Learn Writing with Uncle Jim, Volume 1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Note On

And then...

"I'm only cautioning against replacing it with something that makes the sentence malformed. I guess that's my grammarian's brain speaking up."

Yeah, but one person's "malformed" is another's "well-formed." From your example:

"She paused, changed it back, sighed, consulted a style manual, pressed Delete."

I like it fine; but grammatically speaking, it's not a sentence. That's one difference between fiction writing and business English: One's trying to be unambiguous, and the other's trying to be evocative.

As for writers' ears either cheering or hissing the phrase, how can anyone make that judgment without context? Writers talk about rhythm sometimes as though it's some great abstraction. It's not; it's beats and divisions of beats. Sometimes, an additional beat completes a rhythmic pattern, so the "and" makes a significant, concrete difference.

But beyond rhythmic concerns or literal parsings, there's also the fact that humans repeat words for emphasis. He's really, really nice. I want to do something extra, extra nice for him. Bad grammar, yeah, sometimes. Sloppy thinking, sure, maybe. But it's also unambiguous communication, and there's more information present than if the word hadn't been repeated. That information is: This is emphasized.

"And" and "then" may be literally redundant--but when a circle of kids leans in around the campfire, wide-eyed, and asks the storyteller, "And then!? And then!?" it means more than just "And?" or "Then?" I think that's the result of both rhythmic and emphatic functions.

Now--that doesn't mean that when "and then" occurs, it's usually for reasons of emphasis. Usually, it's probably for reasons of not having thought about it. But since we're discussing it (and since the day gig is really dead today)... I think it's got its uses.
 

johnbaern

GAH!

New Rule: If a passage is (a) easily comprehensible, and (b) doesn't sound like sh!t, it is grammatically correct.

Yea? Nay? ?

John
 

qatz

Re: GAH!

What is the one and only rule Strunk & White have that modifies all other rules of grammar? It is this -- if any rules of grammar get in the way of comprehension, modify said rules. I hope "and then" is done with now.
 

johnbaern

Re: Learn Writing with Uncle Jim

I think a point that needs to be made is this--

James D. McDonald is not infallible. He did, however, start this thread, which happens to be called "Learn Writing with Uncle JIM", not "Uncle Whoever".

In other words, he's taken on the role of "teacher". If people would like to question what he says, they can either (a) start their own thread, or (b) pose it in the form of a question:

"Wow, are you sure that shoving peanut butter up my nose is the ONLY way to improve my dialogue? I've often found that self-mutilation works just fine for me.

**What are your thoughts on that, Uncle Jim??**"

Any other form of feedback is merely disruptive, as James will feel the need to defend his position as teacher and win the argument whether or not he's *completely* in the right.

So please, people, respect a man's blackboard!

John
 

qatz

Re: Learn Writing with Uncle Jim

I got sick today, so I haven't left yet.

Jim can be and has been wrong. It's part of his "rules of the game." He is certainly not infallible. Nor is he is the teacher. This is not a class, it's a discussion. He's the facilitator, and a damn good one at that. But he's used to frank discussion. We're pretty darn courtly when it comes to that. He can say this for himself, but we don't have to watch his feelings. That is not to say we should not respect his view. We all deserve that.

He was probably wrong to just come out and tell reph she or he was wrong, and he apologized later in his usual swallowed way if I read that right. Reph was probably carrying the point too far to go on and on about things as she or he did. It may be noted that the dispute here really had more to do with word choice than grammar per se, which meant that everyone was wrong to a certain extent, except me, who refused to get involved. Yes, that "me" was intentional. But the really wrong thing was that we spent overlong on a non-issue.

Oh, speaking of wrong, John, your new rule is wrong! Pardon my saying so. The correct rule is as Strunk & White put it. But (and the "But" is intentional, thankyew) the point is that in our search for meaning we can lose it if we try too hard. When I was named the #1 English student in the nation a little while ago, I was careful to avoid tangents. I did make a few things up as I went along, but hey, nobody's perfect.
 

Note On

Whose board?

I figured since there wasn't an official notice anywhere, the thread title was to be interpreted loosely.
 

SRHowen

for Pete's sake--

Jim said that the construct made no sense (annoyed etc.,)to him--and he explained why HE did not like it. If you want help with writing, you have to be willing to stop defending a thing you do in writing and be willing to look at other ways to do things (try them) in other ways.

It also bugs me--I do not use it. The idea to publish and have effective and affective writing is to make it the strongest possible.

as he did such and such

and then

had been

was

had had

a whole list of constructs that we use everyday, that in writing weaken the prose. Those who are published and are professional know (have learned) what things make the writing stronger.

You can take or leave the advice, but please, arguing with it is silly and unprofessional. It's the likes of which trap people into places like PA.

Say--OK, I'll try that and see if it makes MY writing stronger. Then you need to try it--and if it doesn't work for you--SAY-- OK, this doesn't work for me and move onto the next tip. That's how writing works. You find what works for you--and you do that by trying everything under the sun, until you develop your own personal style and learn to see objectively what makes your writing stronger.

Shawn
 

qatz

Re: for Pete's sake--

Well said, Shawn. There are often highly technical rules for using certain words in conjunction with certain others, and for choosing certain words rather than others to convey a concept or a thought. These rules are meant to lay a groundwork for conveying meaning in the language. There are also rules, governed more by sound and sense than the classical though evolving geometry of language, for writing effectively. These rules are meant to facilitate the conveying of power or beauty in language. They intermix, but the two are not the same.

We are concerned here with the latter more than the former. Excess focus on the first -- withal not entirely accurate on either side -- simply obscures attention to the second. It is that in which we must be most interested, else this would be a thread on grammar instead of writing commercial novels and romance.

And if it were about grammar, it would be a lot more technical than people have heretofore assumed. It is simply not sufficient to assert "this is grammatical -- this is not" ... if you can't explain in detail the grounds for your conclusion, preferably citing chapter and verse, you're not ready to play with the big boys.

But that's not what we're all about. This is about the next step up; this is about writing itself. To play this game, you already need to know the essentials, that is, how to spell and how to make a sentence. Can't play ball if you don't know what a bat is. In some cases contrary to fact, we assume that each other does start from that base. It's called respecting the other writer. Comments like Jim's about keeping off the bottom of the slush pile sufficiently provide fair warning of the consequences otherwise.

From my experience, at least, we can roam around in our personal Idahos pretty far on this thread if the ultimate topic is writing (I don't think anyone's ever been stopped from saying anything), but to obssess over points of grammar is like buying the proverbial fish her bicycle. Glad she's happy now, but surely there are more important things.
 

johnbaern

Alright then..

..the consensus appears to be that the launch of nitpicking, ego-driven attacks on *free* advice is the best way to foster a meaningful and educational dialogue. My bad. Forget I said anything.

John
 

qatz

Re: Then

p.s. -- On, you're asking a trick question. "It's" is the proper contraction for "It is" ... the subject and the object. Now get thee behind me, Satan!!
 

Note On

Trick question

It's even more of a trick question than that, Qatz, because it's not one.

Unless there's a rain machine, and that's what is raining, the word "it" is not the subject of that sentence. A subject does; an object is done to.

Rather than just act mysterious about this, I'll say that "It's raining" is not, by the book, what most of us would call grammatically correct. It can't be diagrammed in a subject-verb way, because "it" does not refer to any physical object. The phrase just means "there is rain," or maybe "the weather condition is rainy." Because there is no "it" to rain, the sentence can't be broken down easily like the sentence "Bob kissed Theodore."

Beyond that, I'm not going to pretend to be a grammar expert; this tidbit was explained to me by a real one.

But I think the more you know about grammar, the more things you can do with it, just like any other aspect of writing.
 

qatz

Re: Then

Well, rats. You've sucked me in at last. So here are my thoughts about "and then." I am doing this not because I have any interest in the issue, but because I believe reph got the short end of the stick unfairly. My reasons follow.

This is a phrase that does not usually sound grown up. It must be handled with care. Jim obviously hates it with a visceral passion, because it sounds bad and it undoubtedly appears in bad and lazy writing. Cf. my foregoing discussion of the levels of analysis involved in how to write vs. how to write grammatically.

Jim was right that it violated a grammatical rule. It is not oxymoronic; it is redundant, at least as normally used. It would have been better for Jim to stay away from grammar, though. Redundancy wanders in a frontier land between the fields of grammar and word usage, increasingly residing in the latter. It is not really grammar any more, though it used to be. In the 1960s, redundancy was considered a grammatical error. There was a sort of Vatican Council, though, though, involving such groups as the Modern Language Association (I think) and the National Council of Teachers of English, which came to the ecumenical conclusion (I didn't approve of it at the time) that redundancy really went more to word choice than grammar, because there are exceptions to the rule. Of course, word choice is informally considered part of grammar, making distinctions even murkier.

As reph points out, "and then" contains two parts of speech which themselves are not necessarily redundant. The phrase is normally used, however as a phrase with a unitary meaning (or non-meaning), rather than two separate meaningful words. In this sense, the phrase is redundant and incorrect as a matter of word choice. It should always be avoided when used this way. Reph is technically correct that there are times when the phrase is acceptable, but they are in the way minority. The use of the phrase for stylistic purposes and when called for by the action may be examples, but the arguments you'll get from writing professionals, reph, will probably devalue your point so much that alternatives may be needed irrespective of technical validity. Do not let reality become the victim of the ideal.

Reph defends her (I am assuming for the moment that you're female, because I just like girls better) argument with the valid point that "then" is not a conjunctive. "May opened the fridge, then drank the milk" is given as a paradigm by one side ofr the other. This is a good piece of action in any story, but it is not in and of itself a sentence. Jim saved another of his more dubious repetitions with a semicolon; in this case, what is needed is another phrase. "May opened the fridge and drank the milk as she grabbed hold of the bottle" is acceptable, and so is the more clumsily worded "May opened the fridge, then drank the milk as she grabbed hold ... (etc.)" It is simply a run-on sentence full of partial clauses to say "May opened the fridge, grabbed the bottle, then drank the milk," or any combination of the above. Sounds good but it's not grammar.

This shows why grammar's overrated. I am reading Peter Matthiessen's magisterial "The Snow Leopard" now -- it won the National Book Award in about 1978. Its flow of words reminds of Moby Dick. Full of gorgeous writing, lists of things, and incomplete sentences. Grammar would ruin the beauty of the thing. Punto.

Still, I reflected that the consensus was way too strong in favor of Jim who, as I said, can and does handle himself. Reph was making a valid point, and should be given credit for that before we throw her to the lions. Her contribution was thoughtful and mostly well-reasoned, which is not a small thing, and I hope she hangs around to add to our discussion further, depite the rockiness. Welcome reph. You be brave.



I've decided Jim was wrong to attack reph for defending it with such virulence. She should have let it go as of no matter herself, but she was not wrong. The problem here was confusion between the two levels of analysis mentioned above.
 

qatz

Re: Trick question

Excellent point. But "It's raining" is a good sentence. It is passive construction, in fact idiomatic, but we don't need to go there yet. Consider the similarly passive "hablarse" in Spanish. "It is spoken." Businesses post the sign, "Se habla Espanol aqui" to indicate that (direct translation) "Spanish is spoken here." The verb imports the noun. Looked at from the English point of view, the subject is not Spanish but the implied "It." "It is Spanish which is spoken here."

This is common in English, in both mandative and passive structures. Where is the subject in "Trudy, make my lunch!" It's not Trudy. The subject is "you" (the implied you). In a passive construction, the obvious candidate is "It is hot." In Spanish, there is a direct parallel -- "Se hace calor." The "it" is not really there in a technical sense, but it's implied by the verb. The verb here is "it is" in the intransitive. The intransivitivity of the verb is the key. Instead of the rain machine dumping rain on the ground, a transitive action, "it" rains passively, a quality of things, as when you look at the sky and say "it is blue." Your expert is mistaken if he thinks an intransitive sentence can't be diagrammed. The sentence can be diagrammed easily; it is just as proper in our language as "In the beginning was the Word."

You should also think about idioms. :hat
 

Note On

It's raining

"These subjects are all implied in the "It"

Right.

But they're not actually present in the sentence.

So what you're diagramming is an imaginary sentence for which this one stands, not the one I offered: "It's raining."

Diagram that one.

> It's an idiom.

Exactly. If it were strictly grammatical, in the sense in which most of us generally understand the word, then we wouldn't need to bring idioms into this.

But my purpose wasn't to argue about it and prove myself right. My purpose was to illustrate that grammar has more gray in it than a lot of us realize. I think both of us have made good points, and we can both be right--and both have different answers.
 

qatz

Re: It's raining

Wrong. The English language recognizes the "it" whether you do or not. You don't need to get to idioms to see that. Focus on intransitivity. Your larger point should be that grammar is so highly technical that few get it right -- there is always one right answer but it can be devilish finding it. Often it is more trouble in the long run than it's worth. But you're just not right as rain about the question.

ps. the diagram is _it________ _is______
___raining___

or however you do that.

Look, I'd prefer not to talk about this anymore. It has about as much importance as "what the meaning of is is."
 

James D Macdonald

Re: Then

It is not oxymoronic; it is redundant, at least as normally used.

qatz, I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to agree.

That particular word group is oxymoronic because it says that two events happened simultaneously, and that they happened in sequence.

This is trivial. I don't want to get sidetracked on it. I offered it as an example of one of my idiosyncracies, and you know what? It is one of my idiosyncracies. Call it religious on my part, if you like, to get an idea of how I feel on this question.

Another of my idiosyncracies is that I believe that grey and gray are two different colors, and that the words are pronounced differently. I once used the sentence "The clouds went from gray to grey as the sun rose behind them," and knew exactly what I meant.

I hope this doesn't get us into a huge debate about spelling and whatnot.

For another example of my mountain-sized ego: I've been known to write corrections into dictionaries.

As to grammar: Correct grammar is what native speakers of a language agree is correct grammar.

Further on grammar: A writer can indicate a great deal about a character by using particular grammatical habits in that character's dialog.

Further on that dialog: This requires that we be observant of the world around us, of the people in it, and the ways in which they talk.

Further further on dialog: Book dialog is to the spoken dialog of humans in their natural habitat as a stage whisper is to an actual whisper. Dialog as it is written in a novel is a literary convention.

Experiment: Tape-record an actual conversation. Transcribe it. Notice how much hesitation there is, how many sentence fragments you find, how wasteful and redundant (or elided and obscure) it is, and what infelicitious phrasing the natural stuff has. As novelists, our job is to write book-dialog that gives the impression of natural dialog.
 

reph

All right, all right, can we move along now?

Jeez, I didn't mean to start all that. For the record, in no particular order, (1) I'm female, (2) I believe "and then" is grammatical but it sounds juvenile, (3) I had some misgivings about intruding into Mr. Macdonald's (whee, spelled it right this time) writing course, but I wanted to alert people to an incorrect use of "then" that will bother some percentage of readers, (4) "May opened the fridge, then drank the milk as she painted her toenails" is not grammatical, (5) "It's raining" is a real and diagrammable sentence whose grammatical subject is "it" (although the topic of the sentence is rain), (6) in previous posts, I didn't say half the things I felt like saying, such as that I don't agree that "and" connotes simultaneity of the actions it links, because the "then" problem was more serious.

I shall now resume my place in the woodwork.
 

qatz

Re: Then

Grammar is not a matter of opinion, in my view, but a set of rules. For the most part, except in relatively rare times of sea change like the Vatican Council period of the late sixties and early seventies, the rules are clear once you get to them.

However, mistakes in the English language always alter the mother tongue itself, even if only a little. If that mistake appeals to someone else who uses it, and then is picked up by other people who also like and use it, after a while it gains enough currency that it becomes the correct usage. Myriad are the cases when that's happened. This is why word nazis like myself fight over what they perceive to be incorrect use of language, because consciously or not they are out to protect the purity of the large-I idiom against pestiferous camp robbers who would steal it.

That is either unnecessary or a losing rear-guard action that is ultimately not worth making. The language lives and breathes and will continue so to do whether we like it or not. It does point out that in the long run, usage-oriented concerns like Jim's can trump more hidebound rule-oriented dicta like Reph's.

It is also worth noting that one picks one's rules based on their utility to one's argument. Thus the suspect phrase can be considered oxymoronic under once sense of the rules, but not so in another. However, oxymorons do not go to the implications or the functions of the words, but to their denotations. My Concise Oxford defines the term as an expression "in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction." The two words we've been debating for the last ten years are not apparently contradictory. Still, Jim's point is pragmatically a good one.

In fact, his last response is excellent in several ways and so is Reph's most recent contribution (I can't see it where I'm sitting but I know it's out there). That grimy feeling one gets when discussing grammar is almost worth it when it leads to useful insights about the time that everyone is heartily sick of the subject.

Jim, I can't help remarking that your idiolectical weirdness about "grey" is really remarkable! I use that spelling a lot (it's English as opposed to American, I think; at least the Oxford lists it first), but always thought it was just a variation on gray. Oxford seems to bear that out backhandedly, clearly regarding the two as the same color. I guess "different shades of grey" takes on a new meaning in your house, along with the bruised books (from getting thrown against the wall). No need to respond.

You can see why I normally refuse to engage in these matters. Besides the cruddiness, I can't shut up about them. But I concur -- let us not bloviate further regarding the meaning of the passive "it" or the active "then." Let us eschew disputation and move to the light of a new morning, unclouded by pointless haggling over trivialities. Surely we can find something else to do. Like killing people! :hat
 

jpwriter

Re: Then

I am certainly not as literate as everyone else that post here but I would like to point out one thing. If those that did not defend the faith were not in the fray, the grammar of the language would revert to chaos. Just as good must fight against evil to prevent chaos in the world at large. I am one of those who try to get away with what I can. Thank God for those that restrain me.:ack
Jerry

P. S. I am sure I have made grammatical mistakes in this post and am blissfully unaware of them.:tongue
 

Note On

Trivialities

Qatz, if you don't want to talk about it anymore, then don't. I'm fascinated by everything about writing, so I don't find any of it trivial.

I do think you're tapdancing about "it's raining." There's not just one way to look at it; even the most internally consistent and comprehensive view of grammar--which would be yours--may cohabit, in some cases, with other interesting, useful, and equally defensible approaches. Since I'm a writer, "interesting and useful" is interesting and useful. "Internally consistent" is merely internally consistent.

As you said, it's a living language--which means that by definition, there is no comprehensive set of rules. Latin is a good language for purists. English isn't. It's not done yet.

And anyway, purity and consistency are of little value to anyone but the purist and the consister. A quote that's not exactly suited to this context, but close enough:

Hemingway:

"In going where you have to go, and doing what you have to do, and seeing what you have to see, you dull and blunt the instrument you write with. But I would rather have it bent and dulled and know I had to put it on the grindstone again and hammer it into shape and put a whetstone to it, and know that I had something to write about, than to have it bright and shining and nothing to say, or smooth and well oiled in the closet, but unused."
 

Mandiric

On with the lessons!

Hello Jim et al,

First post on this board for me...I've been following this thread closely, and wanted to say THANK YOU for the pointed, articulate, and (most importantly) free lessons!

I've been writing for a year-and-a-half, and have completed one novel, one short, and two novelettes. On my latest, another short, I've been using your "chained in front of the comp for two hours" method, Jim. I've certainly increased my output (1,800 words vs my old goal of 500), though I do feel the quality is declining. But, like you said, that's what revision is for.

So...I'm really interested to hear your advice on revision. You are going to talk about revision, aren't you? I notice the thread has gotten cluttered of late. Any chance of moving on with the awesome lessons so we can get to that point, and all the other good stuff in-between?

Again, thanks Jim. This thread is an unexpected gem.
 

SRHowen

Yes, please let us move on--

you will find when you start to sub to agents and editors the answers. If you gather rejections with no personal ones, or positive rejections (and yes there are positive rejections) then you will need to take a second look at what you do in your writing.

That goes to rewrites and what to look for. High on my list--unneeded words, extra filler words, like those uh mmm, you know, like words that fill actual speech.

Jim, on to revision? Maybe?

Shawn
 

Mandiric

Re: Yes, please let us move on--

Shawn,

Were you talking to me? Sorry - lots of stuff on this page!

If you were, then yes, I have been subbing; and yes, I've actually received a handwritten note from Realms of Fantasy. The editor read my entire story (9200 words - no mean accomplishment) and complimented me on it, but didn't buy it because she felt the ending was too open. But that's cool because it was the first story I've ever subbed, so I feel ahead of the game.

Anyway, revision! Yeah! Let's to it (or whatever you have lined up next, Jim).
 

reph

Uhh...

I pop out of the woodwork for a second to say this: Qatz, associating me with "hidebound, rule-oriented dicta" paints me as a compulsive, authoritarian figure who lurks near the discussion clutching a wooden ruler, ready to jump in and crack everyone on the knuckles for some violation that only dead people care about. Probably someone who irons her underwear and hasn't had a decent bowel movement for ten years. (Yes, that last group of words was a fragment.)

Can we please return to the main discussion and leave off taking swipes at one another?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.