Using "and" in a list of 3 verbal phrases?

I've read passages like that and the missing "and" doesn't phase me at all. I get the vibe you're going for, and have used it myself a few times for the same reasons. If it's your voice, then go with it.

I do this as well. I consider a list unfinished (and therefore implying nonexhaustive). It's style choice, though it can probably become a tick with overuse.

I have very strange grammar as my readers on here can attest to.

I like to do this, too. My editor is not as keen as I am. The beta stage is a good time to decide where you fall on voice/style/correct grammar, because you'll probably be confronted with those questions again down the line. Good practice for standing your ground.

gtanders said:

This is going to be the weirdest question...

An amazing beta reader just got back to me with a critique on my novel. (He's on this forum and knows who he is. ) One thing he suggested was putting an "and" in a list of 3 verbal phrases.

E.g.:

She opened the door, grabbed the gun, kicked him in the head.

(^not from my novel, BTW)

He says this should read:

She opened the door, grabbed the gun, and kicked him in the head.

I get that that's grammatically correct. But I want a fast, fast, transparent read. Manic pacing for the manic world in which the novel is set. William Gibson does this kind of thing and I love it. Where do you guys land on this? Is it pretentious? Cool? Just plain wrong to drop that "and"?

Thanks everyone!

Click to expand...

Listing a series of actions without a terminal "and" is an example of a literary device (or maybe technique is a better word) called asyndeton. Asyndeton, the omission of a coordinating conjunction from a sentence of phrase where one would normally occur, can be used in other situations besides lists.

It's done for various reasons--sometimes for rhythm and flow, and sometimes for emphasis. It can also be used to imply that the list isn't "finished." Some writing gurus suggest writers use it in action scenes, or in other contexts where fast-paced action is implied. It gives the sentence a more hurried feel than including the "and" before the last element in a list. To me it conveys a certain emphasis or emotional intensity that might be out of place in a more leisurely or relaxed passage, but it can work very well in other situations. As with any device, overuse might dilute its efficacy.

Fiction writing is rarely as formal as non fiction, and it's very common for successful and skilled writers to use devices like this that might feel out of place in a formal essay. Your beta reader probably knows this (if they read a lot of fiction, they've certainly seen this device used in print), so if they're flagging it, they may feel that the way you are attempting to use asyndeton in this situation doesn't really work for them. Or maybe they feel it clashes with the overall style of your writing. This is one of those situations where I'd (respectfully) ask for clarification about why they feel its use isn't working in your story.

You don't have to follow everything your beta reader suggests, of course. There are bound to be some differences in opinion re stylistic matters like this.

Its opposite, btw, is polysyndeton, where multiple coordinating conjunctions are used in a passage. This also changes the voice or emotional tone.

I've seen it done by very good, successful writers, for a variety of stylistic reasons. It does tend to call attention to itself, so I'd say it's best used sparingly, when you really want such attention to be made. Too much of this device, like too much of many others, and it gets to be an annoying fetish for a reader.

caw

Maryn said:

Aw, nuts! I wanted to be the one to explain asyndeton, which I learned here at AW when a pro editor pretty much demanded I insert the "and" and I didn't want to but couldn't name the why. I came bawling to the grammar board as usual.

Maryn, wiping away the memory

Click to expand...

I'm sort of shocked a pro editor wouldn't know, or at least have a gut-level understanding of, these kinds of literary devices that frequently appear in trade-published work (including classics).

I'm pretty sure I ran across the term for the first time on AW also. If any of my teachers mentioned the term back in high school or college, I don't remember.

Of course, opinions can differ about when or how often asyndeton and polysyndeton should be used to best effect. Overuse of any sentence structure or literary device that isn't part of the current invisible default style in modern English (and it's fair to say syndeton, the use of a single coordinating conjunction, is the default we see most often) will make it lose its punch at best and, as the BB said, become irritating at worse.

Roxxsmom said:

I'm sort of shocked a pro editor wouldn't know, or at least have a gut-level understanding of, these kinds of literary devices that frequently appear in trade-published work (including classics).

Click to expand...

You shouldn't be shocked. I have a bit of a jaundiced opinion about the levels of "understanding" of "pro editors" and their width and depth of reading experiences, in general. There are really good ones, and there are really bad ones, and a full spectrum of in-betweens.

caw

I don't want to kill another thread so ignore my post but - - - -

It amazes me that exclamation points and adverbs are out, but breaking rules are fine.

I also just learned I can only use italics for one purpose. Either emphasis, which is nice because we can not use exclamation points, or internal dialog. But not both. No, not both.

Gaah.

I am currently pruning emphasized italics and exclamation points out, again.

And now I bring the derailment back to topic at hand: I've seen asyndeton but use polysyndeton more, and would have thought either was more problematic than the poor exclamation point. I guess not!

I know what you mean Patty. That sort of thing was probably part of what Hemingway was talking about when he said: "There is nothing to writing. All you do is sit down at a typewriter and bleed."

Patty said:

I don't want to kill another thread so ignore my post but - - - -

It amazes me that exclamation points and adverbs are out, but breaking rules are fine.

Click to expand...

Asyndeton is not breaking any grammatical rules. It's a legitimate sentence structure and an acknowledged literary device, and like any other it can be used judiciously to create a given effect.

Emphasized italics and exclamations points aren't "out" either. Many (possibly most) published writers use them to create desired effects. As with any other literary device, if they're used to excess or sloppily they can become annoying. Different readers have different tolerance thresholds as well. The frequency of their use can be an aspect of voice also. I've noticed that they tend to be used a lot more in YA fiction than in adult.

I also just learned I can only use italics for one purpose. Either emphasis, which is nice because we can not use exclamation points, or internal dialog. But not both. No, not both.

Click to expand...

There is no grammatical rule I have ever heard of that states this, and plenty of trade-published authors use italics for more than one purpose. If you aren't making the purpose of the italics clear from the context, then it can cause problems for readers, however. There are also some readers (and critting partners) who have preferences for how they are used or how often.

Some agents and editors have preferences about this too, and publishers can have in-house stylistic norms. Style preferences aren't grammatical rules, though. Editing for style and internal consistency are applied after a manuscript is accepted and is undergoing the editing process. As I understand it, some editors are more flexible than others if the author has a justification for doing something a certain way.

Maybe the take-home message from all of this is that when we are critting or beta reading, and something bothers us about the way the author is doing something, it's important to differentiate between personal tastes, or the assessment that a literary device isn't being used well or appropriately, versus stating that something isn't "allowed" categorically.

Nothing should be a crutch for lazy writing.

The English language can't be written without adverbs (or at least, it would be an enormous struggle). But the advice to cut down on their usage in fiction writing generally stems from new writers struggling to convey their narrative without shortcuts. Simply listing emotions (he said angrily, she sighed sadly etc) isn't conveying the narrative, and does both writer & reader a disservice. Adverbs are still necessary or colourful on many occasions, though.

I've also never heard the above rule re italics, and have definitely read books (both beta and published) that used italics for a multitude of things, including internal thoughts + emphasis. Exclamation points are very common in classic novels (pick up any Bronte or Verne and you'll see what I mean) and I personally don't tend to read them as "screaming" unless the context also suggests this. But that's style for you.

gtanders said:

E.g.:

She opened the door, grabbed the gun, kicked him in the head.

Click to expand...

That is a rhetorical device known as asyndeton and it's perfectly fine to use when you're wanting to achieve a certain effect.

ETA: And clearly I'm late to the party!