Threw my head back and vomited

[Brit]

But arguing over the merits of these words can pedantry, and ineffective pedantry, since it is based purely on the arguing minds' own experience.

Words are subjected to a filter built of each individual’s experience and the writer cannot control that filter. He/She can suggest images with the use of words but the reader’s filter will be the final interpreter. Those that change electronic text are only going one step farther than most of us are doing mentally anyway.

This whole discussion reminds me that my daughter “edited” The Land of Oz by cutting out the last chapter of the book when she was five. (and yes she could read and comprehend that book at five, I discovered she could read when she was three.) Once a book or story is distributed the author loses a certain amount of control.

Marion Zimmer Bradley often said to the young writers she mentored, “The book the writer writes is not the book the reader reads.”

 

[Jarvisimo]

^I don't think it's fair to describe the dialogue above as 'pedantry.' We've just been discussing how we use or don't use particular words and phrases or why they work or don't work for us.

I mean, this is pretty much the same as you've done in your post. And isn't that what this thread was about anyway?

I meant it was becoming pedantry, because it had reached an impasse of ... " 'salt and pepper' yay or nay?" Perhaps I contributed to that discussion, it was not my intention. I hoped my critique was not of the words, but rather the reasoning behind its use which so far had not really been spoken (as much as it can be) objectively: these words come from people's own experiences and preferences, that is why one term crops up over another, and can be so alienating to a reader not used to it. Unless one is seeking a new 'effect', to quote Peake, one will go for a simple descriptive term from one's lexicon - but not everyone has the same lexicon, so there is that unintended effect of difference.

The only issue I have with a term like 'salt and pepper', indeed based upon the idea of 'effect' (my contribution, perhaps, to this pedantic slinging of the term) is that it is less open to subtext and manipulation by an author or reader. But then are Trek novels the place for that kind of metaphorical subtext, a (2010s) avant gardism of potentially non-commercial forms of symbolic artistry? I mean, imagine the Peake, Elliot, Joyce or Waugh Trek? All masters of the effect, all early- to mid-century really. I guess a contemporary modernist-esque writer within our genre might by Miéville (or Pratchett).

Anyway, it wouldn't be our Trek: it would be something else, some conceptual new world divorced from ... the expected norm, yet worth exploring. Trek perhaps isn't the place for the following quotation, but then perhaps, in the pursuit of new worlds, it should be:

“Glorious,' said Steerpike, 'is a dictionary word. We are all imprisoned by the dictionary. We choose out of that vast, paper-walled prison our convicts, the little black printed words, when in truth we need fresh sounds to utter, new enfranchised noises which would produce a new effect.”

[edit: but it wouldn't sell correctly, wouldn't appease us as readers, wouldn't be tie-in. It would probably not be, as I said before, commercial. The Star Trek equivalent of The Wasteland or Gormenghast (not a literal, but literary equivalent I stress) wouldn't be Star Trek as we know it, & perhaps not as most of us want it]

-

Anyway, apologies, I am a conceptual dive at the moment, enjoying theory from these past decades, and perhaps dissonantly combining it into my own dejected and ugly modern prometheus. But these ideas are important, I think, for our literary discussion of word choice, and, therefore, effect.

 

[Jarvisimo]

But arguing over the merits of these words can pedantry, and ineffective pedantry, since it is based purely on the arguing minds' own experience.

Words are subjected to a filter built of each individual’s experience and the writer cannot control that filter. He/She can suggest images with the use of words but the reader’s filter will be the final interpreter. Those that change electronic text are only going one step farther than most of us are doing mentally anyway.

This whole discussion reminds me that my daughter “edited” The Land of Oz by cutting out the last chapter of the book when she was five. (and yes she could read and comprehend that book at five, I discovered she could read when she was three.) Once a book or story is distributed the author loses a certain amount of control.

Marion Zimmer Bradley often said to the young writers she mentored, “The book the writer writes is not the book the reader reads.”

Very interesting: and I agree with Marion Zimmer Bradley. Cannot we all agree that the work of art or manufacture, as a regarded object, is perceived differently by all individuals?

The author has no complete control over their audience, nor the filmmaker, nor the musician, nor the academic, nor the forum-contributor. We project out our sweaty, impassioned works, but them themselves are generally the sole agent of manipulation we the maker can have over our audience - unless we meet and engage in other ways with audiences: be it personally, through prior works, others' comments about us, or the many other forms of psychological mediation that can exist between reader and text. Yet, mediated or not, we have no real control still over that work's effect, everyone is relatively to extremely different, and fundamentally differentiated from the creator(s).

 

[Christopher]

^I don't think it's fair to describe the dialogue above as 'pedantry.' We've just been discussing how we use or don't use particular words and phrases or why they work or don't work for us.

I think what Jarvisimo was pointing out there is that different writers' word choices are naturally influenced by their culture and era, and just because a reader from a different culture or era is less familiar with that usage, that doesn't mean it was wrong for the author to use it. For instance, as Greg mentioned before, most American readers or audiences would be puzzled by the constant use of "ginger" to mean "redheaded" in British books and shows. Or "brilliant" to mean "wonderful, awesome" instead of "exceptionally intelligent." And it took me a while watching Law & Order: UK before I figured out that "Cheers" means "Thank you" in current English vernacular (as does "Ta," apparently). There are countless phrases that the British use casually that Americans would find baffling or strange. But it's not wrong for British authors to use those phrases, because it's just part of the language and dialect they're working in. It's no more wrong for a British author to use "ginger" or an American writer to use "salt-and-pepper" than it was for Chaucer to use "ycleped."

 

[Jarvisimo]

^ Exactly, thank you Christopher. The 'pedantry' I referred to was attempting to debate what term was better as description, when there is no correct answer.

 

[Greg Cox]

For instance, as Greg mentioned before, most American readers or audiences would be puzzled by the constant use of "ginger" to mean "redheaded" in British books and shows. Or "brilliant" to mean "wonderful, awesome" instead of "exceptionally intelligent." And it took me a while watching Law & Order: UK before I figured out that "Cheers" means "Thank you" in current English vernacular (as does "Ta," apparently). There are countless phrases that the British use casually that Americans would find baffling or strange. But it's not wrong for British authors to use those phrases, because it's just part of the language and dialect they're working in. It's no more wrong for a British author to use "ginger" or an American writer to use "salt-and-pepper" than it was for Chaucer to use "ycleped."

This was a challenge I used to run into when editing British novels for the American market. Obviously, you don't want to completely Americanize the dialogue in, say, a cozy British murder mystery. One assumes the regional dialogue adds flavor and authenticity to the setting.

That being said, I admit I occasionally asked an author to tone down some particularly impenetrable bit of British slang if I felt it was actually getting the way of the reader's comprehension, so that they might miss the point of the scene.

Oh, one funny example: I had an author who kept referring to products by their (British) tradenames, which, of course, was going to befuddle American readers. When I pointed this out to her, she confessed that she had the same problem with American novels sometimes! "What on Earth is a Haagen-Daas?"

 

[Captaindemotion]

^I don't think it's fair to describe the dialogue above as 'pedantry.' We've just been discussing how we use or don't use particular words and phrases or why they work or don't work for us.

I think what Jarvisimo was pointing out there is that different writers' word choices are naturally influenced by their culture and era, and just because a reader from a different culture or era is less familiar with that usage, that doesn't mean it was wrong for the author to use it.

Well, yes, I did get that. I mean, I did refer in my previous post to 'divided by a common language' and to the regional issue. I'm just not sure why it's pedantry when everyone else does it except Jarvisimo.

 

[Christopher]

^Who says everyone else does it? My whole point was that I don't do what you're doing. I don't complain that authors are doing something wrong when they repeatedly use a phrase that's unfamiliar to me.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^What do you mean 'what I'm doing'? It wasn't me who brought up the issue of the expression salt and pepper. Rather, I said that I didn't think that the original person to bring it up didn't say it was bad, merely that he didn't like it being repeated numerous times. There was then a perfectly civil (or so I thought) discussion about how it doesn't how it's not a phrase that we hear or use on this side of the Atlantic. I didn't once say that it was wrong to use it.

The thread is about authors using the same phrases repeatedly, or hadn't you noticed?

 

[Greg Cox]

Alas, I'm going to be out of touch for the next week, so I'm going to fall behind in this discussion. (Just in case anybody wonders why I don't reply to any queries about my posts!)

 

[Greg Cox]

Was all that from one book or multiple books? If multiple books, it doesn't actually count.

Good point. I think it matters if the offending phrase is repeated in one chapter, one book, or just over the course of a series.

Pretty much every DOC SAVAGE adventure repeated the same stock phrases, descriptions, and bits of business, like the way Doc would issue a distinctive trill when intrigued. And Mike Shayne was described as "the red-haired detective" in every one of his mysteries.

That's just the nature of series fiction.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Was all that from one book or multiple books? If multiple books, it doesn't actually count.

Good point. I think it matters if the offending phrase is repeated in one chapter, one book, or just over the course of a series.

Pretty much every DOC SAVAGE adventure repeated the same stock phrases, descriptions, and bits of business, like the way Doc would issue a distinctive trill when intrigued. And Mike Shayne was described as "the red-haired detective" in every one of his mysteries.

That's just the nature of series fiction.

Yeah, you definitely have to distinguish between the same writer using a similar phrase in different books and him using it in consecutive chapters in the same book.

Stephen King has themes and phrases that may turn up in book to book but to me that's just like how certain people may use the same figures of speech in everyday conversation.

Whereas I remember that in the book Shadows of the Empire - which, to be fair, is one of the few Star Wars EU novels I really enjoyed - the writer used the expression 'X looked at Y like had just turned into a big spider' not once but twice. It stood out like a sore thumb. Or, indeed, a big spider...

 

[Christopher]

^What do you mean 'what I'm doing'? It wasn't me who brought up the issue of the expression salt and pepper. Rather, I said that I didn't think that the original person to bring it up didn't say it was bad, merely that he didn't like it being repeated numerous times.

Sorry, I lost track of who was who.

Pretty much every DOC SAVAGE adventure repeated the same stock phrases, descriptions, and bits of business, like the way Doc would issue a distinctive trill when intrigued. And Mike Shayne was described as "the red-haired detective" in every one of his mysteries.

That's just the nature of series fiction.

Terrance Dicks's Doctor Who novelizations used a lot of the same descriptions over and over again: the TARDIS made "a peculiar wheezing, groaning sound," the Third Doctor had a "young-old face," etc. And I kind of liked it that way. When watching the show, it's nice to hear that familiar TARDIS sound week after week, and using the same description for it in the books helps convey the same comfortable familiarity. There's a ritual quality to series fiction, to seeing the same actions or tropes or phrases repeated. Characters have their familiar catchphrases, like Sherlock Holmes saying "Elementary" or Peter Parker introducing himself as "Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man." And seeing a character described with the same phrases from book to book can also give a sense of familiarity akin to seeing the same face over and over.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^What do you mean 'what I'm doing'? It wasn't me who brought up the issue of the expression salt and pepper. Rather, I said that I didn't think that the original person to bring it up didn't say it was bad, merely that he didn't like it being repeated numerous times.

Sorry, I lost track of who was who.

That's okay. I did wonder where that came from!

 

[Timewalker]

I really don't have the time to edit books that I am reading. I have noticed errors when I'm reading books, but I usually just skim over them and go ahead with the story. I rarely reread books anyway. I think I've done it twice in a decade.

Then you must either be wealthy or the books you acquire must be very inexpensive... I never buy a book unless I'm sure I'm going to read it at least twice. 'Cause I can't fathom paying today's prices for a one-time experience. That's one reason I have so many boxes of books to pack up every time I move.

for your consideration, proof of KRAD's writing tick from the Gorkon Books:


, Klag throwing his head back and bellowing his amusement to the ceiling.

Klag threw his head back and laughed at the chancellor’s remark

Throwing his head back and laughing, Klag said, “Do not worry, my friend. I suspect that you will find all the fighting your heart desires

Throwing his head back, Klag laughed heartily. Oh, I like these people!

Klag threw his head back and laughed the throaty laugh that Kornan
s
At that, Klag once again reared his head back and laughed heartily.

Then he threw his head back and laughed.

Triak stared incredulously at Hevna for a moment, then threw his head back and threw a hearty laugh at the ceiling.

Klag threw his head back and laughed. “Toq is ahead of you, Rodek.

Throwing his head back, Klag laughed. “The general is a bigger fool than I thought. He risks—”

She then reared her head back and howled.

Klag threw his head back and laughed. Vekma was an adventurous lover.

Suddenly, Klag threw his head back and laughed.

Klag threw his head back and laughed. “You, who claim to be of the same family as that fat old toDSaH, can truly stand there and call him a greater warrior while maintaining an even composure?

Worf turned to see Klag, his head back, his laughter cascading up toward the ceiling.

Throwing his head back and laughing, Klag said, “Things are never what they were on this ship, Bekk


Throwing his head back, Klag laughed to the ceiling. “Excellent! I’m glad I’m able to provide you with a d’k tahg to sink into this Dr. Kowag’s chest.”

Klag threw his head back and laughed. “Indeed he did. Ship’s status?”

Throwing his head back, Lokor laughed heartily toward the ceiling.

. Instead he simply threw his head back and screamed to the ceiling.

Throwing his head back, Klag laughed heartily, as did everyone else at the table.

As he fell to the floor, Klag threw his head back and laughed.

Throwing his head back, Klag laughed heartily.

He still pried L’Kor’s eyes open, growled low in his throat, then threw his head back and screamed to the heavens, his voice echoing off the stalactites.

Klag threw his head back and laughed heartily. “I intend to return home.



Again, Klag threw his head back and laughed, and they left the chancellor’s study for the Great Hall’s transporter room.

Rodek threw his head back and screamed to the heavens.


Lak threw his head back and laughed heartily, his guffaws echoing off the merchant stands.

Now I've got visions of all these disembodied Klingon heads rolling around the floor... Reminds me of the phrase "tossed her head." Really? The character reached up, removed her own head, and tossed it somewhere else?

I've mentioned this before, but I'm the same way about "salt and pepper" hair and beards. Surely there's some other way to describe a man with dark hair that's flecked with grey here and there?

Probably, but, depending on the character and the context, sometimes you just want go with something quick-and-dirty and easily understood so you can focus on what the scene is really about. Why come up with some clever new way to describe hair if what matters is that the Romulans just attacked DS9?

Then may I respectfully suggest that if it's the attack that's important, you just omit talking about somebody's hair? If somebody was about to unleash phasers/photon torpedoes on my ship, the last thing I'd be worrying about would be the color of somebody's hair!

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Oh, one funny example: I had an author who kept referring to products by their (British) tradenames, which, of course, was going to befuddle American readers. When I pointed this out to her, she confessed that she had the same problem with American novels sometimes! "What on Earth is a Haagen-Daas?"

If only we had a machine that gave us instant access to most of human knowledge, we wouldn't need to edit books in order to make them more palatable to the uninitiated and the nincompoop!

 

[Christopher]

Then may I respectfully suggest that if it's the attack that's important, you just omit talking about somebody's hair? If somebody was about to unleash phasers/photon torpedoes on my ship, the last thing I'd be worrying about would be the color of somebody's hair!

What? What's important is conveying the scene to the audience so they can visualize it. You want to differentiate the characters so the reader can keep track of who's who, and giving concise descriptors of their appearance can help achieve that. Of course if they're TV characters and the reader is familiar with the show, that's not an issue, but when reading about new characters, I often have a hard time keeping track of who's who unless I have visual descriptions to help me distinguish them.

 

[Nerys Myk]

Then may I respectfully suggest that if it's the attack that's important, you just omit talking about somebody's hair? If somebody was about to unleash phasers/photon torpedoes on my ship, the last thing I'd be worrying about would be the color of somebody's hair!

What? What's important is conveying the scene to the audience so they can visualize it. You want to differentiate the characters so the reader can keep track of who's who, and giving concise descriptors of their appearance can help achieve that. Of course if they're TV characters and the reader is familiar with the show, that's not an issue, but when reading about new characters, I often have a hard time keeping track of who's who unless I have visual descriptions to help me distinguish them.

Yeah, it's not like Picard is mentioning the color of a character's hair in dialog while ordering a photon barrage.

PICARD: Weapons officer with the salt and pepper beard, fire photons at the Klingon ship while its commander is busy throwing back his head and laughing!

 

[RoJoHen]

For what it's worth, I used the term "salt-and-pepper" to describe my boss's hair roughly two days ago, and everybody knew exactly what it meant.

 

[Ben]

In Garth Ennis' brilliant (i.e., exceptionally intelligent) comic book series The Boys, a few of the main characters are Scottish and use the Scottish slang term "ken" a lot (it means "know"). But early on he basically hanged a lantern on the term and defined it for the audience -- I think he had a character comment on him using the term. Something like, "Why do you say ken instead of know? You're in America now!" I thought that was a great way to use authentic dialogue in a story destined primarily for an American audience.