contractions?
- Thread starter avid-dreamer
- Start date
- Status
Yes, it is appropriate. You don't have to use contractions, of course, but lots of good writers do. It's just a matter of personal taste and the tone you want for your book.
On several "how to submit your novel" sites I read that it was inappropriate. Now I am being asked to change a few words into contractions. I was just wondering if things changed.
I'm curious as to where those sites came up with that. I just pulled a random sample of novels off my shelf, and they all use contractions in the narration. Including Edith Wharton, so it's not as if there's some new rule. I would think text without contractions would read very stilted.
Contractions? My sil has been having them. She'll be birthing my nephew any day now!
Oh...
Dry humor, eh?
Oh...
Dry humor, eh?
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 248
I am very careful not to use contractions in my dialog, because my WIP is set in 1815 or so, but even then I still use them in my narrative.
Just be aware that the lack of contractions in some author's works from that period is a literary convention, and not necessarily indicative of how people actually spoke. I find contractions in various eighteenth and early-nineteenth century texts (fiction, cookbooks, travel books, court records, etc.).
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 937
- Reaction score
- 248
Haughty is as haughty does.
You could be possibly, but I can't imagine the daughter of a Marquess saying, "Well, I can't believe it!" Throws my regency/historical romance brain right out of whack.
You could be possibly, but I can't imagine the daughter of a Marquess saying, "Well, I can't believe it!" Throws my regency/historical romance brain right out of whack.
Sorry, I misunderstood you--from your earlier post, it sounded as if you were making a generalization about the times. Certainly some people might use language more formally than others. For instance, I just checked a grammar book from 1790, which says not to use contractions when writing letters to superiors, because it might be considered "too familiar" and thus disrespectful. Later, it also says that in prose contractions are sometimes allowable, but are better avoided. It doesn't address speech at all, just written contractions.Haughty is as haughty does.
You could be possibly, but I can't imagine the daughter of a Marquess saying, "Well, I can't believe it!" Throws my regency/historical romance brain right out of whack.
An earlier grammar book from the 1720s just gives common contractions and how they're used, without any judgment about correctness or formality. I wonder if it's one of those things that was considered fine until someone decided to make a rule against it? I'll have to see if I can find other sources.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 1,996
- Reaction score
- 348
- Location
- Hawaii
- Website
- patriciawoodauthor.com
I did not use contractions intentionally in the narrative of Lottery to slow my reader down. I used contractions in dialogue. For my academic writing I do not use contractions at all - that's normally the convention for academic publications.
The academic publishers for whom I copyedit pretty much forbid contractions. At least, in my 20 years in the business, I've seen them step back from forbidding first-person pronouns.
I do find contractions useful in my fiction writing, even in narration--because the way I write, the narration tends to be in the voice of the POV character for that scene. If the character speaks with contractions, the narration uses them, too.
I do find contractions useful in my fiction writing, even in narration--because the way I write, the narration tends to be in the voice of the POV character for that scene. If the character speaks with contractions, the narration uses them, too.
I've noticed this. It does help the reader better understand Perry's thought processes, and those are part of what is so endearing about him.
I feel for you, avid-dreamer. When I first started writing, one of my first critiques (different website) told me to remove all of my contractions. I had seen no information regarding the issue, but the critter was somebody who felt trustworthy, so I threw all my contractions out. The resulting piece was stilted and kept flustering my tongue whenever I hit certain areas. It just felt plain wrong to read, and my brain rebelled. So I did further research and came across some of the information the other posters have already stated--contractions tend to make writing more formal, contractions are forbidden in academic writing, etc. I also studied in depth the short stories and novels of authors I admired and found contractions in full usage throughout the prose. So I decided I preferred a more informal feel to my writing, threw out the contraction advice, and reintroduced contractions to my poor stilted story.
The internet is full of great advice and horrid advice and everything inbetween. If something you read churns in your gut and just feels "wrong", research it some more until you find out how it fits in your world-view. Excellent choice to ask your question here and pick up some more viewpoints on the issue.
-Michelle
Here are the guidelines I use:
In Dialogue: Definitely use contractions
In Narration, when the narrator is a character in the story: Lean towards contractions because narrators should narrate like they talk
In Narration, when the narrator is not a character and is just narrating: Lean towards not using contractions
In Dialogue: Definitely use contractions
In Narration, when the narrator is a character in the story: Lean towards contractions because narrators should narrate like they talk
In Narration, when the narrator is not a character and is just narrating: Lean towards not using contractions
contractions
Whether to use contractions in narrative depends entirely on who the narrator is. This is another of those cases, I think, where it's best to read novel that are similar to yours, and do as those writers did.
Whether to use contractions in narrative depends entirely on who the narrator is. This is another of those cases, I think, where it's best to read novel that are similar to yours, and do as those writers did.
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2005
- Messages
- 23,708
- Reaction score
- 10,661
- Location
- In a world of my own making
- Website
- shadowferret.wordpress.com
My WIP is First Person, and I think in that case contractions are appropriate.
In my medieval alternative history story I don't use any contractions. I think they help set the mood.
In my medieval alternative history story I don't use any contractions. I think they help set the mood.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,130
- Reaction score
- 186
- Location
- At the computer
- Website
- www.daverobinsonwrites.com
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 4,527
- Reaction score
- 1,182
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada and Spring City, PA
- Website
- janetursel.com
I only use contractions in narrative if I am quite deep inside the character's head. The rest of the time, I avoid them. Whenever I run into a would've in the middle of a narrative and it's not quite obviously the character's direct thoughts, it throws me right out of the story. Of course, would of is even worse... ;o)
May I add to what Marlys said so well above.
To discover how people spoke -- whether they used contractions or not -- in the Regency period ... go to Googlebooks advanced search, pick five or six decades around your target date, and drop in a common contraction.
You will get an abundance of hits.
Drop in you're or can't or won't . You'll see contractions pop in Burney (Evalina) and Richardson (Pamela) and Edgeworth (Rackrent) and Congreve -- well in plays all over, really.
Contractions appear wherever there's an attempt to represent educated speech accurately -- and this is true from Shakespeare and Chaucer right onwards.
Now, there is no reason you cannot give characters a formal, stylized speech pattern if this makes the point you want to make.
But there's no need to do it for accuracy.
The lack of contraction in 1803 is just as unnatural as it would be in 2003.
Your duchess in 1803 didn't merely say, "I can't seem to get my corset fastened."
She was a product of the Restoration, not a mealy-mouthed Victorian.
She probably said,
"I can't get the damned corset fastened."
To discover how people spoke -- whether they used contractions or not -- in the Regency period ... go to Googlebooks advanced search, pick five or six decades around your target date, and drop in a common contraction.
You will get an abundance of hits.
Drop in you're or can't or won't . You'll see contractions pop in Burney (Evalina) and Richardson (Pamela) and Edgeworth (Rackrent) and Congreve -- well in plays all over, really.
Contractions appear wherever there's an attempt to represent educated speech accurately -- and this is true from Shakespeare and Chaucer right onwards.
Now, there is no reason you cannot give characters a formal, stylized speech pattern if this makes the point you want to make.
But there's no need to do it for accuracy.
The lack of contraction in 1803 is just as unnatural as it would be in 2003.
Your duchess in 1803 didn't merely say, "I can't seem to get my corset fastened."
She was a product of the Restoration, not a mealy-mouthed Victorian.
She probably said,
"I can't get the damned corset fastened."
Haughty is as haughty does.
You could be possibly, but I can't imagine the daughter of a Marquess saying, "Well, I can't believe it!" Throws my regency/historical romance brain right out of whack.
I don't know about the daughter of a Marquess in particular, but some of the "faster" upper-class crowd in the early 1800s were not only fond of contractions, but of a lazily drawled, very intentional "ain't". Was quite the fashionable word for a time.
If you want to see and hear how ridiculous this "no contractions" rule is (where do these weird pronouncements come from?), rent a video of Guys and Dolls. All the gangsters (about half the cast) refuse to use contractions, thinking it makes them sound more educated. Of course it just makes them sound stilted and affected in a completely silly way.
I assume that last sentence was a joke. But I've often been amazed and appalled at how many otherwise educated people (with college degrees, yet!) think "would've" is short for "would of." Like people who write "they'll be a party at his house" instead of "there'll be..."
Wouldn't consider myself too educated, but the contraction I always catch myself on is "There's"...as in "There's cupcakes in the kitchen if you want any." Maybe it sounds fine, but if you get rid of the contraction, and say, "There is cupcakes in the kitchen, then it's confirmation that I'm an idiot."
Note to self: Do a find all for "There's" in the wip I've been submitting!
Yeah. Everybody knows the correct contracted forms of "would of" and "could of" are "woulda" and "coulda."
- Status