Is there a particular "rule" when it comes to using contractions in third person outside of direct speech? Does degree of distance matter? For example, if the narrator is a fly on the wall without access to the thoughts and feelings of the character, I would almost definitely avoid contractions. But if I'm narrating a character's thoughts and feelings, are contractions "allowed"?
The use of contractions isn't related to the point of view, but to the writing style. If you're using formal English, then no contractions should be used, but with colloquial style of writing then contractions are appropriate for the narrator and the characters. Anywhere in between is as appropriate as the author feels happy with.
One thing I've recently started doing is to not use the 's contraction or is with a proper noun due to the risk of confusion with it being seen as a possessive usage. When I have a need to revisit older stories I'm making the changes to them.
I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly how colloquial I should be in my writing. Take this line:
But he did it because he was boneheaded, so it did not count.
I originally wrote it with the contraction "didn't." Then I expanded it. But the more I look at it, the more I think it would flow better with the contraction. I'll typically want to stay in formal English, but there are certain lines where, mainly because I'm in a character's head, that using a contraction seems to feel more right than wrong.
the more I look at it, the more I think it would flow better with the contraction.
so do I.
The use of contractions isn't related to the point of view, but to the writing style
I disagree with that just a little bit. For instance I am currently writing a book that uses first person POV. The main character is a 14-15 year old high school teenager. He narrates the entire story so in the narrative, when he's explaining something then I am going to write it as he would actually be saying it.
I COULD have him using formal English in the narrative but there would be such a distinction between the narrative and dialogue that it would almost come across as two different characters, or even an entirely different POV.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely because you do make a great point at saying it's more to the writing style, but you can't say that POV doesn't play a role entirely.
Also.... great tip of the 'S contractions. Never would have thought of that, but think I'm going to start trending that way with my writing.
I am currently writing a book that uses first person POV. The main character is a 14-15 year old high school teenager. He narrates the entire story so in the narrative, when he's explaining something then I am going to write it as he would actually be saying it.
If the story is in past tense, the narrator is probably older than they were when the story took place. In "To Kill a Mockingbird," it's 1st-person from Scout's POV, but she was much older as the narrator than the character living the story. So it's okay for the narrative not to sound like a child even though it's 1st-person.
So it's okay for the narrative not to sound like a child even though it's 1st-person.
You are absolutely correct in that, but even as a near 40 year old man now, when I am telling a story I rarely ever say "I have not gotten" instead I use the contraction "I haven't gotten".
Now if I am emphasizing something then that's different. For instance as an adult I will say something like "They have NOT gotten" if I am trying to make a dramatic point.
Most of the contractions I have been looking at are n'ts (didn't, wasn't, etc.). I have found myself expanding the contraction if there is or could be some empahsis on "not," and leaving the contraction otherwise.
When I started studying the craft of writing fiction, rather than simply writing fiction, I read that the narrative (exposition) is written in formal English whereas the dialogue is written the way the character speaks (unless it's 1st-person and the narrative is like dialogue). Since contractions are not allowed in formal English, contractions are not allowed in the narrative.
HOWEVER…
I noticed when reading today's traditionally published genre fiction, contractions were used in the narrative. So times have changed. I use contractions in the narrative.
Thanks, both to you and Ernest. At this point, I'm leaning toward splitting the difference. If I'm establishing a scene, I'm keeping the contractions out. When I'm in a character's head, I'll judge it on a case-by-case basis.
I noticed when reading today's traditionally published genre fiction, contractions were used in the narrative. So times have changed. I use contractions in the narrative.
I agree with this, but I've also defaulted to an 'invisible narrator' in most of my stories, where even if the narrator isn't specified, I used the more informal form including contractions, as it's more in 'keeping' with standard storytelling practices (i.e. it's akin to stories told round the ancient fireplaces whenever visitors would visit from other lands). You use the personal references, by giving the narrator his own personality, so his delivery is more powerful, though if the story was conveyed to him by third parties, there's no need to detail who the narrator is, as it has no basis on the underlying story (which, presumably, the narrator wasn't involved in).
Thus, aside from government or official presentations, I rarely invoke 'formal English' in any of my writing, aiming for emotional impact and narrative flow instead.
It depends on the contractions. "Would've, should've, could've," those sorts of contraction really belong only in dialog (and are what should be in dialog rather than the identically pronounced "would of, should of, could of") and let's not even consider "she'd've" in the narrative. (Obviously, in a first person narrative, this can be ignored.)
'Common' contractions (didn't, isn't, he'd, she'd, etc) are more reasonable. Most people now find "is not" slightly jarring. Not much, of course, but subconsciously they'll pick up on the long form being used and it will color their judgement.
would of, should of, could of
Any half-decent proofreader would automatically correct 'of' to 'have' in those instances.
AJ
Any half-decent proofreader would automatically correct 'of' to 'have' in those instances
Note: That's why, when in doubt, one should always go with "shoulda, coulda, woulda"! :)
Most people now find "is not" slightly jarring. Not much, of course, but subconsciously they'll pick up on the long form being used and it will color their judgement.
I speak and write formally, and even to me, 'is not' seems stilted and overly formal in most cases, unless it's being done for emphasis.
I agree with Ernest and Switch. Write in the manner that you are comfortable with. I believe trying to write in a fashion that meets someone's expectation and you are not comfortable with will lead to awkward narrative and dialog passages.
Being yourself in many areas is a better approach; although there are a number of grammatical rules that should be followed, such as: subject-verb agreement, using inappropriate homonyms, confusing use of pronouns when referencing a speaker, etc. The trick is to determine which rules you can violate without upsetting your readers.
Thanks for reminding me why I flunked English. To many rules.
Yeah, like using "too" instead of "to"! ;)
To many rules
Three many rules:
You can't win, you can't break even, you can't get out of the game. (Thermodynamics). If there were only two rules there would be Two Many Rules.
Maybe you should just type "2" instead of to, too, or two. Less work as a typist and if you are going to be wrong anyway, save your energy. You may need it for Thermodynamics.
Thanks for the advice everyone! I have definitively decided (for the story I'm working on now) to keep the contractions out when I'm establishing the scene and treating them on a case-by-case basis when I'm inside a characters head. I'm going to judge it by the flow, as in the example I posted originally.
I vaguely remember a science fiction story in which one race had three sexes - male, female and a third sex that carried the fertilised embryo to term.
So, at the time of birth, a third person would have the contractions.
I don't particularly want to re-read the story, so please don't waste valuable writing time by trying to track it down.
AJ
The use of contractions reduce the impact and drama of a statement. Even it's clarity.
Some lyrics to "Johnny One Time"
"But, did he tell you that he's known as Johnny One Time?"
OR
"But, did he tell you that he is known as Johnny One Time?"
Night and day to me.
The first emphasises the 'Johnny One Time', the second emphasises the 'is'.
Perhaps I don't understand enough of the context. Were there multiple claimants for the name 'Johnny One Time'?
ETA I vaguely remember a wartime anecdote of someone owning a sheepskin Johnny. Obviously it had to be washed between uses.
AJ
someone owning a sheepskin Johnny.
Tom Sharp's The Thowback character Lockhart uses a sheepskin polishing mop to relive tensions caused by proximity to his equally sexually ignorant wife.
ETA he grew up isolated deep in sheep-farming country...
Ultimately, I think I more or less agree with the advice given here, where there's no hard-and-fast rule, it just depends on the tone you want the narrator to take.
Case in point, in my case, I typically try to define who my protagnoist is, even if they never appear in the story themselves, as it gives me a better feel for how they'll speak throughout the story (i.e. do they have an opinion of their own, can they be trusted, do they actually know everything, or merely think they do, and do they have any 'key phrases' which flag's their background somehow?
It's a little extra work before you ever start writing, but it helps to clarify a LOT of issues when crafting a story, as the narrator becomes as much of a character as does the protagonist, antagonists and all the various secondary characters. Hell, I've even used the weather as a character (in my A House in Disarray).
I typically try to define who my protagnoist is, even if they never appear in the story
That would be odd. So you write stories where the antagonist is effectively unopposed?
(You meant narrator, didn't you?)