Forum: Author Hangout

It doesn't quite suit my intentions. The maximum length of text it can analyse at once is only 1,000 words.

I uploaded a 5500 word file (54 KB) and it processed it.

My Gunning-Fog index was 7.1, close to easy. Their own custom readability index rated me at 57.1, much further from easy.

After I finish the first draft, I really must do something about that 59 word sentence ;)

AJ

It's at sporkforge.com/text/word_count.php

I ran 12 chapters (27K words) of my WIP novel through it (as well as through several of the others). I simply don't see the utility of the tool.

I noticed an author had used the word 'like' 19 times in one chapter. When I pointed this out he was able to reduce them down to 4.

I feel sorry for young Jesse in Penguintopia's epic. He's only able to speak in questions and exclamations.

Elmore Leonard's Rule 5 says 'Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.' ;)

AJ

I feel sorry for young Jesse in Penguintopia's epic. He's only able to speak in questions and exclamations.

Elmore Leonard's Rule 5 says 'Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.' ;)

What! How rude! How dare they! I object! said all four defense lawyers in response to the prosecutor's statement.

I think you owe us nearly 200,000 more words of prose. Or 200 pictures. ;)

Oh, heck, what now? - repeat 100,000 times

Elmore Leonard's Rule 5 says 'Keep your exclamation points under control. You are allowed no more than two or three per 100,000 words of prose.' ;)

When the world is about to end in twenty minutes, and your mortal enemy is trying to thwart your every move, it's hard not throwing in a few more exclamation marks. However, if you're talking about someone's day in school where they study English composition, then three is more than enough. 'D

I noticed an author had used the word 'like' 19 times in one chapter. When I pointed this out he was able to reduce them down to 4.

When I ran the 12 chapters of my WIP, I found the words I used a lot were pronouns, the protagonist's name, and words like "the," "a," "and," etc.

the protagonist's name

3rd person viewpoint!

AJ

3rd person viewpoint!

yes, 3rd-limited.

and another word is "had" for the past perfect sentences.

this tool is useless for authors of fiction.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm used to not writing words like "just" and "very" and "that." And "was" is a red flag for me. I could be telling (vs showing) or more likely using the "-ing" verb when it should be the "-ed" one. But I trained myself to recognize that.

And I don't need a tool to tell me I used the same word in proximity. I hear it when I edit.

But that's me. It's not a useless tool for fiction authors, especially new ones.

ETA: And I started as a programmer before moving to DBA and then IT management. So I'm very analytical. For example, I can't have a golf or bowling instructor who wants me to "feel" it. I need to know the mechanics.

Most good authors know those are words they should be eliminating quite frequently from their writing.

Who taught you that and what justification did they give?

AJ

Who taught you that and what justification did they give?

Using "that" or "just" is the literary equivalent of using "uh ..." in conversations, it's a bad habit author's use while they're trying to compose their thoughts mid-sentence. Thus the entire story reads better if you take those 'hesitation pauses' out of the story.

That response is what I was hoping to avoid. I'd like to see some science justifying that assertion.

AJ

That response is what I was hoping to avoid. I'd like to see some science justifying that assertion.

Here we go again ...

Literature is NOT a scientific field. There are no protocols to follow, deviations to run and no objective tests to determine where a single sentence/technique is 'legitimate' or not.

You keep insisting that anyone suggesting anything you dislike to offer some objective, documented "PROOF", but no such thing exists. Hell, there are plenty of literary experts who'll point out every single error Shakespeare or Stephen King makes, that doesn't make their techniques 'invalid'.

If you don't want to do what others choose to, fine, but don't flush the entire discussion because you think such things are 'beneath' you! No one cares whether you approve of these techniques or not. Use "like" as many times as you like like like. No one gives a flying frig!

Literature is NOT a scientific field.

On the contrary, it's possible to test assertions like the one you came up with. Present two randomised sets of readers with two otherwise identical texts, except strip out all the thats from one of them. Time how long it takes the readers to read them. Then give them a comprehension exercise to test how well they retained what was written. Compare the results. If your assertion is justified, then you'd expect the that-lite text to be read faster and/or comprehended better.

AJ

A lot of this kind of advice seems to be predicated on claims/assumptions about how readers react to certain things. Reactions that would fall into the realm of psychology which at least claims to be a science.

I'm not demanding anything, but it would be interesting to see research done on whether there is any validity to those claims or not.

There actually have been some scientific research into a couple of claims, however, since there's no organized literary approval organization, those studies have all been conducted by others, generally by corporations researching their own business writings (I worked for a company in the 1980s/90s) who did this. As such, there is no one who is going to fund anything at all related to fiction writing.

If you happen to have a spare million to invest in researching such minutia, then go ahead and start one yourself (I'm referring to Awnlee now, not you D.S.). But he knows that he's talking out of his ass, as his criticisms are entirely designed to shut down conversations he somehow sees as personal attacks against him as an author.

I have no idea where he comes up with such paranoid fantasies, but what those varied claims are based on is the same thing that most Style Guides are based on (which, by the way, are also paid for by private organizations), and that is it's based on the accumulated knowledge and life experiences of tens of thousands of authors, editors and publishers, who've learned which techniques produce the best results.

You may not want to follow such advice, but when other successful authors say "I've done this, and consider it essential to my success", I pay attention. Again, there's nothing that says that Awnlee must abide by the results, but it IS a valid technique that's worth discussing, especially by those looking to solve problems in their writing.

You sirs (Awnlee and D.S.) are the climate deniers of the literary world. Even though you're unlikely ever to make a name for yourselves (in the publishing world, at least) you continue to find any excuse to reject the accumulated knowledge of others, labeling it 'false news' and lies, as you seek to shut down the honest collection of data and insight by those hungry for the truth.

So get off your pretentious box tops and stop attacking anyone curious about the process of writing. You AREN'T helping anyone, and you are only labeling yourselves as incredibly tiny people!

I will admit that I was disruptive in the past, but "reject the accumulated knowledge of others" was never what I was trying to do. And I HAVE made some adjustments to the way I write out of these discussions.

I'll admit, you've been much more reasonable, especially lately. I'm mostly still dealing with my frustrations which have accumulated from these repeated discussions which haven't really led anywhere.

No one expect you to blindly 'accept' any of these ideas, but many of us are interested in exploring them to see whether they pan out. There is no guaranteed pay off, but many of us are convinced by what we've seen so far. While there's little 'proof' that reducing duplicate words will suddenly make someone 'fall in love' with your story, the thinking is that trimming the fat by removing unnecessary or duplicate words removes common tripping point for readers. By making the story 'easier' to read (i.e. smoother in its presentation), the feeling is that readers won't stop to question what's going on as often.

After all, the key is to keep your readers reading. The last thing any author wants is for the reader to stop mid-paragraph and say "WTF?"

Still, when everything is said and done, these are ALL personal opinions. Many of us are convinced by what we see in our own writings, but we can't (and don't even try) to convince others that it's the "only way to write".

There are no protocols to follow, deviations to run and no objective tests to determine where a single sentence/technique is 'legitimate' or not.

While I tend to agree with most of the overall post, there is one thing you seem to be overlooking.

When you, or someone else, makes a comment like:

Thus the entire story reads better if you take those 'hesitation pauses' out of the story.

It is the person stating their opinion as if it were fact. If the person the comment is made to disagrees with the statement, they have the right to ask for substantiate=ion of the opinion with something.

We all know that we disagree on many things. So if you wish to post an opinion without triggering a dispute, you need to phrase it as an opinion rather than stating it as a fact. Even then someone will undoubtedly state their differing opinion.

It is the person stating their opinion as if it were fact. If the person the comment is made to disagrees with the statement, they have the right to ask for substantiate=ion of the opinion with something.

You're inserting absolutes where none were intended. By 'the entire story reads better', I only meant 'IF you eliminate any unneeded text'. If everything in your story makes the story stronger, than feel free to keep it all. You're under no obligation to eliminate your strongest skills.

Instead, you seem to be reading ultimatums into simple observations about our own writing. We (the 'collective' we) aren't critiquing YOUR writing, we're only making the observation that it someones pays to examine our assumptions, and to question what we typically do by default.

As far as 'never making a declarative fact', I'm sorry, but if I'm convinced that something improves my writing, then why should I be forbidden from stating that as a 'fact'? In my case, it is, though it isn't a 'fact' in yours. Again, you're looking for universality is simple personal statements.

You're inserting absolutes ... universality is simple personal statements.

You will have to explain to me what your response has to do with the the following text that you highlighted.

It is the person stating their opinion as if it were fact. If the person the comment is made to disagrees with the statement, they have the right to ask for substantiate=ion of the opinion with something.

Your comment is intended only to irritate.

Let it go.

As I said in our emails, it's not anyone's job here to convince anyone else. We offer our advice/opinions and let them make up their own minds.

ETA: If I suggest something and you learn from it (assuming you accept it), then I'm happy and I feel good and you win. If someone else doesn't, so be it. That doesn't mean I lose. In my opinion, they lost.

NO! NOT when others are damaging my ability to learn about writing.

That's the point. Why would it interfere with you learning?

I pointed out that I've learned to be careful of using certain words. You might have read that and slapped your forehead and said, "Of course!" So you learned something. Then someone else questions the wisdom of my advice. How does that affect you? You still learned something about writing.

Now if that person brings up an argument that makes more sense to you than what I said, you might reconsider and realize what I said was bad advice or not good for you. You're still learning.

If you still agree with me and not the other person, that's his problem, not yours. You learned something new even if he didn't.

ETA: But if you leave the forum, you do lose the opportunity to learn about writing or discuss writing.

Let it go.

As I said in our emails, it's not anyone's job here to convince anyone else. We offer our advice/opinions and let them make up their own minds.

Switch, that's excellent advice, but Ross's fuse has burning for a long time, and he's been alienating Lazeez for some time because he always overreacts. Lazeez is unlikely to take his side because his reactions are more offensive than those he complains about, and when Lazeez doesn't he's likely to quit the site. That's more a mental health issue than a personality issue (i.e. he's more susceptible to abuse than he intends to hurt anyone).

While I'll defend his arguments, he's his own worst enemy as he reacts out of anger, rather than listening to reason.

Maybe he won't listen listen to me because of things that have happened in the past - but if he's not listening to you then I see that as the problem.

The key, as it always is, lies in picking your battles, rather than wasting all your efforts on lost causes.

Rather than betting everything on a single decision, it's better to bide your time until you encounter a situation where you're in a stronger position to influence others.

As you see from the reply posted above, D.S. and I seem seem to be reaching across our divide, while you're merely setting yourself up to be disappointed.

Making threats never gets anyone to back down, instead it only makes them more defense, meaning they're more likely to attack than to become more polite.

As I said in our emails, it's not anyone's job here to convince anyone else. We offer our advice/opinions and let them make up their own minds.

A very good attitude to adopt.

Thus the entire story reads better if you take those 'hesitation pauses' out of the story.

Unless use of the word adds something to the passage.

For example: "Just before he hit the ball, ..."

Eliminate "Just" and you lose the context of immediately before hitting the ball. Without Just, the person could have done "..." 5 minutes or 5 hours before the ball was hit.

Unless use of the word adds something to the passage.

For example: "Just before he hit the ball, ..."

Eliminate "Just" and you lose the context of immediately before hitting the ball. Without Just, the person could have done "..." 5 minutes or 5 hours before the ball was hit.

Again, no one is dictating iron-clad rules of conduct here. Instead, we're focusing on learning about our own writing. Clearly, you can't eliminate EVERY use of any given word, but if you can eliminate those which don't add anything of value, or that weaken your message, then why not at least consider the idea.

All we're suggesting is that it pays to glance on our own bad habits, because we may not be aware of what we're doing. If there's no problem with your usage, then continue on as normal. But if you see something that might help, don't ignore it simply because someone else suggested it.

Again, we're looking for warning flags, rather than dos and don'ts.

Not bothering to answer that one.

You can't allow the bullies to shut down the entire schoolyard, though some know when it's better to hide out in the library until it's safe to go home.

Who taught you that and what justification did they give?

For one, Mark Twain who said something like, "I change every occurrence of 'very' to 'damn.' My editor deletes them all and the manuscript is perfect."

Grammar Girl is another. In this case it's "of" which I neglected to mention in my list of words. "Almost everyone has a few bad writing habits. ... One of my bad habits is that I tend to overuse the word 'of.' A while ago, I was working on a technical document, and as I read back through it I noticed that there must have been 20 instances of the word 'of.' Ugh! ... 'Of' is a preposition, and although it's not an inherently evil word, overusing it can make your writing sound passive and fussy."

And then there's Diana Urban who is an author and does a blog for BookBub. She says: "When you're revising any piece of writing — a novel, a news article, a blog post, marketing copy, etc. — there are certain words you should delete to make the text stronger and cut your word count. When I'm writing a novel, one of my last drafts focuses on cutting these useless words. Removing them helps speed up the pacing of both action and dialogue, and makes your work more polished and professional." She has a list of 43 words (more than I mentioned) which are listed here: http://dianaurban.com/words-you-should-cut-from-your-writing-immediately

Is this scientific proof? Of course not. Creative writing is not math. Are these experts in the field? You betcha. And there are more of them. It would be overkill to keep going.

Except "damn" is too mild these days; we'd need a much more offensive word for the editor to kill.

LOL Today, a more offensive word would not be deleted by an editor. It would be expected.

Hey, SB! Thanks for that link. Very useful. About the Mark Twain quote, I couldn't agree more. Except "damn" is too mild these days; we'd need a much more offensive word for the editor to kill.

In my newest book, I'm compiling a list of alien curses so I can sprinkle them in a ten year old's speech to various monsters, and some are pretty offensive! I'm having a blast coming up with new ways of saying FU! 'D

P.S. Should that be "ten year old's" or "ten-year-old's"? The "ten year" modifies "old", which isn't a noun, but it's a possessive, indicating it's treated as such.

Should that be "ten year old's" or "ten-year-old's"?

I think that when you connect the words with dashes it becomes an adjective that describes the following noun. Therefore adding 's would be inappropriate since adjectives do not have a possessive form.

I think that when you connect the words with dashes it becomes an adjective that describes the following noun. Therefore adding 's would be inappropriate since adjectives do not have a possessive form.

Can't you write:

The ten-year-old was taller than the older kids.

if so, then:

The ten-year-old's father was a giant.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Normal sized people can have kids with dwarfism or giantism and people with either one of those conditions can have normal sized kids.

Huh?

That doesn't necessarily follow. Normal sized people

What? I was using 10-yo as a noun

ETA: btw, did you notice I used the Switch SOL Forum Style Guide (10-yo)

Did you bother to look at which comment I was replying to and which part of your comment I quoted?

Yes. That was my point. I wasn't making a statement about giants and their offsprings. It happened to be the first thing that popped into my head as an example of a possessive 10-yo.

The ten-year-old was taller than the older kids.

It seems to me that there is an implied noun in that sentence, perhaps: kid's, boy's, or girl.

The ten-year-old's father was a giant. The noun is still implied. So it would be - The ten-year-old kid/boy/girl's father was a giant.

It seems to me that there is an implied noun in that sentence

Could be. Grammar is not my strength. But if that's true, the sentence as written is grammatically wrong — no subject.

Could be. Grammar is not my strength. But if that's true, the sentence as written is grammatically wrong — no subject.

Not necessarily. Implied subjects are an acceptable usage—especially for 'common usage' dialogues. You couldn't use it in non-fiction, though.

Not necessarily. Implied subjects are an acceptable usage

Then where would you put the possessive apostrophe?

Then where would you put the possessive apostrophe?

I wasn't initially sure, but as others have suggested, "old" becomes the defacto (implied) noun, so it would receive the possessive while you also hyphenate the adverb attached to it. However, that only applies if you don't include the actual subject.

Can't you write:

The ten-year-old was taller than the older kids.

I know this one! I know this one!

Since there's no noun being modified, "ten year" isn't a modifying adjective, thus you'd drop the dashes. It would simply be "The ten year old was taller". However, "the ten-year-old's" modifies the noun father, so it would be hyphenated. Two different cases.

I think that when you connect the words with dashes it becomes an adjective that describes the following noun. Therefore adding 's would be inappropriate since adjectives do not have a possessive form.

So does that mean drop the dashes, or drop the possessive?

@Switch

CMOS says "ten-year-old's"
AP says "10-year-old's"

Even when there's no noun to be modified?

drop the dashes, or drop the possessive?

I would drop the possessive for there is an implied noun in the sentence, as I indicated to DS.

edit to add: I misspoke. I would actually insert the implied noun and make it possessive.

I would drop the possessive for there is an implied noun in the sentence, as I indicated to DS.

How the hell do you say "belonging to the ten year old" without using a possessive, and if so, then why would you need to modify a non-existent noun without the possessive?

For dialog sure. However, it is not at all clear to me that's the intended context.

It was a purely invented situation (i.e. not part of any story), though I'd tend to go the 'sounds natural' route, even when writing narrative.

How the hell do you say "belonging to the ten year old" without using a possessive, and if so, then why would you need to modify a non-existent noun without the possessive?

To start with, a ten year old what. A ten year old bottle of whisky, car, boy, girl, etc. "Ten year old" is not a person, place, or thing. Therefore it cannot own something.

Now going back to your original sentence:

In my newest book, I'm compiling a list of alien curses so I can sprinkle them in a ten year old's speech to various monsters, and some are pretty offensive!

In your sentence the phrase: "a ten year old's speech" is understood to mean that a child will be speaking. Thus the complete phrase is actually: "a ten year old child's speech". When we drop the noun "child" to shorten the sentence and retain the possessive form, we get: "a ten year old's speech". In other words, the " 's " is associated with the omitted word "child", not "a ten year old".

As I said earlier the words "ten year old" should be joined by dashes, since it is actually an adverbial phrase.

In your sentence the phrase: "a ten year old's speech" is understood to mean that a child will be speaking. Thus the complete phrase is actually: "a ten year old child's speech". When we drop the noun "child" to shorten the sentence and retain the possessive form, we get: "a ten year old's speech". In other words, the " 's " is associated with the omitted word "child", not "a ten year old".

As I said earlier the words "ten year old" should be joined by dashes, since it is actually an adverbial phrase.

I'll accept that. It's reasonable and keeps with most accepted guidelines for combining multi-word adverbs.

Easy to remember: hyphens, en-dashes, em-dashes.

Until you get people like me who've seen the en-dash and em-dash mess up in graphical presentation in different software programs. Thus I don't use either, and replace them with the basic hyphen symbol as a normal dash.

Hopefully UTF8 and similar standards now resolve a lot of that... if the apps comply.

GB,

When i was investigating how the different devices and software displayed e-pubs I found that en-dashes and em-dashes were not displayed the same in all devices and software while the good old hyphen - was, thus I stopped using the en-dash and em-dash at that point because I wanted a uniform presentation as possible. Anyway, it's my experience the great majority of readers don't notice a difference between the three while reading.

I'm not sure why the problem exists, and I never delved into, just noticed it, and worked around it.

some software will convert that to a true em dash.

That isn't always a good thing.

I use Word and buried down in the Autocorrect settings there is a default instruction to convert three consecutive periods (...), used as an ellipse, to Word's ellipse symbol. That symbol creates problems when it is encountered by the SOL text converter. The result is often the 1/4 symbol, or a short section of the stories text being replaced by an arbitrary string of letters and symbols.

I use Word and buried down in the Autocorrect settings there is a default instruction to convert three consecutive periods (...), used as an ellipse, to Word's ellipse symbol. That symbol creates problems when it is encountered by the SOL text converter. The result is often the 1/4 symbol, or a short section of the stories text being replaced by an arbitrary string of letters and symbols.

Your specific problem, though, is that you're likely inserting it into the improper 'character set' (type of webpage), so the webpage tries to paint a proprietary symbol instead of the generic symbol.

Two quick fixes are to either select a different character set definition, or simply include the actual html command instead of the text character (defined by your html conversion settings). What you want isn't the "—" character, but instead the "& mdash;" html command (no spaces) in your submitted html file.

Word's ellipse symbol. That symbol creates problems when it is encountered by the SOL text converter

Lazeez should be notified. That's a bug.

Lazeez should be notified. That's a bug.

Except there's nothing Lazeez can do about a bug in MS Word. If you read the SoL submisssion guidelines you'll see:

File formats accepted for submission of works through the site are: Plain Text (.txt, .asc) and HTML files. (All open formats, no proprietary formats are accepted -- No Word, Wordperfect, MS Works, AppleWorks, or Lotus Word) If you need to submit styled text like italics and bold, convert your document to HTML. All the popular word processors support one of these two.

on - https://storiesonline.net/author/posting_guidelines.php

and - https://storiesonline.net/doc/Text_Formatting_Information_Guide

has more information about what the submission wizard accepts. Special MS characters aren't listed as acceptable code.

By now, everyone should know that the HTML that Word generates is a pail of rat vomit. Don't do it.

Does it make a difference with SOL since the Submission Wizard deletes most of the HTML code?

Open your manuscript .docx file using TextEdit, or drag-n-drop the docx.

Yes, I have TextEdit on my Mac.

If you drag a docx file into TextEdit, what happens to the special characters, like the em-dash, ellipsis, and italics? Those are the special characters I need the SOL Submission Wizard to recognize.

If you drag a docx file into TextEdit, what happens to the special characters, like the em-dash, ellipsis, and italics? Those are the special characters I need the SOL Submission Wizard to recognize.

Generally, when you "Save as formatted html", your word processor will convert each 'special character' into it's html equivalent. The problem with WORD is that it places all it's WORD specific instructions (spell & language checks, etc.) into the resulting html file. You need to turn off those features, which isn't always straightforward. However, once you do, you get fairly clean code as well (as well as you replace the Header Style settings).

Generally, when you "Save as formatted html", your word processor will convert each 'special character' into it's html equivalent.

I was asking about the step before that. I meant going from Word to TextEdit, which is docx to txt. I would think if you open a docx file or copy it into TextEdit, the program would not be equipped to handle special characters.

in the Sierra version of TextEdit, after you open the .docx file, when you want to save as html, you need to hold down the 'Option' key on your keyboard to see the 'Save As...' command in the file menu.

Thanks for that. I never would have seen the "save as."

Why do you think Apple did it that way?

btw, for those who didn't figure it out, you hold the Options key while clicking on File. If you release the Options key, the "save as" goes away. Press it again and it reappears.

what happens to the special characters, like the em-dash, ellipsis, and italics? Those are the special characters I need the SOL Submission Wizard to recognize.

You need to seriously rethink them. Note the content of this this:

https://storiesonline.net/doc/Text_Formatting_Information_Guide#htm

No special characters are allowed. I don't use the en-dash or em-dash, just the basic hyphen symbol and I use three dots instead of the ellipsis so they show that way instead of the special characters.

edit: had to edit the post because the stuff I wanted to quote messed up the post, so I took it out again.

You need to seriously rethink them.

I think if you use UTF-8 you're okay. After reading some of these comments it brings back memories of a discussion I had with Lazeez about that. The last stories I posted on SOL had em-dashes and ellipses and they worked fine, once I changed to UTF-8.

I think if you use UTF-8 you're okay. After reading some of these comments it brings back memories of a discussion I had with Lazeez about that. The last stories I posted on SOL had em-dashes and ellipses and they worked fine, once I changed to UTF-8.

You could be right, because there are some codes he accepts that aren't listed in the public list. And most of what he focuses on controlling are the formatting codes, not the actual in-text codes.

Lazeez should be notified. That's a bug

Lazeez is the one who told me what was causing the problem.

en dash: used typically as an element in numeric listings, as (in the days of cast type) it was the same width as 1,2,3...etc. and is half the width of an em.

Technically, in font design, an en-dash is exactly the width of the "n" character, and the em-dash is precisely the width of the "m" in whichever font they're found in.

Also, the em-dash is not used as a 'spacing element', but to offset a sentence fragment which isn't directly related to the subject contents.

By the way, M$ had nothing at all to do with the widespread acceptance of 'publication marks', that honor goes to Apple, which distinguished itself (in it's early days, though it's since abandoned that focus) as being the 'publishers choice' of computer by offering all those features. M$ only bought into it when it was already an accepted standard across the industry, at which point Apple lost interest in it. :(

@Ernest

Until you get people like me who've seen the en-dash and em-dash mess up in graphical presentation in different software programs. Thus I don't use either, and replace them with the basic hyphen symbol as a normal dash.

As long as you don't use the em-dash for it's designed usage, then that's fine. However they signify to most readers specific meanings, especially in fiction where they're more widely used than in non-fiction.

Here on the forum, I simply type "& mdash;" (without the space) to create an actual em-dash in whatever font the user specifies. (Ernest, you don't 'see any difference' because you've specified you prefer things that display correctly in monospace fonts, which don't support either.)

However they signify to most readers specific meanings

Personally, I don't believe "most readers" notice the different lengths of dashes when reading, and "most readers" don't know why different lengths are being used.

Personally, I don't believe "most readers" notice the different lengths of dashes when reading, and "most readers" don't know why different lengths are being used.

We've had this discussion before, and never made any headway on it, so let me put it into simple terms. If you're targeting readers with a 5th grade education (like many authors do), then yes, they likely won't understand it, but then, they typically won't purchase many books in any given year.

However, heavy readers are more familiar with books and how they're put together (figuratively), so they're likely to know the difference.

Using the double dash "--" is fine for casual typing, but if you rely on that, I'd generally avoid using em-dashes at all (as it marks a story/book as being 'amateurish').

Sorry to disagree CW, but I have more than a HS education and have read quite a bit in my 50+ years and I never paid attention to the length of the dash whether it was a hyphen, n-dash, or m-dash until all the discussions in the forum.

I agree with REP that most readers don't notice either.

Most regular readers won't 'notice' such things (after all, they're not supposed to), however, they'll generally recognize the usages simply because they've seen them before and have unconsciously learned their uses.

Chances are, if someone uses those improperly, such as using an em-dash instead of an ellipsis, the readers you think 'never notice' such things will sit up and yell.

Don't confuse 'don't obsess' with 'won't recognize'.

however, they'll generally recognize the usages simply because they've seen them before and have unconsciously learned their uses.

You are assuming that the people writing the text are using dashes, en-dashes, and em-dashes and that they are being used correctly.

You are also assuming that the people seeing these dashes are correctly identifying the type of dash they are seeing.

You are also assuming that the people seeing the dash understand why the dash is placed where it is placed.

I doubt these three assumption of the writers and readers are true in most cases.

You are assuming that the people writing the text are using dashes, en-dashes, and em-dashes and that they are being used correctly.

Not "correctly" — consistently.

You are also assuming that the people seeing the dash understand why the dash is placed where it is placed.

Hence my argument for following CMOS. Assuming our readers read traditionally published books, they should be familiar with the conventions those publishers follow (which, in the US, is CMOS) whether they are conscious of it or not.

Not "correctly" — consistently.

That is hogwash SB. My remark was addressed to a reader learning how to use dashes from simply seeing them being used. A reader will never learn how to use en- and em- dashes by observing them being consistently used by a writer in the wrong way.

Furthermore, when a reader sees a dash they don't stop and say "Now why is that dash at that place?" They just note the dash is present and just keep reading. They will learn nothing from just seeing a dash, unless they stop and question why the dash if present.

Hence my argument for following CMOS. Assuming our readers read traditionally published books, they should be familiar with the conventions those publishers follow (which, in the US, is CMOS) whether they are conscious of it or not.

Most readers have never heard of CMOS. Most readers pickup a newspaper, magazine, or book and start reading. They have no idea that the publishers have conventions that define how something is to be written, and they probably don't care. All they are interested in is the content of what they are reading. If the writers follow the publisher's conventions about the only thing a reader might say is that it was a well written article or book and they will have absolutely no idea why.

True if all punctuation is being improperly used. My remarks were intended for dashes only. In that narrow focus, I doubt most readers would even notice that a dash is being misused.

Most readers have never heard of CMOS. Most readers pickup a newspaper, magazine, or book and start reading. They have no idea that the publishers have conventions that define how something is to be written, and they probably don't care.

I agree 100%.

They have no idea what CMOS is or that US publishers follow it for their style. However, if a reader reads traditionally published books and consistently sees an em-dash to indicate interrupted speech and an ellipsis for trailing off voice and italics for thoughts, they will automatically understand what they represents without stopping or thinking about it. It's learned over years of reading. It becomes rote.

Now if a reader only reads stories on SOL and every author has a different convention, that's when they'll be confused. That's why my comment on consistency is not hogwash. It's also why we'd be doing our readers a service by following the industry standard.

All I am objecting to is the baseless claims about readers.

I guess I give readers more credit. Just as I trust a reader to have a certain reading comprehension level by not needing to explain everything in excruciating detail.

Is that 100% of the readers? Of course not.

But how can the same story work for the different levels of readers. If I explain every little detail, I lose the ones who would be bored with the story. If I expect a reader to "get it" when I show rather than tell and their reading comprehension isn't up to it, I'll lose those readers. You can't satisfy everyone all the time.

Prior to the discussion here I barely noticed differences in dash lengths and I had no idea that different dash lengths actually meant anything.

I agree about the en-dash. I never saw a difference between it and the hyphen (I think it was CMOS that pointed it out to me). But the em-dash jumps out at you.

Did I know it meant interrupted speech in dialogue from my reading published books or only after CMOS told me so. To be honest, I have no idea. I do know that I never knew it had a name. Just thought it was a long dash.

I was pretty much the same way as you and DS. It wasn't until I started writing that I stuck my nose into articles that explained things like the proper use of punctuation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#Figure_dash is an interesting article on dashes.

My wife is an intelligent woman and a voracious reader averaging around 3 average-length hardcover novels per week.

She asked me what I was doing when I was responding to CW's post, so I tried to explain the dash issue we have been discussing and the positions and interaction between posters. I asked if she understood the use of dashes, en-dashes, and em-dashes. She asked me if I was talking about the dash and double dash she sometimes sees in print. When I said no and started to explain the different dashes and their use, she said I shouldn't bother for to her - a dash is a dash is a dash.

She asked me if I was talking about the dash and double dash she sometimes sees in print.

Yep, that's the hyphen and em-dash.

Yep, that's the hyphen and em-dash.

She was actually referring to 2 sequential hyphens. I've seen it done in several articles, but never questioned if it was the proper way to accomplish the writer's intent.

She was actually referring to 2 sequential hyphens.

Which is the way you do the em-dash in ASCII (I think that's where the em-dash character isn't used). You know, simple txt. Many of my SOL stories have a double hyphen for an em-dash.

She was actually referring to 2 sequential hyphens. I've seen it done in several articles, but never questioned if it was the proper way to accomplish the writer's intent.

I'm not exactly sure why it is, but some software will render the em-dash as two sequential dashes. I suspect it's because to signify the em-dash in a lot of software you use two sequential dashes and it then renders the em-dash, however, if the coding that does that is proprietary and another program renders the text it stays as two sequential dashes and isn't converted to the em-dash.

This is one of the issues I have with using the en-dash and em-dash in that manner. Another is the fact if you don't have a clear space on either side of the dash many people see it as a hyphen when they read it. Thus I limit my used to hyphens for joined words etc with a character on each side and a hyphen with a space on each side for all 'dash' uses, and just use the standard dash at all times. Yes, it doesn't fit the majority of style manuals etc., but it does render the same in all the software I've ever seen.

a clear space on either side

I actually prefer reading it with the spaces on both sides, however, that sometimes causes a problem. Unless the spaces are non-breaking spaces, you can have a break in a weird place.

I actually prefer reading it with the spaces on both sides, however, that sometimes causes a problem. Unless the spaces are non-breaking spaces, you can have a break in a weird place.

True. And with some software you can have weird presentation when the whole thing gets wrapped to the next line.

I try for a uniform presentation regardless of software or platform or media, or as close to uniform as I can manage. That's why I spend more time and preference on how it looks than some others do.

In a related aspect of this when I write something with a / in it like when you have and/or I tend to write it as and / or for a consistent usage of the slash. when you get some long words joined like that you can have some serious issues with wrapping presentation in some software. Some programs will split the word at the end of the line and toss in a hyphen while some others will wrap the whole combined word. But if you throw in the two spaces they will wrap before or after the slash. The first time this stood out to me was when I saw what some software did with a person who was the Business Administrator/Manager - when that wrapped it stretched out the rest of the line and it looked really bad, while the two spaces allowed it to split at the slash.

In all these cases I seriously doubt the readers won't understand what I mean when I do the spaces on the dashes or the slashes, and I seriously doubt many will say I did anything wrong.

Some programs will split the word at the end of the line and toss in a hyphen while some others will wrap the whole combined word. But if you throw in the two spaces they will wrap before or after the slash. The first time this stood out to me was when I saw what some software did with a person who was the Business Administrator/Manager - when that wrapped it stretched out the rest of the line and it looked really bad, while the two spaces allowed it to split at the slash.

That's generally governed by the non-breaking zero-length space. I hate suggesting it, but we may need to ask Laz (I'm using the nickname so it won't force our grand leader to read this discussion) to add that functionality to SOL (though I seriously doubt enough authors would ever use it to justify adding the functionality).

I actually prefer reading it with the spaces on both sides, however, that sometimes causes a problem. Unless the spaces are non-breaking spaces, you can have a break in a weird place.

Generally, that occurs (expecting spaces around an em-dash) because the reader tries to apply the same standards they observe with the en-dash (more common in non-fiction or business uses than the em-dash is) to the em-dash. You always include spaces with an en-dash, but typically don't with an em-dash (which helps reinforce which is which).

You always include spaces with an en-dash

Are you sure of that? I would think you'd write a range as:

The kids ages ranged from 5–10.

ETA: Just checked.

All the sites I checked on Google said there's no space on either side of the en-dash, including CMOS.

Now the em-dash isn't as consistent.

CMOS = no spaces
AP = spaces on both sides

What I find interesting about that is the AP Style guide seems to save print space. They don't have spaces on either side of an ellipsis, but CMOS does. Yet for the em-dash, AP has the spaces.

I'm an old newspaper guy and I can answer that.

Thx. That makes perfect sense.

I'm not exactly sure why it is

Gremlins

Gremlins

Could be. I do know in some cases it relates to proprietary code symbols not recognised outside of that one program or software company's programs. The previously mentioned Microsoft codes as against UTF8 codes is a classic example. Which is why a lot of people recommend using UTF8 code items only, but I've seen some of the less used UTF8 codes not handled right in some of the e-book readers which is a real puzzle, because they should be handled right.

However, I've given up and go with the ones that are universally handled right, as far as I can tell.

I do know in some cases it relates to proprietary code symbols not recognised outside of that one program or software company's programs. The previously mentioned Microsoft codes as against UTF8 codes is a classic example. Which is why a lot of people recommend using UTF8 code items only, but I've seen some of the less used UTF8 codes not handled right in some of the e-book readers which is a real puzzle, because they should be handled right.

In one case, you're including the actual publishing characters, which ARE proprietary. In the other, you're including the html command, which produces the proper proprietary code for each display.

UTF-8 requires the proper html commands, whereas the other character set definitions don't. Since my html editor (DreamWeaver) shows a split screen with the source code on one side and the displayed text on the other, I'm always very conscious of the differences between the two.

However, when I include text from my Word Processor, I typically copy the formatted text from there to the source side, rather than the display side, meaning it gets applied improperly. I have to physically copy it to the other side on my ebooks to ensure it fits the UTF-8 requirement.

I'm not exactly sure why it is, but some software will render the em-dash as two sequential dashes. I suspect it's because to signify the em-dash in a lot of software you use two sequential dashes and it then renders the em-dash, however, if the coding that does that is proprietary and another program renders the text it stays as two sequential dashes and isn't converted to the em-dash.

Like smart quotes, you generally have to 'activate' the em and en dashes and the ellipses (plural of ellipsis). If you don't set it up, you'll get the same double dash you type. You'll note in my Forum messages, I'll typically take the extra time to type the html command, rather than trying to cut & paste an em-dash from my writing, but that's a difficult extra effort.

She was actually referring to 2 sequential hyphens. I've seen it done in several articles, but never questioned if it was the proper way to accomplish the writer's intent.

As has been mentioned, the 'double dash' is typically used in areas (like email or forums) where people don't have access to the proper em-dash character. Even among SOL authors, many work to include them, whereas others simply can't be bothered to include them. As long as readers see the extra long dash, you could expect them to understand the meaning. But you're correct, as with any standard, readers learn about styles with each author. They learn what each 'standard' is by the context it's used in, and hopefully remember them when they return to the author's other works (that extends to publishers, but few readers choose their reading material exclusively by publisher).

I was pretty much the same way as you and DS. It wasn't until I started writing that I stuck my nose into articles that explained things like the proper use of punctuation.

In my case, I came at it from another direction entirely. My first story had a Vietnamese character speaking Vietnamese in the story, so I was forced to pay attention to unusual publication marks. That make me curious about 'smart quotes' (I figured they looked 'more professional' even though I understood they 'surrounded the text' whereas straight quotes didn't (i.e. you can't tell when the wrong 'straight quote' is used)).

From there, I began to notice other details. As I included Arabic text, Egyptian and other languages, I also began exploring other publication marks, like em-dashes and ellipses, which then led me to Style Guides, when I began to question which Style Guide guidelines were worth following, and which weren't.

I've been obsessing about them ever since. 'D

I find that I will use whatever the author has defined within the story. If they use ellipsis for interrupted speech, that is what I will expect in that story. If the next story I read by the same author uses ellipsis for another purpose, that is what I will expect for that story.

That's why it's not only important for authors to be consistent in the styles they employ, but that they clearly provide enough context for readers to understand their use early in each story.

Just like in science fiction or fantasy stories, where authors create entire universes, readers give most authors a 'free pass' for the first several chapters to 'establish the rules' of that universe. The same thing occurs with styles. If you don't use em-dashes or ellipses in the first several chapters, then don't bother using them later in the story, as you'll only confuse readers. Once you've past the first several chapters, anything which isn't consistent in the world/reading environment you've created will stand out as an inconsistency, causing readers to question it.

Again, since few readers select books by publisher, they're inundated by different style guidelines. Thus they 'relearn' each set of guidelines with each story, though hopefully it'll be easier each time you read the same authors work.

I doubt these three assumption of the writers and readers are true in most cases.

I wouldn't imagine they are, but readers generally pick up general uses. They'll likely pick up when you mistakenly use an en-dash for an em-dash, otherwise they're more likely to recognize when an em-dash is used for interruptions in dialgoue—assuming they're not from Australia 'D—or how em-dash segmented text has more import than does something set aside with normal commas. Those are things that, if they're exposed to, they'd pick up even if they never studied them. Though with the em-dashes, it was probably because they first had to ask "What the hell are those things, and what the hell does it mean?"

They'll likely pick up when you mistakenly use an en-dash for an em-dash,

I don't believe most people would recognize the difference between a hyphen and en-dash.

They'll likely pick up when you mistakenly use an en-dash for an em-dash, otherwise they're more likely to recognize when an em-dash is used for interruptions in dialgoue

I disagree CW. Things like the proper use of punctuation are important to you. Therefore, you have made the effort to learn how to use the various symbols. You are assuming that most people have the same knowledge about punctuation; but, they don't. Sadly, most people don't care about things like that.

Therefore most readers have no idea of when to use a dash, en-dash, or em-dash. Many writers don't know that either and they don't care, so they just hit the dash/hyphen key on their keyboards. As a result, readers see these punctuation symbols used properly in some reading material and improperly in other material. These reading materials will teach the reader nothing about how the symbols should be used.

As a general rule, hyphens, en-dashes, and em-dashes are not used in close proximity to each other. The average reader will probably notice that a longer than normal dash is sometimes used, and think that there are just 2 punctuation symbols. Generally they will not notice that there are 3 punctuation symbols of different lengths.

As I said to SB, most readers don't know the proper use of the different punctuation symbols. As they are reading, they note the symbol and just keep on reading. They rarely, if ever, stop and ask themselves why that particular symbol is being used in that particular place.

Arcane, and it has become terribly confused since the digital industry essentially ignored centuries of typographical practice and refinement... so we have today's 'fuck it all' attitude.

Given as the spacing requirements you're mentioning are restrictions imposed by using block types, I'd imagine they've been largely abandoned now that printers rarely use such blocks anymore. Every font designer I've ever heard from specifies the "M" and "N" character widths, rather than font sizes for the character width.

Lazeez insists that UTF-8 is the standard, a very good thing! And I find that UTF-8 encoding works well *most* everywhere else.

That's because, on further reflection, I noticed that SOL performs automatic conversions (probably because Lazeez uses a MAC, while many authors default to Windows systems).

I was referring to your comment about the characters not displaying correctly on different displays.

With UTF-8, you're genuinely required to use the html command if you start from a Windows system.

Generally, I rarely have troubles with 'special characters', other than when printing foreign characters in different languages.

Word or Libre Writer, etc, no so much; there a much looser standard allowed for documents.

Word Processors don't 'impose' any sort of controls over fonts, and don't allow you to individually kern letters on your own (which I used to do with Quark). Thus any 'mistakes' in font usage in WORD is purely the result of the font designer.

PEDANTIC INTERLUDE:

Thanks, I knew most of that. However, I generally just use dash and hyphen interchangeably in talking even though I know they are supposed to be used differently in writing.

I would drop the possessive for there is an implied noun in the sentence, as I indicated

It was hard to find, but Grammarly says ten-year-old can be a noun.
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/year-old-hyphen/

Is the age a noun? Hyphenation is also necessary in this case. Here is an example.

She's only a two-year-old, but she already knows what she wants to do when she grows up.

Even when there's no noun to be modified?

I was using 10-yo as a noun. I might have been wrong for doing that. But if I can't, neither of your alternatives work because you were doing the same.

Should that be "ten year old's" or "ten-year-old's"?

CMOS says "ten-year-old's"
AP says "10-year-old's"

Who taught you that and what justification did they give?

I'll buy in on the overuse of the words 'that' and 'had' in technically correct and formal English. In a lot of cases the words words that and had can be dropped from a sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence, and they can often be replaced with other words. This is especially true when using vernacular English.

The main reasons for dropping the excess words are for a smoother flow of the sentence and for clarity. This is especially true where you have the same word twice in a row to get things like had had or that that dropping one of them will usually leave the same meaning, and will often make the meaning clearer.

An example is: John told Fred, "Peter said that that was correct."
can safely become: John told Fred, "Peter said that was correct."
or it can become: John told Fred, "Peter said it was correct."

Although the first line is technically more correct, the other two versions provide the exact same information and are easier to read while still being good English. I prefer the middle version.

Doesn't an increase or decrease in clarity necessarily imply some change in meaning even if the change is subtle?

It seems to me that a change in clarity has to do with the easy/difficulty of a reader understanding the meaning. From that POV, it doesn't seem like a change in clarity would affect meaning regardless of how subtle that change might be.

If adding/removing a word from a sentence does not change it's meaning, how can adding/removing that word affect clarity?

A large part of it is some words are there in formal English through past or traditional usage, but today they just cause many people to have a mental stutter. In the example I gave, did dropping from 'that that' to a single 'that' lose any meaning? No it didn't, yet the formal way to say it is with the the double that, while the vernacular way is with the single that. In an odd way it's a lot like contractions, the meaning stays the same, but the story flow is easier with the less characters.

Not everyone sees it the same, so I suspect it's more a psychological aspect of the situation.

If adding/removing a word from a sentence does not change it's meaning, how can adding/removing that word affect clarity?

Doesn't an increase or decrease in clarity necessarily imply some change in meaning even if the change is subtle?

The additional words either weaken the statement, say by making the entire sentence passive, or they confuse the meaning, making the sentence unclear.

However, you guys keep pairing "drop them if dropping them doesn't change the meaning" with "because it improves clarity".

To me this is a straight up contradiction and it just throws me out of the whole thought.

Yeah, in that case, we are changing the meaning in order to clarify the point. Our point, though, is that it doesn't change our 'intended' meaning, which is an entirely different thing.

If adding/removing a word from a sentence does not change it's meaning, how can adding/removing that word affect clarity?

By reducing the words used it's quicker and easier to read, which usually means it's clearer to understand. I just read another example of where I think a word cane be safely dropped to make the story better. The original sentence is perfect English and technically correct with:

It took another hour before he had had breakfast and he'd left the house.

If I was writing or editing this it would be:

It took another hour before he had breakfast and left the house.

If I was writing or editing this it would be:

It took another hour before he had breakfast and left the house.

Or:

Verify, if thee persist in consuming thee breakfast meal, we'll be a full hour late in leaving thee abode.

Oops! That's a thrice-thee offense, which is a red-flag penalty. Better rewrite the entire passenage. 'D

I'm looking here for something a bit different. I'm looking for words authors overuse because they never consider alternatives, when the solution to overuse is not deleting the word, but finding synonyms to replace some proportion of the overused word. They are much harder to spot.

The best rule of thumb is, when you notice that, head thee to a thesaurus. If the original word fits the best, you often keep it even if it's repeated, though you should also try rephrasing the sentences to get around it.

In my/your earlier example, there just aren't many replacements for "cane", or even that many for "zombie" other than "undead".

For example, I can't have a golf or bowling instructor who wants me to "feel" it. I need to know the mechanics.

For me, I've gotta feel it. After all, if the mechanic has loose nuts, you know he's not performing his routine maintenance! 'D

When I ran the 12 chapters of my WIP, I found the words I used a lot were pronouns, the protagonist's name, and words like "the," "a," "and," etc.

That's why the majority of word usage tools don't count those words, though they will spotlight how often you use a given name, as it's often fairly easy to eliminate several excessive tags fairly easily.

Your opinion please ... Would you prefer 'that vulture that devoured Prometheus' or 'that vulture which devoured Prometheus', and why?

Without seeing the entire sentence (to know how necessary the "devoured Prometheus" is) I'd say "which", as it "devoured Prometheus" is a non-essential aside which helps identify the vulture. Though I'd also be tempted to use "who", though some may argue against using "who" for an animal, as well as changing the initial "that" to "the".

the vulture who devoured Prometheus

As a new author at this site I have mostly avoided the forum, on purpose. Comments like the one seen earlier in this thread is the example of why people leave or stop participating in discussions. I have never understood the need to discuss just to discuss something. Sometimes you'll have to agree to disagree. There will always be opinions about everything, but let people state their beliefs and opinions and let others decide for themselves.

I'll agree, sometimes discussions can turn contentious. However, even in the worst cases, where both sides stop hearing what the others are saying, we're generally trying to learn something, and there is always something to learn.

It is one of the most badly written references books I have ever used,

I read (Grammar Girl?) that the online version is more usable. But there's an perpetual subscription fee for it.

The online version has identical text. It is perhaps a little easier to navigate,

I thought what I read is the search capabilities makes it easy to find what you're looking for.

So for you to attack us for insisting what's not allowed, or for stating non-existent facts is flat-out nonsense.

You can go back through this thread and every thread in which I have ever posted a comment, and from what I recall, you will not find a single post in which I attacked anyone regarding a style guide. The strongest comment that I can recall ever posting about the topic of style guides is that I don't care for rulebooks that I must blindly follow, especially a rulebook that was never intended to be used for writing fiction, so I prefer to define and follow my own styles for writing fiction. Furthermore, those comments were not an attack against style guides or anyone who chooses to use them. The comments were nothing more than a statement of what I choose to do.

In an earlier post to this thread, you responded to Capt Zapp's comment on dash length with:

Most regular readers won't 'notice' such things (after all, they're not supposed to), however, they'll generally recognize the usages simply because they've seen them before and have unconsciously learned their uses.

I strongly disagree with your comment that they'll generally recognize the usages simply because they've seen them before and have unconsciously learned their uses. Your conclusion was based on several assumptions that I personally believe are not true, so I pointed out to you that you were drawing a conclusion based on assumptions that were not facts.

If you want to exercise your right to express your opinions, then you need to accept that others may disagree with those opinions. When someone disagrees with your opinion and posts a comment disputing something that you state as if it were a fact, you become upset and label it as a personal attack on you. Disputing something you say is not a personal attack on you. In this case, I was disputing something you stated as if it were a fact and you then switched your response from subject that I addressed to the topic of style guides, which had nothing to do with the comments I made.