Timewaster's Guide Archive
Local Authors => Writing Group => Topic started by: maxonennis on March 17, 2009, 04:58:54 PM
-
In the following sentence should the T be capitalized, in quotations, or both.
At the top of the T was the hovel.
I'll have more questions later.
Thanks!
-
Wouldn't it be easier to just write, tee?
-
I did, in the first draft ;D
Now I'm no the second, and I want to clean it up a bit. I'm not the best with grammar. Little things like this fly right over my head. Right now I believe that I've found no less then a dozen times that I've used set instead of sit (of course I don't even think about editing while I'm writing the first draft).
Any who, I'll probably have more questions after a bit.
-
Chicago Manual of Style 7.67 Letters as shapes
Letters that are used to represent shape are capitalized and set in roman type (an S curve, an L-shaped room). (To use a sans serif font, as is sometimes done, does not aid comprehension and may present difficulties in typesetting.)
There you go. I do often see books where they use a bold sans-serif font for the letter shape. That's up to your publisher's production department to decide though. When you're writing the manuscript, just use a normal bare capital letter.
-
Thanks! That's one grammar error down, an uncountable number left.
-
Huh. That's the way I would have suggested it too, but I didn't know it was an actual "rule". Learn something new, I guess.
-
Style guides have to have rules for these things because they come up all the time. :) This one came up in the Forgotten Realms book I just finished copyediting.
-
Well, I'm glad we have people like you around to get it right, 'cause I learn all my grammar from fiction, not style guides. ;)
Ooh, ooh. Out of curiousity, what's the Realms title? Can you share?
-
City of Torment, the second in the Abolethic Sovereignty trilogy. It's the sequel to Plague of Spells. The author is Bruce R. Cordell.
-
Q#2: Furrow (verb) is a word. Is un-furrow a real word? I want to use it, but... :-[
-
If you're saying something like "he unfurrowed his brow" no one will misunderstand you. If you can't think of a better way to say it, then go for it. According to Google, brows are unfurrowed less than 1% of the amount that they are furrowed, which means it's not nearly common enough to be considered standard English.
-
If you're saying something like "he unfurrowed his brow" no one will misunderstand you. If you can't think of a better way to say it, then go for it. According to Google, brows are unfurrowed less than 1% of the amount that they are furrowed, which means it's not nearly common enough to be considered standard English.
Lol, awesome as usual, Ookla. :)
-
If brows are only unfurrowed 1% as often as they are furrowed that would explain the need for plastic surgery.
Is coining new words really a huge problem for writers/publishers of speculative fiction. It seems that it's a necessary element in order to invoke alieness (for example). Another thread was referring to the problem of introducing common usage into fantasy worlds and to what degree this is jarring. It seems possible that some non-standard language, as long as it follows the rules of grammar and construction, might actually be indispensable.
I'd like to hear some thought on this? Thanks.
-
I agree with you that neologisms have their place in speculative fiction. The important guideline to keep in mind is that there's got to be a point to the new word. There is no point inventing a new word for something that already has a perfectly acceptable term, like a seatbelt.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/fiction_rule_of_thumb.png)
http://www.xkcd.com/483/
-
LOL!
This reminds me of the Crazy/Hot Scale from How I Met Your Mother!
-
Ookla,
Any idea when that toon was drawn? The title mentions someone named Anathem... I curois how old it is.
-
It's from October 1st 2008.
-
I have been thinking of that particular comic for a while in response to several threads, actually :P
-
Okay,
Something that has always bugged me is the monotony of the he-said-she-said's of dialogue. Zelazney was prone to just cram to quotes together with a narration about the character's behavior e.g. "quote" The evil snot monkey dripped wetly before devouring the frozen trump card. "quote"
Others simply trail off and just leave the bare quotes hanging there after the first couple of exchanges.
I've generally tried to forge through and use a bit of both, along with mixing up the he-saids... But it can get really tiresome coming up with new synonyms for "said" without starting to sound like a filme noir narrator.
Any thoughts?
-
i totally know what you mean. I think that a good use of that time is to further establish the character's interactions with the setting. Mix it with some internalization from the PoV. That will be one of my main focuses when I revise my current novel.
-
Renoard, it's generally accepted that it's a bad idea to use synonyms for said.
http://tatepublishingeditors.blogspot.com/2008/11/writing-book-dialogue.html
http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue%205/tags.htm
http://www.writesf.com/08_Lesson_05_Perils.html
Eh, I ran across a better page on this the other day but don't see it now.
-
I've heard several editors/agents and authors say the same thing. Said is safe. like I said, i try to use dialog tags to also describe what the person is doing at the time. it makes the conversation not seem so isolated.
-
I agree with/support what Ook just said. In elementary school ( :P), they had this dumb thing 'said is dead. use these words instead' and a whole bunch of crap underneath. i took this writing class in fourth grade (taught by a published author) and she completely tore that apart. she showed us examples in a bunch of famous authors' writing where it was just said-said-said-said-said. so stick with said.
-
I've been shaking my head at the "don't use said" phenomenon for years. It baffles me.
Here's a question...
"My niece, who(m) I hardly ever see..."
I believe "whom" is the correct use here, but I'm not certain. Anyone?
-
In Standard English (properly understood), either may be correct.
In Edilect (high-brow English), "whom" would be more correct, I believe.
-
I would hear a sour note if you used who there.
I think that "said is dead" is overdoing it. But it gets really pedantic and boring to have said repeated incessantly in a block of two or three way conversation. Mixing it a little helps to not sound like an K-6 school primer.
-
But usually they're teaching "said is dead" to the K-6 group, so...
Frankly, I think it's a matter of meaning. If you mean something more than said, then say what you mean. If you're just trying to communicate text, use said.
And never use "said + adverb" if there's a better word you can use instead.
-
And never use "said + adverb" if there's a better word you can use instead.
Why is that?
edit: obviously I understand the principle of "why use two words when you can use one" but why should you avoid using adverbs?
-
Silk, I'd echo Renoard in that I'd hear a sour note if you used "who" in that context - but on the other hand, if you said "whom" I'd definitely peg you as a grammar snob. (I say that affectionately, as a fellow grammar snob.) Nobody but grammar snobs ever says whom these days. So it totally depends on the context. If you're writing a paper for a class, use whom. If you're writing dialogue for a story and the speaker is not exceptionally well-educated, use who.
-
Haha. Thanks guys.
The character who's also happens to be a grammar snob, which is the only time I really worry about grammer-snobbery. While writing dialogue, anyway.
Grmamar snobs unite!
Reaves: Extra words, yes, but in the case of dialogue especially I think a lot of times adverbs and the like aren't necessary (we should know that a character is speaking angrily from the context, for example) and they just end up distracting. I think Dan Wells said it best in one of the WE podcasts: Your attribution tags should not be the most interesting part of your dialogue.
-
Question:
"…cars, trees, and bullets…" or "…cars, trees and bullets…"
[Those were completely random examples.]
-
The comma in the first part that's not in the second part is called the serial comma. Chicago recommends that you use it. Other style guides, like AP style, don't use it. There are good arguments on both sides.
-
I prefer the serial comma.
Go Chicago!
Having a degree in English (MPA), History (Chicago), and a minor in Linguistics (APA), I've been exposed to "the big three". Out of all three, I prefer Chicago.
-
So, Jade, you're saying…yes second comma?
-
I think there needs to be a style guide that focuses on fiction and the issues that come up in fiction. Applying any of the major style guides to fiction is kind of a stretch, and there are often things that are very hard to find in the style guide or just aren't covered.
Publishing companies have their own in-house style guides that tend to draw on Chicago, but a centralized authority would be nice.
-
That would mean a ton of work, though, probably.
-
And it would save a ton of work.
-
Not necessarily for the people who are putting in the work, though.
-
No, it would save them work in the future too, since they could use the style guide as a reference to look things up instead of having to think things through each time they hit a question.
I'm starting to think you're just posting quickly in all sorts of topics without thinking things through in order to increase your post count.
-
I am a fan of the serial comma.
-
Um…not really. I legitimately disagree with you.
-
Have you ever looked anything up in a style guide?
-
I always thought the second comma was correct. The only places I don’t see using the second comma is with company titles.
-
No. I'm a kid, Ookla. Not an adult like you. I have only the barest idea of what a style guide even is/looks like.
-
Your sarcasm is not lost on me, but we may as well just leave it at that.
-
No. I'm a kid, Ookla. Not an adult like you. I have only the barest idea of what a style guide even is/looks like.
Pray you never need find out. (Of course, that would mean you didn't go to college, so...pray your prayer isn't answered. :D)
-
LOL Believe me–I am.
-
Just for the record. . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mj6QqCH7g0Q&feature=channel
-
Okay, on a sentence where you skip a pronoun, what is the proper punctuation for signalling that skip?
Example, sentence A. with pronoun:
I swear it made a sound.
What I want to know is the proper punctuation for sentence B:
Swear it made a sound.
I understand it isn't correct English grammar, but I would still like to know for what I'm currently working on.
Thanks!
-
"Swear it made a sound." is fine. There's no official punctuation signal for fragments. You have to be able to tell the meaning from context.
-
So about elipses…
I've seen them (I'm talking about at the end of sentences) both as .… and … (three dots and four dots). What's the rule? Or do different styles do it different ways, again?
-
Three is correct for American English. I believe there is a Canadian style that calls for two. But Four is just someone with a bouncy little finger.
-
Actually:
The Three-or-Four-Dot Method
11.57 The method explained
The three-or-four-dot method is appropriate for poetry and most scholarly works other than legal writings or textual commentary (see 11.62). Three dots indicate an omission within a quoted sentence. Four mark the omission of one or more sentences (but see 11.58). When three are used, space occurs both before the first dot and after the final dot. When four are used, the first dot is a true period—that is, there is no space between it and the preceding word. What precedes and, normally, what follows the four dots should be grammatically complete sentences as quoted, even if part of either sentence has been omitted. A complete passage from Emerson’s essay “Politics” reads:
The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless: it is not loving, it has no ulterior and divine ends; but is destructive only out of hatred and selfishness. On the other side, the conservative party, composed of the most moderate, able, and cultivated part of the population, is timid, and merely defensive of property. It vindicates no right, it aspires to no real good, it brands no crime, it proposes no generous policy, it does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor foster religion, nor establish schools, nor encourage science, nor emancipate the slave, nor befriend the poor, or the Indian, or the immigrant. From neither party, when in power, has the world any benefit to expect in science, art, or humanity, at all commensurate with the resources of the nation.
The passage might be shortened as follows:
The spirit of our American radicalism is destructive and aimless. . . . On the other side, the conservative party . . . is timid, and merely defensive of property. . . . It does not build, nor write, nor cherish the arts, nor foster religion, nor establish schools.
Note that the first word after an ellipsis is capitalized if it begins a new grammatical sentence. Compare 11.63.
From the Chicago Manual of Style.
There is also a three-dot method that just always has three dots. Fiction publishers generally use one or the other. I believe Tor uses the three-or-four-dot method. Four dots is used for trailing off at the end of a complete sentence.
The spacing between the dots is important. Never use no spaces or the … character Word wants to replace 3 dots with.
-
Thanks, Ook. So if using the three-or-four-dot method, an unfinished sentence such as "Oh my god, that's a. . . ." would use four dots, right?
So should there be a space between each dot? And why not use the '…' Word likes?
-
3 dots because it's not a complete sentence. (Not all publishing houses are consistent though.)
spaces because it looks bad without them. Check fiction books and you'll see they almost always have spaces.
-
Okay, on a sentence where you skip a pronoun, what is the proper punctuation for signalling that skip?
Example, sentence A. with pronoun:
I swear it made a sound.
What I want to know is the proper punctuation for sentence B:
Swear it made a sound.
I understand it isn't correct English grammar, but I would still like to know for what I'm currently working on.
Thanks!
Personally, I add an apostrophe: 'Swear it made a sound. But that's just my own way of representing this.
-
Right–thanks, Ook.
But wouldn't that not really be correct (@ Jade) 'cause the word that was left out was its own word, and not connected to 'Swear' (where you're putting the apostrophe)?
-
Okay, on a sentence where you skip a pronoun, what is the proper punctuation for signalling that skip?
Example, sentence A. with pronoun:
I swear it made a sound.
What I want to know is the proper punctuation for sentence B:
Swear it made a sound.
I understand it isn't correct English grammar, but I would still like to know for what I'm currently working on.
Thanks!
Personally, I add an apostrophe: 'Swear it made a sound. But that's just my own way of representing this.
That's what I was doing because I wrote one sentence that sounded like I was addressing the reading rather than recounting an event. It was weird.
-
Actually, Ookla, one more question…the dot things (ellipses?) you've talked about have represented words taken out, or the trailing off of sentences, right? Well, what if it's just, like, a pause where somethone is thinking? (I know it's three dots, but what about spacing?) Example: "Well, I guess technically you're right, but. . .I just have this feeling. . . ." What would the spacing be like for the thing in red?
-
I think you're getting it slightly wrong, Shaggy. Three dots is for a truncated sentence; four dots is for one or more omitted sentences. Basically, you would only use the four dots in a scholarly work.
-
You're almost right, Shaggy, according to what I said before, except the ". . ." needs spaces on both sides. When you have four dots like you have at the end there, the first one doesn't have a space before it, but when there are three dots there is always a space before and after. (If there are spaces in the middle like there are supposed to be.)
-
Right–thanks, Ook.
But wouldn't that not really be correct (@ Jade) 'cause the word that was left out was its own word, and not connected to 'Swear' (where you're putting the apostrophe)?
Like I said, this is an idiosyncratic thing I do. Not standard usage. I like it, though.
-
I would just say it's wrong. Apostrophes work on the word level, not the sentence level. If they're on the sentence level they become single quote marks and look unbalanced.
You can use wrong punctuation idiosyncratically all you want, of course, but if you actually want to submit something professionally, don't.
-
Right–thanks, Ook.
Actually, Jade, I was just reading a book where they used that, so, I guess I was mistaken.
-
Heheh. Have at you, Ook!
-
I do sometimes see it when part of a set phrase has been left out, such as " 'Course" for "Of course," but when it's not a set phrase it's just wrong, and if you saw it in a book, some editor was being sloppy.
-
The way I saw it was in "'Night," the apostrophe being in place of 'Good.' (Set phrase?)
-
I do sometimes see it when part of a set phrase has been left out, such as " 'Course" for "Of course," but when it's not a set phrase it's just wrong, and if you saw it in a book, some editor was being sloppy.
I generally only do it in that context.
-
Yes, Shaggy, that's a good example of a set phrase where the use is defensible or even preferred.
(Everyone please remember that when you use curly apostrophes, they always curl the same way as they do in the middle of a word, even if they're at the beginning of a word. I think that typographically there's little that looks worse than an apostrophe facing the wrong direction.)
If you're leaving off a personal pronoun, though, that's not a set phrase in the same sense.