Forum: Author Hangout

intent rather than seizing an opportunity.

also the pace is more even.

I would say the pace is faster in the second, but not more even and the faster pace is not necessarily an improvement.

The larger context matters. Is this a couple with an established intimate relationship, or is it supposed to be a seduction.

In response to the first comment - I find the word and often imposes a small pause in the flow of the text, thus the second version removes that pause for a smoother flow. It's the sort of mild difference between the fractional halt in mid-stride in a funeral march and a normal slow march where the pace pace is a smooth movement all the way through.

In the wider context for the second comment - they've had a number of previous encounters and this is part of a minor orgy scene - the main intent of their sexual encounters is to get her pregnant because her husband can't - yes, he's at the orgy too.

BTW the story this is from is on SoL.

I agree on the difference in meaning

Compare:

I shoot and kill Donald Trump.

with

I shoot to kill Donald Trump.

In the first, Donald Trump dies. In the second, the reader doesn't know.

Replacing 'and' with 'to' changes the meaning and leaves the reader uncertain whether the event actually happens.

AJ

I shoot to kill Donald Trump.

The next sentence will say it all, anyway.

I shoot to kill Donald Trump. However, I only succeed in blowing his balls off.

Compare:

I shoot and kill Donald Trump.

with

I shoot to kill Donald Trump.

In the first, Donald Trump dies. In the second, the reader doesn't know.

The first shows cause and effect, while the second only shows intent, though you're right. I wasn't sure whether the "and" was strictly necessary, figuring I'd offer it as an option. Like most edits, if it doesn't fit the context, he's free to reject it.

To me on the basis of easy of reading and smoothness, yes, there is a slight difference, but it's negligible.

True it's small, but it is an improvement, and when you make one such improvement per 50 to 100 words over a story of over 270,000 words the small improvement in reading and style adds up to the reader liking the story a lot more, which is what I'm after.

"Standing up" is redundant (how else are you going to stand?

You can stand at an angle or a crouch, and going from a squat you can surge up. Standing up means you go to a fully straight upright position, but says it in less words than saying - I stood fully upright.

You can stand at an angle or a crouch, and going from a squat you can surge up. Standing up means you go to a fully straight upright position, but says it in less words than saying - I stood fully upright.

I've never once said "I stood up in a squat." If I stand, I stand upright. If I squat, I'd say "I squatted."

I've never once said "I stood up in a squat." If I stand, I stand upright. If I squat, I'd say "I squatted."

going upwards you can stand from sitting on the floor, but stop in squat position, or go higher to stop in a crouch position, or you can stand almost upright position with the knees bent, or you can stand fully upright with legs and back straight. There are many ways you can talk about moving from the lower position to a high one.

However, this is moving afield from what the topic is about.

going upwards you can stand from sitting on the floor, but stop in squat position, or go higher to stop in a crouch position, or you can stand almost upright position with the knees bent, or you can stand fully upright with legs and back straight. There are many ways you can talk about moving from the lower position to a high one.

Yes, all the different ways you can stand is fascinating (Yawn!), but why does a particular story need to dwell on: "I sat up, rocked to my knees, got one knee up, stood part way up before standing all the way"?

In most cases, you're better off just saying "he stood", rather than giving unnecessary distracting details--unless you're trying to convey something in particular (like an old war wound, or someone's questionable health).

When I say "it's more efficient", I means "it generally doesn't pay to toss out unnecessary text which doesn't advance the story a wit".

"Standing up" is redundant (how else are you going to stand?

Not according to thefreedictionary.com

Stand is sometimes used to say that someone raises their body to a standing position when they have been sitting.

Everyone stood and applauded.

However, you normally say that someone stands up.

The children are supposed to stand up when the teacher comes into the room.
I put down my glass and stood up.

Not according to thefreedictionary.com

The fact of the matter, however it's 'generally used', you can say the same thing, in a more straightforward manner, simply by saying "stood". If you want to say, "he faltered" or "he hesitated", fine. But again, "stood" is cleaner than tossing in an unnecessary "up". How often does anyone "stand down" (other than in the military, where it means something completely different).

But again, "stood" is cleaner than tossing in an unnecessary "up".

I don't know who came up with this fad, but they obviously weren't experienced writers or they would have known that 'clean' has an established meaning.

And in any case they're wrong. 'Standing up' implies action, 'standing' implies continuity. So discarding the word 'up' changes the meaning and introduces unnecessary ambiguity, a common failing of 'minimalism' :(

AJ

And in any case they're wrong. 'Standing up' implies action, 'standing' implies continuity. So discarding the word 'up' changes the meaning and introduces unnecessary ambiguity, a common failing of 'minimalism' :(

Really? "I stood and embraced her" implies he continues doing what he's been doing all along, and leaves you guessing who's doing what? Sorry, but you're full of bullcrap, creating fictitious potential situations to defend your position, rather than dealing with specifics.

I can't remember reading many instances of "standing up" which wouldn't be equally as obviously without the "up".

"I stood and embraced her"

That can mean he stood stile to embrace her as much as anything else. If stood never needs anything else to clarify it;'s usage then the same can be said for stand as well as sit - sat and many other words and you need never need to include words like up, down, still etc to indicate the full position or possible actions.

You can stand up, stand still, stand ready - if stand says it all you never need the still / up / ready to indicate the full situation. The same would be true of sat - be it if you sat down or sat still the word sat is supposedly all you need, according to you. Nor would you need to mention the corner for the naughty person to stand in it.

I don't see how either of you can be adamant that 'up' after the verb 'stand' is correct or incorrect.
My default position would be to leave it out - but I'd be willing to accept almost any reason that including it added to readers' understanding given the context in which it was being used.

That was my position, that "stand" typically means "stand up", and should be used that way unless you're going for something else (another usage) in which case you'd elucidate the distinction (i.e. "stand aside").

By leaving it out when it's unnecessary, you're making it more obvious when you alter the standard usage. My fairly rude retort wasn't over AJ's usage, but over his insistence that readers couldn't tell the difference in usage.

The Secret Service is not going to be thrilled by these postings.

Good, as long as they don't put Chuck Johnson on the case.

The Secret Service is not going to be thrilled by these postings.

Don't be silly, the Secret Service will love them. They wouldn't have a job otherwise.

Of course it won't look so good for me when I'm dragged out of a nice warm bed at zero dark thirty because a Secret Service drone doesn't have a sense of humour. And the one-sided extradition treaty negotiated by Tony 'Bush's Poodle' Blair means I'll be on my way to the US wearing an orange jump suit before dawn :(

AJ

And that's a bad thing? ;)

AJ

I don't think anyone lies up.

Many politicians (I won't name names) lie their way to higher office, or down in infamy.

I don't think anyone lies up.

Don't know about elsewhere, but I've heard people say they'll lay up something to me4an they're storing it for later, often in the context of collecting it for later.

lay up

If you're familiar with the religion of certain states in the U.S. - basketball - you'll also recognize that term.

Typically I've heard lay aside something, with the same context as you said, for doing it later. (I'll lay that aside for now, and get to it when I'm done with this more important task.)

Typically I've heard lay aside something, with the same context as you said, for doing it later.

Where I've heard people say "I'll lay that aside." They mean for now in the short term and will deal with it later today or in the next few days, while when they say something like, "I'll lay up wheat." It means they're storing or stockpiling wheat for several months later, often next eyar or some indeterminate time well in the future. Kind of like 'laying up' supplies in the bunker or storm shelter.

One of the online dictionaries claims the relationship between 'lie up' and 'lay up' is the same as between 'lie' and 'lay'. That sort of makes sense to me, although I'm having difficulty seeing 'lay up' as the past tense of 'lie up'.

AJ

I'm having difficulty seeing 'lay up' as the past tense of 'lie up'.

I usually view lay as signifying action, while lie indicates more of a static state. Although, both have similar meaning and in certain cases they can be used interchangeably. I doubt there is a definite difference between when it is proper to use one word over the other; probably more of a personal choice.

I usually view lay as signifying action, while lie indicates more of a static state. Although, both have similar meaning and in certain cases they can be used interchangeably. I doubt there is a definite difference between when it is proper to use one word over the other; probably more of a personal choice.

No. I spent forever trying to figure lay/lie out.

lie - to recline
lay - to put something down

The problem is caused by the past tense of "lie" being "lay."

"He laid down on the bed" means he took the down out of a down jacket and put it on the bed.

So they don't have similar meanings and cannot be used interchangeably.

However, "lay" is used wrong so many times it's becoming acceptable. People say all the time, "Go lay down" when they mean "Go lie down."

However, "lay" is used wrong so many times it's becoming acceptable.

I agree and feel the same way about insure and ensure.

Unfortunately, dictionaries evolve to document how words are used. The people who decide what goes into a dictionary don't care if the word is being used properly or improperly - if it is a common usage the meaning gets added. We turn to dictionaries to prove the proper meanings and use of words, and we lose for the erroneous usage has become an accepted meaning. :(

I'm having difficulty seeing 'lay up' as the past tense of 'lie up'.

It's not. It's more an idiom, like "My trip to Florida took forever because of a 4 hour lay up in Dallas." Or how about, "I got laid yesterday"? The present tense wouldn't be, "I am getting lie now." It would be, "I am getting laid now."

'I'm going to lie up and hope it all blows over.'
but
'I lay up and hoped it would all blow over.'
just sounds wrong. I might say the former but never the latter.

AJ

My dictionaries suggest lie up is an American usage, and most British speakers would prefer lie in instead, extending its usual meaning of staying in bed later than usual of a morning.

I'm used to it being a synonym of 'hole up', which is very different to 'lie in'. 'Lay up' should be the transitive form. I would use 'lay up' when talking about putting something in safe storage for future use, as per EB's example, which supports that theory. SB's four hour 'lay up' also sounds okay but is not being used as a verb.

AJ

I'm used to it being a synonym of 'hole up'

Whenever I've come across the term 'hole up' it's been used in the context of going to ground and hiding - eg: "We need to hole up, John. Lets find a hole and pull it in after ourselves."

It's not. It's more an idiom, like "My trip to Florida took forever because of a 4 hour lay up in Dallas."

we call that a 'lay over' when you have to hang around to wait for your next flight

I don't think anyone lies up.

It's occasionally used as a synonymy of 'hole up'.

AJ

'Standing outside the bank, the James gang couldn't have been more conspicuous if they tried.' Standing means exactly that - any information as to previous states and actions has to come from context. It doesn't imply that the James gang arose from a sitting/lying position as 'standing up' would.

AJ

any information as to previous states and actions has to come from context.

Exactly - in the original post I started a sentence - Standing up I step ... - and someone said the word up was superfluous and should be deleted, the thread then took on a life of it's own about how you do or don't use the word stand or stood and it's various derivatives.

any information as to previous states and actions has to come from context.

I agree with EB on this one AJ.

By saying "Stand up", EB is defining a motion with the intent being that the person rose to an upright position.

If he were to delete "up", then for clarity, he would have to define the person's prior position which would take an even larger number of words. If the person's specific prior position (e.g., sitting or lying down) is not important to the scene, then that would be a waste of words that would add nothing to the story.

This task has made be a lot more aware of, and have a greater appreciation for, the advice of Kill off your Darlings.

The origin of the sentiment has been attributed to several authorities, but the earliest appears to be Arthur Quiller-Couch, who wrote:

'Whenever you feel an impulse to perpetrate a piece of exceptionally fine writing, obey it—whole-heartedly—and delete it before sending your manuscript to press. Murder your darlings.'

http://www.bartleby.com/190/12.html

None of the authorities use your interpretation, although the definitions presented by one or two bloggers could be stretched that far.

It may be the meaning you were taught at school, but it's a bit confusing to those of us who use the standard interpretation.

AJ