a closing quote. Thus they avoid placing themselves in a situation where they may have to use the dropped quote method of continuing dialog over several paragraphs.

Most professional authors may choose to not use the dropped quote convention, but it is used by at least one well-known author.

Most professional authors may choose to not use the dropped quote convention, but it is used by at least one well-known author.

I suspect your sample consisted predominantly of recent authors. If you go back to the classics, I think you'll find speechifying and dropped quotes occurring far more frequently (along with prolix descriptions of guns above mantlepieces which never get fired.) :)

AJ

While I agree that the prior discussion should not be brought up again, I disagree with it being a convention only used here at SOL. All you have to do is pickup a paperback novel and you will see it used elsewhere.

@Ernest

I've thousands of paperback novels and I'd not seen it used in them. As I said in my previous post It's only here at SoL have I seen it ...

If you've seen it elsewhere it may be used by publishers or authors I don't read.

As I pointed out earlier, the anti-dropped quote crowd all seem to reside in Australia, so I'm guessing the publishers there don't use it, for whatever reason. They also don't seem to teach it, so chances are, they only import books from publishers who also don't use it.

I asked before whether it's usage is regional, but it seems restricted to Australia (and possible nearby New Zealand, as well). That's fine, just as long as we all realize the difference in usage.

As I pointed out earlier, the anti-dropped quote crowd all seem to reside in Australia, so I'm guessing the publishers there don't use it, for whatever reason.

I doubt that statement is relevant since about 50% of my novels are printed by US publishers and shipped in and about 45% are printed by UK publishers and shipped in with the remaining 5% being Aussie published.

I doubt that statement is relevant since about 50% of my novels are printed by US publishers and shipped in and about 45% are printed by UK publishers and shipped in with the remaining 5% being Aussie published.

I understand that (and knew about it). That's why I added the qualifier. If it's not an accepted practice in Australia, it would make sense the Australian distributors would favor publishers more ideal to the Australian tastes. Although I'm not sure which Style Guides each American and UK publisher uses, I'm sure there are several which don't emphasize the dropped quote. The fact that YOU haven't seen them doesn't mean that no one anywhere else in the world doesn't use the standard, as everyone here on the forum can attest.

However, we're getting into the very argument we were all hoping to avoid. Let's just say that Australians don't like it, while it's preferred in America (with Europeans somewhere in the middle) and leave it at that.

I am surprised EB says he thinks the convention was not used in many printed novels he has read.

I t may be genre related. However, I suspect it's more to do with the writing styles I read a lot of science fiction and action novels - most of the scifi is from G W Campbell era and the like - long dialogues by one speaker aren't common in them, thus it may just be either the authors didn't use them or never used them or short dialogues.

In the UK, I was brought up to use dropped quotes. I'm used to spotting them in long speeches. However, in multi-person dialogue scenes they're easy to miss so I prefer avoidance measures like you use.

I have to wonder about the use of long speeches in contemporary fiction. Some of them are infodumps, IMO a sign of weak writing. Others are Mary Sue-related - my protagonist is President of the United States and this is my rallying speech that would get the electorate behind me - but the results are usually cringeworthy.

Are there any good reasons for long speeches?

AJ

Who is this Mary Sue you keep mentioning?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue

Are there any good reasons for long speeches?

I've discussed this before, but I'll often follow up a fast-paced action scene with a long, slower, more reflective chapter where everyone discusses what the latest encounter was about, what it means and how it impacts their efforts. This often occurs when an attack occurs from out of left field, and the various characters have no idea when provoked it. Likewise, in sci-fi, when they observe an unknown technique used in combat they've never witnessed before, and they're trying to understand what they're dealing with and how to counter it.

That's not an 'info dump', it's simply an open discussion (where each party is allow to expand at length). It's more of a brain-storming session, with various characters throwing out ideas with the various people countering when the proposed idea doesn't work (and incidently, the author can throw out lots of red herrings and precursors of what's to come without revealing their intent).

It's also a great opportunity to allow the different characters to vent their true feelings, allowing readers to get a better feel for both each character, as well as the overall group dynamic (who's in, who's out, who disagrees with who, etc.) As previously stated, it also allows the reader to recover and process what happened during a particularly confusing chapter.

No. That suggests there are differences of opinion about when it must be used.

Where in "don't like it" is there any inference concerning "when it must be used"? There is NO time when it "MUST be used"! It's another stylistic tool. All I was suggesting is that it seems many of the authors (and editor) from Australia all seemed to be unfamiliar/uncomfortable with using it. End of story!

Not every publisher requires the use of the drop quote (or any other style guideline) from what I've been able to observe. They're simply guidelines, NOT rules. What's more, it's easy to work around. It's easy enough to do as Ernest does, if one speakers dialogue runs over a single paragraph, simply break to something else requiring a new (or alternative) dialogue attribute. Presto-Chango! There's suddenly no need to fret about it any more (even if you adhere to it in the first place.

If a particular population is uncomfortable using something, for whatever reason, there's no need for the rest of us to force it down their throats.

As far as your not noticing it's use, that's because many of these style guidelines are subtle. They're designed so they're virtually invisible, and readers intuitively figure out what they mean (thus few readers get confused when encountering them in establish novels). When they do get confused, is on a site like SOL, where every reader second guesses the author, assuming they have know idea what they're doing. While that may be true in select cases, it's fairly presumptive to assume everyone else is a moron, and only you contain the collection wisdom of all mankind. (That was referring to the generic you, Ross. It wasn't directed at you personally.)

I only brought the dropped quote up because I felt the opinions of others were being run over roughshod (by assuming that everyone avoids using the guideline ever chance they get). However, I now see it's one of those red-flag discussion which can never be raised on this forum, lest everyone lose their collective minds over it.

So please, I apologize for broaching the subject. Let's put this to bed since the various sides will NEVER ever agree on it.

Years ago when I did an advanced writing course at the tertiary level one item that was explained in clear detail was the many ways you can quote from a text book and from a speaker. The professor also emphasized the point when you quote someone (either speech or written work) you have to cite the person's name and the work if written or where they gave the speech and if you can't cite it properly you can't display it as a quote, but can present it as paraphrasing something they wrote or said. Another point made was the only time you can quote yourself is when you cite something you wrote in another published work and you quote and cite it in the normal way.

As has been noted earlier (in other threads), you're conflating non-fiction guidelines with fictional guidelines, where fiction tends to have more specific uses which don't necessarily jibe with those of non-fiction. As you've noted, using the term "quote" for both tends to sow confusion, though if you don't take the term literally, you can see how they essentially follow the same guideline.

The problem with many discussions here and elsewhere (in literary circles), is when we get overly literally. NOTHING about literature is written in stone! You can make anything work in fiction, if you can pull it off. I've read very successful novels that avoid any punctuation, that abandon capitalizing names, or do other things no one else would even attempt. So let's quit demanding that EVERYONE must follow the letter of the law in every argument.

(Just as an aside, Ernest, (though this is likely to open an entirely new can or worms), your "citing quotation" argument for dialogue, while misguided, explains indented text, which drops ALL quotes! It doesn't account for the dropped quote rule, which only avoids some closing quote marks.)

why are the authors not using the convention?

Because its use is likely to result in confusion by some readers. That is reason enough.

Or, more simply, because many authors dislike extended monologues (one character speaking for multiple paragraphs). In most works of fiction, it's simply unnecessary. If you don't need to use it, there's little reason to go out of your way to invent excuses for it.

For me, I typically have a main characters trying to unravel the mysteries of the universe, and periodically have to explain to their follows what's happening and how it works. For complex situations, that often takes a while.

The only reason I made my comment to EB is that he chose to express his personal opinion as a fact (i.e., SOL is the only place the convention is used). I chose to show that the convention is used by authors other than SOL authors.

REP _ the fact I stated was SoL is the only place I've seen it used. That doesn't mean it can't have been used by others elsewhere, just I haven't seen it done.

Noted. I came across different when I read it.

Noted. I came across different when I read it.

No worries. Outside of what's needed in a fiction story I tend to be very exact and pedantic in the use of the English language unless I make a typo that changes what I meant to say.

Yeah, and many of use read things into what is written and contribute thing to the writer that the writer never intended.

Why can't I make a statement like, 'Always use correct grammar', without some Nazi jumping down my throat insisting there are exceptions!

I'm sorry, but there are exceptions to that rule! :)

It is equally easy to use "rarely" or even "rarely if ever"

Or "not always", "occasionally" or "sometimes". There's really no reason to always resort to absolute terms. We're authors, damn it. Why are we unable to utilize a Thesaurus?