words you want the writers to work into their story
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
^ Dude, that's gonna require more than cake. A bottle of Scotch at least....
hah - do we have any challenger for Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia ?
TROUT
This is kind of off topic but close enough that it gives me an opportunity to point out a grammatical pet peeve of mine that I see all the time in Trek books and otherwise. The construction saying, "The reason I did such and such was because... ."
My senior year English teacher pointed out that it is incorrect to phrase it this way; you should write either the, "The reason is *that*..." or just take the word "that" out and just write, "The reason is this is the correct way to do this." and since then it has grated on my inner ear whenever I have read it.
I now return you to your thread.
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
My senior year English teacher pointed out that it is incorrect to phrase it this way; you should write either the, "The reason is *that*..." or just take the word "that" out and just write, "The reason is this is the correct way to do this." and since then it has grated on my inner ear whenever I have read it.
I now return you to your thread.
[FONT=Arial][/FONT]
Doesn't anyone remember Star Trek: Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, the unpublished crossover epic? It was an eighteen book series (6+6+6=18) in the form of six linked trilogies (Enterprise, TOS, TNG, DS9, New Frontier, Voyager). The dramatic conclusion was to come in a post-Endgame Voyager story by Christie Golden, in which Chakotay's spirit guide and Naomi Wildman's invisible friend the Pink Unicorn magically materialize to save the universe from the Antichrist. There were supposed to be ebook-only introductory chapters for each book, the third book of each trilogy was a hardcover, and the concluding book was a signed limited edition of 50 copies, each painstakingly illuminated by a group of devoted monks, for $4,000.
Well, I did make sure to work the quote, "This furshlugginer veeblefetzer's gone all potrzebie," into Summon the Thunder after a challenge by Steve Roby, so it's not as though I'm opposed to the notion.
But, yeah, I'm not a cake guy. Scotch for me, too.
But, yeah, I'm not a cake guy. Scotch for me, too.
This is kind of off topic but close enough that it gives me an opportunity to point out a grammatical pet peeve of mine that I see all the time in Trek books and otherwise. The construction saying, "The reason I did such and such was because... ."
My senior year English teacher pointed out that it is incorrect to phrase it this way; you should write either the, "The reason is *that*..." or just take the word "that" out and just write, "The reason is this is the correct way to do this." and since then it has grated on my inner ear whenever I have read it.
I now return you to your thread.
Welcome Quimby!
Just to let you know, you can't use HTML on the board for colors or fonts.
Well, your English teacher was making the error that many English teachers and pedants make, which is to assume that grammar is a proscriptive thing rather than a descriptive one. Language evolves naturally from use, and the way it's used is constantly changing. People try to define rules describing how language is used, but all too often they arrogantly insist that those rules are meant to restrict its usage and that anyone who diverges from them is "wrong" -- even if the "rule" contradicts a usage that's been common for ages.
For instance, "which" versus "that." Copyeditors these days make a big thing about how you have to use those words differently in different contexts -- that it's "wrong" to write "The sentence which we are discussing," and it has to be "The sentence that we are discussing." They say that "which" should only be used in detached relative clauses, e.g. "That sentence, which we are discussing." But that "rule" is of quite recent vintage. It was proposed by some guy named Fowler less than 150 years ago, but he merely intended it as a suggestion. Then, when E. B. White revised Strunk's Elements of Style in the 1950s, he put the which/that rule into it, even rewriting Strunk's own earlier text -- which had not followed that arbitrary "rule." So the only reason copyeditors today insist it has to be done that way is because E. B. White decided half a century ago that it had to be that way, even though English usage throughout the history of the language had allowed the words to be used interchangeably, and even though a form like "The sentence which" is still perfectly accepted and unquestioned in British English. I've consulted usage notes in dictionaries, and they all agree it's acceptable to use "which" and "that" interchangeably. Yet copyeditors still treat Fowler and White's opinion as an inviolable law. And that's just misunderstanding the language, as well as imposing an unnecessary limitation on writers' ability to convey a desired tone or nuance.
The worst part is the assumption that rigid grammar rules should be obeyed in spoken dialogue. I've had copyeditors who insist on strict grammatical rigor in dialogue as well as narration, even when it makes it awkward and unnatural for anyone to say. Like insisting on the stilted "he or she" when any real live person would use "they" (and singular "they" has been part of English as far back as Chaucer, so it's another false "rule" to say it's wrong). Real people don't talk like grammar textbooks, they don't religiously obey restrictive rules of speech, and it's bad writing to pretend they do. Real people say "The reason is because...," so there's no reason fictional people wouldn't say it.
supercalifrajilisticexpealidocious (sp)
just the sound of it is quite atrocious...
more seriously...
i'll stand a pint to any author who puts a U.S.S. Gloucester in to any novel series.
just the sound of it is quite atrocious...
more seriously...
i'll stand a pint to any author who puts a U.S.S. Gloucester in to any novel series.
Damn in-jokes, always taking me out of the story, drives me nuts when authors do that -- oh, wait, that was the last topic I posted in, not this one. Never mind.
I'd pretty much forgotten about the discussion of that phrase by the time Summon the Thunder came out. Surprised the heck out of me. I laughed. Yes, I'm inconsistent.
So noted.
I had that damned thing at the top of the manuscript document for weeks until I found the right place to use it.
Good point. Not to mention that depending on the work, an author will often subvert the "rules" of grammar in order to create pace, tone and voice. Take the Beats like Kerouac and Burroughs, for instance; or other experimental writers like Kathy Acker. They threw the book out the window. I teach composition for an art college and many of my students are foreign; therefore, I try to get them to stick to the "traditional" rules of grammar. In my own fiction, however, I play with things like fragments and other No-Nos to create different tonalities and voices in the reader's mind. Sometimes it's in dialog as Christopher has mentioned. Other times its within the narrative prose. It's tricky because you have to create a delicate balance. Too much and it seems to much like stylized prose without much substance. In other words, all flash. Too much technique can turn a reader against you, and I am often turned off by writers who really on it like a crutch when there is nothing else to hold up their story.
At the end of the day, however, it is all a matter of taste.
Few things will drive me ripshit faster than a copy editor who messes with my dialogue to make it a) technically grammatical and b) no longer sound like sentient beings talk. I take my dialogue very seriously and pick it very carefully. I've no problem with such corrections in narration, but character voices are very important to me, and when CE's fuck with dialogue like that, out comes the red pen and the magic word "STET."
("Stet" is Latin for "let it stand," and is what you write on the manuscript when you want to reverse an editorial change of some kind. Who says you can't learn things on the Internet?)
Hmmmm ... maybe I should take some of these challenges. The last one I took led to my last Trek story published by Pocket.
--Ted
--Ted
Hear, hear. There should be a rule that copyeditors leave everything inside quotes alone, unless it's a spelling issue. Or maybe a blatant punctuation issue, though sometimes I choose my punctuation just as carefully as I choose my words, to convey a desired timing or emphasis, and I get annoyed by how routinely that gets changed. I figure a lot of copyeditors must be trained for business writing or something, and aren't equipped to handle the nuances of dialogue.
One thing I find really weird is that they insist on "correcting" the spelling of "Uhh" or "Umm" to "Uh" or "Um."
And yet "Hmm" gets through.
Well, if you cut the second "M" in "Hmm" then it would be "Hm."One thing I find really weird is that they insist on "correcting" the spelling of "Uhh" or "Umm" to "Uh" or "Um."
And that's just silly.
Similar threads
