punctuation question

[Mistook]

Here's the sentence I've constructed:


PhillipsPark, pitch-dark, resounded with a symphony of bug-song.


Is it best to use comma's to separate "pitch-dark" ?

---

This sentence is the very first words of a new chapter. I've worded it as such in order to get the setting straight into the reader's head. It's the park. It's dark. It's lousy with crickets.

I'm also trying mightily to avoid using the word "was" as in:

"Phillips Park was pitch-dark..."

I know technically that doesn't make it passive voice, but I already played a "was" card opening the previous chapter when I said, "The sidewalk along Melrose Avenue was the picture of neglect."

[azbikergirl]

I think commas would be correct, but I don't think it needs a hyphen. I may be wrong about that. Another way to construct the sentence: start with A symphony. Also keep in mind that if the subject of the sentence is at the end, it has more punch:

From the room emerged Hank <-- emphasizes that Hank was in the room.
Hank emerged from the room <-- emphasizes what Hank did.

[Medievalist]

Yes, the punctuation is correct, and yes, you do need a hyphen for pitch-dark.

But I like

PhillipsPark, pitch-dark, was lousy with crickets.

Or even

PhillipsPark was pitch-dark and lousy with crickets.

It's clever, in a sly way, and it gets the point across.

[Writing Again]

Part of the solution here is in the fact that "PhillipsPark, pitch-dark, resounded with a symphony of bug-song." is so poetic, and I don't mean just the obvious rhyme Park / dark: "a symphony of bug-song" is poetic in itself.

The big question is does this fit in with the rest of the novel or is it going to jump out at the reader.

As I've said before I believe in suiting the style of telling to the story told, sometimes even changing from chapter to chapter. Normally you don't want a single sentence to attract the reader's attention too strongly: You want the structure to sort of flow in the background: When the reader becomes too aware of an individual sentence it detracts from the steady rhythm of the story itself.

If this sentence does fit in with the rest of the novel then you may be getting a little too close to the purple prose monster of literary legend and care should be exercised not to get burned by its firey breath.

[Dev]

I agree with you, AZ, commas yes, hyphen no.

--Dev

[maestrowork]

Like they said, your sentence is grammatically correct. However, I do think it's a little too "poetic" for an opening sentence (and I think it reads a little awkward for a short sentence), unless the rest of your book matches the style.

How about:
Pitch-dark and lousy with crickets, Phillips Park <verb> <yada yada yada> if you really want to avoid starting your novel with "was." Basically, I think you need a longer sentence with a stronger rhythm...

[Rose]

WHY must pitch-dark have a hyphen? Would pitch black have a hyphen, too? Please don't think I'm suggesting it should not have a hyphen, I'd just like to know the rule so I can apply it to my own work.

And now for an off-topic digression. What does it mean to say writing is "purple?" I've seen it pop up in different threads, so I get the sense of the meaning. Still, I'm intrigued. Anyone know about the word's history? It's a great one!

Rose

[Medievalist]

WHY must pitch-dark have a hyphen? Would pitch black have a hyphen, too? Please don't think I'm suggesting it should not have a hyphen, I'd just like to know the rule so I can apply it to my own work.

It's a compound word; pitch-dark describes a particular kind of dark, as does pitch-black. The two parts of the word act together as a single unit. When in doubt, the dictionary is a good guide.

[Medievalist]

Without meaning to be harsh, I don't like "symphony of crickets," because I've read it so very often. Do a Google search on "symphony of crickets."

Boring.

But "lousy with crickets"--hey, cool. Lousy, plentiful, numerous, as numerous as louses, cool, lice, crickets, bugs. Neatly clever. Wonder what the next sentence is like . . .

And there you have your hook.

[Mistook]

Good points, all. It does seem that "lousy with crickets" comes across more in the style of the novel-in-whole, and it fit's the (3rd Limited) POV of the focus character better.


The previous chapter builds up a bit of expectation for this chapter. There's been a power outage, and the whole area is dark, and we've learned that two of our characters have stolen away to the nearby park for a romantic dalliance, but by this point in the story, so many threads of plot are underway that there's no telling how the new chapter will begin.

This is why I open with "Phillips Park", because it will tell the reader instantly what to expect (Oh goody! The two lovers in the park!) But before I describe that they are sitting on a grassy slope, I want to remind the reader that the POV character is nearly blind thanks to the black-out, and that his main sensation is auditory.

To answer W.A. - The sentence is unintentionally poetic. As you said, it's pure coincidence that park and dark rhyme, and that there are no synonyms for park. I didn't want to say "pitch-black", because that seems more apt for a specific object, rather than a whole park. The subsequent wording, as I've stated, is purely a matter of presenting details in a logical order:

Park... it's dark... it's loud... the guy is on a hillside that you needn't bother picturing because it's so damn dark.

To answer Midievalist, you're right about the symphony of crickets. Again, I looked for synonyms but couldn't find any. I'm glad that "lousy with crickets" came out of my own skull as I first posted. My subconscious had the answer all along I guess.

[Mistook]

How's this:



PhillipsPark, pitch-dark, was lousy with cricket-song. Sitting on a grassy slope with Lana, Jerome could barely make out her features in the dim, orange glow of her Marlboro.



Lousy with cricket-song, or just plain lousy with crickets?

[Mistook]

Lousy with crickets!


dammit.

[Mistook]

PhillipsPark, pitch-dark, was lousy with crickets. Sitting on a grassy slope with Lana, Jerome could barely distinguish a grin in the lurid glow of her Marlboro.

As a car passed by along the drive, the rays of it’s headlights filtered through the trees, revealing her face in a shifting pattern of stripes, and he knew he’d never been so perfectly seduced.

[Sandinista]

Mistook:
I like your reasoning behind choosing the words and their order.
Consider the one word sentence and paragraph to start this chapter.

PhillipsPark.
The crickets....

I follow your logic for not wanting to use pitch-black, but I don't think it's a problem here. Maybe I'm wrong. However, I hear people use the phrase all the time to describe much more than a specific object.

"Man, it's pitch black outside, I can't see them anywhere."

[Anatole Ghio]

To answer W.A. - The sentence is unintentionally poetic.

As you say above, it is unintentionally poetic. The rhyming draws attention to itself and takes the reader out of the story. Unless you have a reason for taking the reader out, it serves no purpose for the overall work, especially at a point where you are trying to draw the reader IN, and not OUT.

- Anatole

[reph]

As a car passed by along the drive, the rays of it’s headlights...

It is headlights? No.

It has headlights? No.

The headlights of it, yes.

Its! Its! Its!

[Mistook]

grmble :mad:


Reph, I love you a lot, and I know I can't change the minds of the gods of English, but between you and I, that whole rule about the possesive form of the pronoun "it" has absolutely no foundation in logic. It's one of the most arbitrary rules in all of English grammar.

If I say, "the dog's collar was loose" do you sit and wonder, "Does he mean DOG IS???"

Yet, when I say, "The Dog's not feeling well" I'm using the exact same apostrophe construction, and the context tells you that in this case, I'm not referring to the possessive. Why then is the rule completely different for the word "it" ?

If I were to write, "The dogs collar" You'd be all over my butt about that missing apostrophe. Why? why?

Ask yourself WHY?

Why is it that the contraction "It is" is so damn important that to avoid confusion, we must remove the VERY intuitive apostrophe from the possessive of the pronoun "it" to the danger of allowing the word "its" to seem simply plural?

Is it because we so rarely refer to multiple its?

Is it because we shouldn't ever presume to say that a thing so lowly as an "it" can possess anything in the way a dog, or a weasel might?

Is it because when the very subject of "it" comes to mind, the first and most important question is "What IS it?"

You'll find, if you stay up for five days in a row, pondering the question as I have, that in the end, it is the stupidest waste of time any writer could embark upon.

[Mistook]

On top of all this, my current version of the chapter has again, the word "was" right there in the first sentence! Uhg! I just saw that now.

Let this be a lesson to all you newbies. You may have a great story, and you may think you have a command of the language, but it's the little words that'll destroy your life.

Mwa ha ha haaaa!

[reph]

Mistook, here's the logic: "It" is a pronoun. The possessive of a noun has an apostrophe and the possessive of a pronoun doesn't. People don't write "they's" instead of "their."

I'll get blasted for saying this, by others if not by you: All through school, English teachers told us kids the difference between "its" and "it's," and similarly for "your"/"you're" and all those other pairs. Every year, they repeated the lesson. (Boring. We did this already.) So why are there adults who still can't tell those words apart? I never had trouble with that, even though it didn't occur to me then that being a noun or a pronoun made the difference. "Its" and "it's" were different words to me. When I see "it's" where "its" belongs, it just looks wrong. It bothers me, like a dissonant chord. Misspelled words look wrong, too, like a face with two noses.

I thought, since you intend to submit the piece for publication, you'd want to know about something to be fixed. Sorry if I offended.

[fallenangelwriter]

one can't say "its" in normal english. the plural of "it" is "they".

while on the subject of apostrophes, the word for more than one comma is "commas" not "comma's"
plural: Commas

Possessive: Comma's

Plural possessive: Commas'

[Writing Again]

reph and Mistook, thank you both for waking me up with a hearty laugh this morning.

Its / it's is the little bastard pronoun that looks and sounds as though it should behave the way a noun behaves (Which would make Mistook's argument correct) but alas it is, as reph points out, a pronoun and must obey pronoun rules.

Which is part of the problem: As children we pick up the patterns of language from those around us: If those we mimic use the correct patterns then what sounds "right" to us as adults will be more trustworthy: If those we mimic in our early years use incorrect patterns we will have trouble all our lives. Even those who mimic correct patterns will still have trouble with some forms such as "funner" and "more fun" because "fun" does not fit the normal pattern.

This is why I get so angry when the teachers in the lower grades do not correct the children's English while in school -- And even angrier when I discover the teachers at kindergarten through fifth grade speak as poorly as the students they are in charge of: The younger the child the more hard wired these patterns of speach and behavior become.

I was so lucky to have an educated mother who was proud of her ability to use correct English: When something sounds right to me ninety-nine times out of a hundred it is right.

[Mistook]

*sigh*

Sorry if I was out of line, Reph. I shouldn't have jumped on you like that, you were just trying to help.

[reph]

As children we pick up the patterns of language from those around us: If those we mimic use the correct patterns then what sounds "right" to us as adults will be more trustworthy...

For something visual like "its/it's," you pick up the lesson from reading, not from hearing. My memory for words is visual. Evidently, some people only hear words in their minds and don't see them. That explains why they make homonym errors, I presume.

Mistook, it's all right. I understand your point about the logic of apostrophes. I won't even give you a negative reputation point.