# Fragments & Run-on-sentences



## luckyscars (Mar 30, 2013)

I often get caught out when talking to other writers, or for that matter, readers. We can be happily talking about a certain writer and then the conversation quickly gets awkward when, out of the blue, they'll say how much they hate how X uses 'too many fragments/run on sentences/comma splices'

My big problem is that I love them. To me fragmented sentences can have a wonderful natural flow to a piece. Which is the exact opposite of what those who don't like them say. I'll give an example of what I'm talking about, an excerpt from 'The Road' by McCarthy:

"When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him. Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath. He pushed away the plastic tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking robes and blankets and looked toward the east for any light but there was none. In the dream from which he'd wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Their light playing over the wet flowstone walls. Like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast. Deep stone flues where the water dripped and sang. Tolling in the silence the minutes of the earth and the hours and the days of it and the years without cease. Until they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake. And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders. It swung its head low over the water as if to take the scent of what it could not see. Crouching there pale and naked and translucent, its alabaster bones cast up in shadow on the rocks behind it. Its bowels, its beating heart. The brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell. It swung its head from side to side and then gave out a low moan and turned and lurched away and loped soundlessly into the dark..."

That kind of passage seems to irk a lot of people, yet I just don't see a problem with it. When I read a passage like the one above, I barely notice the lack of grammar and, if I do notice it, I tend to actually like it. I've never understood the obsession people have for 'proper sentences' anyway. What do we reckon? How important is this stuff for a writer trying to get published?


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 30, 2013)

The thing that I care most about is whether or not my words are arranged appropriately enough so that they can be understood without a reader having to devote more effort at grammatically interpreting them than they do when thinking about what I have written. (I managed to construct that sentence without using a comma. Forty-five contiguous words, a personal best!  )

I believe in grammar. I believe it is a necessity. I believe that appropriate grammar and punctuation is critical for laying the foundations for the most accurate interpretation of meaning that is possible, given what has been constructed. But, I'm no slave to grammar. I think that certain liberties are allowable, provided that they are taken at the appropriate moment and when little mistake in interpretation is possible.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 30, 2013)

I don't mind sentence fragments in the right circumstances - fight scenes, for example. The passage you posted - not so much. But I think that was a combination of the structure along with the phrasing - I'm not a fan of 'poetic prose'. And he did something I've seen happen a lot when authors try this - he makes a statement that references something either not there before or so unclear it stops one dead in one's tracks ("Their light playing over..." - whose light?). 

Basically, sentence structure should augment the story, not distract from it.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 30, 2013)

Fragments are one of those mistakes that people who don't write well often make without realizing it, so our English teachers all look out for them and circle them in red, and therefore we have a general perception they're bad. In academic or business writing, they are indeed bad style and should not be used. In creative, literary writing, I don't think there's anything wrong with them when used intentionally in a stylistically effective way. I find them especially useful in free indirect discourse, because they often feel more conversational, more like a character's informal thought than a narrator's more formal style.

McCarthy is so good, IMO. Seriously. That passage is amazing.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 30, 2013)

How important to getting published?  I wonder if McCarthy as a 'proven' writer was _allowed_ more freedom to do things that someone with less clout(?) would not be allowed to.


----------



## Circadian (Mar 30, 2013)

I can't count the number of times an English teacher or reviewer has called me out for having fragments or run-ons.  These, I really have no problem with so long as the situation calls for them.  Like shadowwalker said, these can be employed in scenes with a quick pace, like fight sequences.  A while ago I read _Misery_ by Stephen King.  That has plenty of fragments and run-ons, including a rather long paragraph in which the protagonist's thoughts were strewn out in a single, confusing run-on.  But in that situation, it worked; it conveyed the protagonist's pain and the fact that it was making him go out of his mind.  I'd find an excerpt except that I'm not sure where our copy of the book is at the moment.

For slower scenes, I'd keep the sentences grammatically correct.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 30, 2013)

To me, your example for fragmented sentences reads horribly; and the writing would be so much better without them.



> Its bowels, its beating heart. The brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell.


This was the only fragmented sentences section I didn't mind (Although the grammar change wasn't ideal for me).

But of course, well known authors can get away with garbage, until the time they don't.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 30, 2013)

.


----------



## Nickleby (Mar 30, 2013)

For grammar purists, every sentence must be complete and correct. Sorry, the brain doesn't work that way. Your excerpt better represents the way we perceive things, especially when under duress. Language is an afterthought (and I mean that literally).


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 30, 2013)

Jon M said:


> Me neither. Anybody who doesn't like that has questionable taste.



Because they don't like it and you do?


----------



## Jon M (Mar 30, 2013)

.


----------



## Dictarium (Mar 30, 2013)

People tend to not use the term "run-on-sentence" improperly, I find. They confuse it with the term "long sentence". If something works grammatically with its clauses and prepositional phrases and doesn't use too many conjunctions, I don't see a problem with it as long as it can be followed. People just look at long sentences as something that's always wrong, just like I still have kids in my grade (11th, for those wondering) who tell me not to start a sentence with "Because" or "And" because they've had it ground into their head that it's a no-no. 

If actual run-on-sentences are allowed through an editor en masse then that author has a bad editor who keeps letting them get away with excessive run-on-sentences.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 31, 2013)

Just a note:

There's a difference between an English teacher grading a paper and a writer writing a novel. In one, you're being taught. In another, you're the master.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 31, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Just a note:
> 
> There's a difference between an English teacher grading a paper and a writer writing a novel. In one, you're being taught. In another, you're the master.



I think that's a little simplified. While its obviously true that the mindset of a teacher is going to be different to that of an editor/agent/publisher, I don't know that this means editors/agents/publishers are therefore more tolerant of 'bad grammar' and I certainly don't think anybody who reads a first-time author's manuscript perceives them as the master or anything. If anything, the bar is going to be much higher for professionals or would-be professionals than students. Writing well using 'bad grammar' definitely seems to be something that you HAVE to get right or else fail miserably.


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 31, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I don't mind sentence fragments in the right circumstances - fight scenes, for example. The passage you posted - not so much. But I think that was a combination of the structure along with the phrasing - I'm not a fan of 'poetic prose'. And he did something I've seen happen a lot when authors try this - he makes a statement that references something either not there before or so unclear it stops one dead in one's tracks ("Their light playing over..." - whose light?).
> 
> Basically, sentence structure should augment the story, not distract from it.



I'm surprised at your rejection. As far as the light thing goes...

"In the dream from which he'd wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand. Their light playing over the wet flowstone walls."

I think its pretty obvious, even to the layman, that it's referring to the child and the narrator's light. Is it the fact that there's a period in place of a comma that confused you? Because if you replace the period with the comma, to create the following...

"In the dream from which he'd wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand, their light playing over the wet flowstone walls."

...then you have what is a grammatically perfect sentence by anybody's definition.

I suppose my point is that, comparatively speaking, it _isn't_ really less clear to write that way than it would be to write the same thing while adhering to conventional grammar. As to why its neccessary, like Nickelby says, sometimes the brain doesn't work grammatically. So arguably fragments can be more correct than correct sentences. Arguably. But even speaking as objectively as I can, I see no problems with the way McCarthy uses fragments, at least not the example you gave. That's not to say it cannot be confusing, but plenty of grammatically conscious writers also write in a way that is equally difficult to interpret. So I think your statement that fragmented sentences detract from clarity is pretty bogus, and frankly suggesting of a certain laziness. I'm pretty sure 99% of those who read 'The Road' did not have problems knowing immediately 'whose light' it was.

But, naturally everybody has their own views on the matter. If its merely personal preference that is a whole different story (and, indeed, the whole reason I started the conversation to begin with). But suggesting fragments as being distracting because they are fragments is plain silly.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

Fragments are a great way to emphasize, to deliver a punch line, to “punctuate” a longer sentence or thought, to surprise the reader, and along with complete sentences of varying length, to create rhythm. They are an essential tool in the hands of any writer who has an iota of talent. The idea that they should be relegated to any type of scene or only used under certain circumstances is pure baloney. Of course they can be overused. Anything can be overused. Or misused. That’s a no brainer. But anyone who says you shouldn’t use fragments, or who tries to set conditions for using them beforehand can be safely ignored.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Fragments are a great way to emphasize, to deliver a punch line, to “punctuate” a longer sentence or thought, to surprise the reader, and along with complete sentences of varying length, to create rhythm.



Of course a better example than that above would have been ideal.  When I first read it, I thought luckyscars was giving an example of his own writing, and I had been about to write that he should consider defragmenting many of them.  The fact that an established author wrote it doesn't make the passage any better, and it would be name snobbery for me to say otherwise.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

Well, that's your opinion -- and you know what they say about those.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 31, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Well, that's your opinion -- and you know what they say about those.



As worthless as any other, unless that opinion has a bank check attached.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

I can understand that the passage may not be to everyone's liking. But I do think it's pretty silly to say that because you don't like or appreciate something that the people who do are snobs, or that they are somehow being bamboozled because an "established author" wrote it. That's just another kind of snobbery or  little superiority trip. Just as bad as if I said -- hey, you just don't get it, rube.


----------



## moderan (Mar 31, 2013)

Yeah, that's true. The passage is ok I guess. I don't see any real problem with it. I don't like McCarthy's work in general-he's significantly over-rated imo, a critic's darling. But there's nothing wrong with using fragments of sentences to get your point across. As said, your brain doesn't necessarily process words in complete sentences, and the words are only symbols meant to convey the content of thought to another.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 31, 2013)

Well, luckyscars, I liked that passage. I thought the stop-start flow to it felt very deliberate and added a surreal quality to something that was already far-removed from reality. If I had to adhere to basic grammar conventions then my own work would have an entirely different tone.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

I like the passage a whole lot. Is there some truth that he can "get  away with it" because he's an established author? Probably. But to me  that just means he has the leeway to be fearless and push things in ways  that others can't or won't. It's not like he's just coasting and  churning out crap for gullible elitists.


----------



## shadowwalker (Mar 31, 2013)

Well, call me the country cousin of literature then, because I don't care who the guy is, I didn't care for the writing. As to safely ignoring advice, people should accept or ignore _anyone's_ advice/opinion based on whether or not they like it/agree with it/it makes sense for them. Differing opinion does not mean differing intelligence or worth - something that might need to be mentioned more often around here.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 31, 2013)

My advice includes that some advice can be safely ignored. Accept or ignore that, cousin.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 31, 2013)

Heh...call you comedien (very good)...I don't like it much either but I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I found it emotional (if not completely depressing) and somehow more 'realistic' than your typical PA fantasy, in fact more realistic than any other I'd ever read. I say the guy is good. I say he's got great insight into human nature. As far as fragments go, well I don't know if it was copied correctly, but if it was then there are some what I call 'mistakes', even for a fragment. I don't remember that passage from the book. There was so much other stuff going on that even if _that_ was poorly written I didn't notice. I noticed the overall story.


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 1, 2013)

Additionally, using fragments that are <5ish words (usually 1 or 2) is very effective if you want to emphasize something either at the end of a paragraph or as it's own paragraphic entity. Just remember to use it sparingly.

Very sparingly.


----------



## luckyscars (Apr 1, 2013)

Dictarium said:


> Additionally, using fragments that are <5ish words (usually 1 or 2) is very effective if you want to emphasize something either at the end of a paragraph or as it's own paragraphic entity. Just remember to use it sparingly.
> 
> Very sparingly.



What information leads you to that conclusion?


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 1, 2013)

JosephB said:


> My advice includes that some advice can be safely ignored.



Yes - I've found it generally safe to ignore advice that includes personal judgement against those who disagree with it.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

There's simply no basis for the idea that fragments should only be used in certain kinds of scenes or that you need to put conditions on their use ahead of time. You said there is -- and I strongly disagree. If you want to take that as a "personal judgement," that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 1, 2013)

JosephB said:


> There's simply no basis for the idea that fragments should only be used in certain kinds of scenes or that you need to put conditions on their use ahead of time. You said there is -- and I strongly disagree. If you want to take that as a "personal judgement," that's your problem, not mine.



I made no comment about you specifically, did I? But others did make comments to the effect that if one didn't like that passage, they were somehow 'deficient'. You and I disagree on when fragments are useful - stating that some advice can be safely ignored _could _be seen as saying if the advice disagrees with yours it should be ignored - which does come close. I just think it's important for people to understand that advice and opinions are only that - not hard and fast rules, and people must learn to choose which works for them and which doesn't.


----------



## Dictarium (Apr 1, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> What information leads you to that conclusion?


Um... the fact that when I read something where fragments are used as such, I find it an effective way to emphasize a certain word or a few words. Most onomatopoeia I see is done that way and it works fine. The positioning is just to make it stand out more. Something at the end of a paragraph or as a stand-alone entity will stick out more than something in the middle of a paragraph most times. And the sparingly thing is just because using too much of any literary technique can become tiresome for the reader after a while, and the fragments will begin to lose the effect they initially had when there's 100 of them.

It isn't from some English Class or Literary Mechanics book or anything, so no "information" other than personal experiences was used, I s'pose. I didn't know that was a bad thing.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> I made no comment about you specifically, did I?



I'm the only one that said "safely ignore" in this thread -- not exactly  a common phrase. Are you trying to say you weren't referencing me  specifically? Come on.



shadowwalker said:


> You and I disagree on when fragments are useful - stating that some advice can be safely ignored _could _be  seen as saying if the advice disagrees with yours it should be ignored -  which does come close. I just think it's important for people to  understand that advice and opinions are only that - not hard and fast  rules, and people must learn to choose which works for them and which  doesn't.



Fragments are mostly about the particular words you want to emphasize.  They could convey virtually any emotion or thought.  So -- what are some  scenes or circumstances where you would want to avoid them? Love scenes?  Death scenes? Eating a sandwich scenes? Maybe you can -- but I can't  think of single kind of scene or circumstance ahead of time where you  couldn't  use fragments effectively. About the only other consideration I  can think of would have to do with style -- and that's mostly about  personal preference. So why even plant the seed that there are only  certain conditions under which fragments could work? There's no good  reason that I can think of. Sorry -- but to me it's something that can  not only be safely ignored -- it definitely should be ignored. And I'm  not promoting any hard fast rules. About the opposite, in fact.

Anyway, I appreciate what you have to say and how you say it -- I think I went out of my way to tell you that once. And I agree with you a good bit too -- but not this time.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 1, 2013)

In my opinion the first rule of writing fiction is that the author must use the correct words and structure to deliver his/her story in a way the reader can understand.  The rules of grammar exist to allow a framework which will efficiently achieve that goal.  What I consider 'good' fiction takes that first rule of story and wraps it in a swaddling cloth of pace, rhythm, and flow affecting how the story _sounds_ inside the reader's head.  Diverging from 'proper grammar' can dramatically enhance pace, rhythm, and flow if done well.  If done poorly it can make the story sound awkward and dissonant.  It's that sound of the story inside my head as I read it that separates, for me, a good writer from a bad one; an experienced one from a newbie.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

So I guess what you're saying is, it's OK to use fragments, just don't screw it up.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 1, 2013)

Bingo!  (Oops!  That's a fragment.)

I just see too many new writers who seem to read the "there are no rules" statements we all make and write stories which are painful to read.


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 1, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I'm the only one that said "safely ignore" in this thread -- not exactly  a common phrase. Are you trying to say you weren't referencing me  specifically? Come on.



True. But as I noted above, that does come close to the "you're wrong if you disagree with me" idea - but I think I was just too tired and more than a bit annoyed at other comments which implied 'superiority'. 



JosephB said:


> Anyway, I appreciate what you have to say and how you say it -- I think I went out of my way to tell you that once. And I agree with you a good bit too -- but not this time.



Actually, looking at what I originally wrote, I'm not sure if we really disagree. I gave one example of when fragments are effective, and stated that structure should augment the story, not distract from it. I didn't state one should never use them - merely that one should be careful that it's appropriate to use them. Otherwise, the disagreement seems to be over that specific example in the OP, and I just don't care for the way fragments were used in it. Others like it - mere opinion on either side.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 1, 2013)

I personally don't see how there is argument, whether grammatical infraction, done usefully and adroitly, has place in prose? In the case we examine:

"When he woke in the woods in the dark and the cold of the night he'd reach out to touch the child sleeping beside him.

_Nights dark beyond darkness and the days more gray each one than what had gone before. Like the onset of some cold glaucoma dimming away the world. _

His hand rose and fell softly with each precious breath. He pushed away the plastic tarpaulin and raised himself in the stinking robes and blankets and looked toward the east for any light but there was none. In the dream from which he'd wakened he had wandered in a cave where the child led him by the hand.

_Their light playing over the wet flowstone walls. Like pilgrims in a fable swallowed up and lost among the inward parts of some granitic beast. Deep stone flues where the water dripped and sang. Tolling in the silence the minutes of the earth and the hours and the days of it and the years without cease. Until they stood in a great stone room where lay a black and ancient lake. And on the far shore a creature that raised its dripping mouth from the rimstone pool and stared into the light with eyes dead white and sightless as the eggs of spiders._

It swung its head low over the water as if to take the scent of what it could not see.

_Crouching there pale and naked and translucent, its alabaster bones cast up in shadow on the rocks behind it. Its bowels, its beating heart. The brain that pulsed in a dull glass bell._

It swung its head from side to side and then gave out a low moan and turned and lurched away and loped soundlessly into the dark..."

That's the McCarthy quote broken up; fragments in italic. A lot of fragments. What is done here, is ALL the imagery is in sentence fragments and all the action in complete sentences. I would personally probably not like to read pages and pages of material with this amount and depth of imagery, unless there was in it a significant sub-text. It's hard to tell from this bit if that's the case. As an extracted short it's highly portentous, which may very well be its larger purpose. What is striking to me is how effectively the use of fragments heightens this effect. How the unfinished-ness of the fragments suits the purpose of imagery and the finished-ness of complete sentences, immediate action. In my judgement, this aspect of the quoted text is masterfully done.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

I read the book. I don't remember that particular passage, but I wouldn't have even thought about the fragments if they hadn't been brought to my attention. It's the same when I'm writing. With either, I suppose I don't notice them unless there's a problem. That's an interesting breakdown though. It would be kind of fun to know if he did that consciously, or if it just happened.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 1, 2013)

I'd bet it was intentional.  I think the whole style in which it is written was very carefully planned to give the story its bleak, unsettled atmosphere.  All common writing conventions are missing, punctuation is very sparse, there are no quotation marks, no names; everything normal is gone, like the world in the story.  The writing reflects the setting.  It took me many pages to become adjusted to the style (time I would never have given a writer with a lesser reputation) but it works.


----------



## Sam (Apr 1, 2013)

If my lecturer/professor caught me using fragments, s/he would clip me 'round the ear and give me a stern telling-off. But this isn't academic writing we're talking about. This is _creative_, emphasised for the simple reason that creative writing requires an author to convey more than just an analytical answer to a question. It requires the ability to convey a hundred-and-one different emotions throughout the course of a story. How else do you derive a sense of chaos from a story if the language is not chaotic? How else do you depict breakneck scenes if your sentences aren't fragmented? You could just say that everything was chaotic; you could tell your reader that things were happening fast; but to physically make a reader read faster, you _have _to use snappy, fragmented sentences. 

Why anyone would remove that tool from their kit because it 'looks pompous' is beyond me. It's like saying, "Third-person omniscient is pompous and I won't use it". Seriously?


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 1, 2013)

Sam said:


> to physically make a reader read faster, you _have _to use snappy, fragmented sentences.



I think this is my problem with the quoted passage. It just doesn't seem like the sort of atmosphere where one wants the reader to read faster - it's too mood-sensitive for that. I probably would have been caught up in it had it been written more conventionally, or at least in a style that better fit (IMO) the mood it was trying to produce. But just as I got into it, whoops! - another fragment that made me stumble. If the only reason to keep reading is because the author is supposed to know what they're doing (ie, reputation), that's just a not good enough reason for me.


----------



## ppsage (Apr 1, 2013)

> You could just say that everything was chaotic; you could tell your reader that things were happening fast; but to physically make a reader read faster, you _have _to use snappy, fragmented sentences.


 Technically, I would say, fragments aren't sentences. The importance of this is in the expectation of (many) readers, who presume (from education, I suppose) complete sentences and stumble over fragments, especially the sort in our example, which tend somewhat to be subjective clauses that have lost their masters and to ramble on a bit. There are, of course many sorts of fragments, even here. But in this example, the fragments don't give me a sense of happening fast at all, and I think their purpose is more to slow things down. I suspect that short complete sentences, bare subject/verb/object deals, might often be more conducive of an atmosphere of speedy action for a lot of readers. Although one might create a series of short, predicate only fragments related to an initial subject. _He ran from danger. Ran thusly. And ran suchmuch. And soso. So on. So forth. But, in the end, his running was to no avail. _I do think that the fragments in this example have a, perhaps unusual, complexity, which many may find not to their taste.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 1, 2013)

I don't believe people talk or think in complete sentences all the time.  In fact, I stopped for a moment to think just now and I came up with "Damn".


----------



## shadowwalker (Apr 1, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> I don't believe people talk or think in complete sentences all the time.  In fact, I stopped for a moment to think just now and I came up with "Damn".



No, they don't. But just like we don't make dialogue duplicate actual speech, we shouldn't assume that making narrative duplicate actual thought/speech patterns is always appropriate.


----------



## Tettsuo (Apr 1, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> No, they don't. But just like we don't make dialogue duplicate actual speech, we shouldn't assume that making narrative duplicate actual thought/speech patterns is always appropriate.


I agree, not always appropriate.

But there are times when it's the best and most appropriate opinion for expressing what's going on with words.


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 1, 2013)

Fragments are okay when used well--usually that means when used intentionally and for a specific effect.

The use of fragments all the time can make the reading feel choppy and jarring, which can work if that's the effect you're going for. But if your whole piece is written that way I can see how quickly it would turn a lot of readers off.

I thought Cormac's "The Road" was poetically written and that the writing _style_ worked well with the story. I know readers who would hate it, though, if they had a chance to read it. Not everyone appreciates style, tone, and creativity with prose. As writers we're naturally more aware of these narrative distinctions. The average reader isn't--they just think in terms of "interesting" or "boring" usually, or "great" or "sucks".

I can see Cormac's writing falling into the "boring" category for a lot of average readers, and quite possibly that could be a result of the strange sentence constructions.

So.. I guess to nail down my ramblings, I'd say grammatically correct writing is the "safer" approach if you're looking to write for the masses. The farther you stray from conventions, the more you narrow your readership, and the greater your risk/reward becomes.

Since the OP asked about how this relates to publishing, I'd say many publishers want their books to have the most sales as possible, so they would likely want to avoid anything that could push away readers.

Personally I'd advise to use the strength of your storytelling to impact the reader, and to use creative grammar sparingly. But that's just because that is the approach I favor most. 

Feel free to write in any way you want--just don't be surprised by the publishers that only want "conventional" writing.

I like to think of story as a vehicle. Engine is the plot, and the wheels are the prose.

A story with a strong engine (plot) will run well with simple, basic wheels. It'll get the reader where she wants to go.

But if you start changing the wheels too much--making them triangular, perhaps, or shaped like giant S's, the ride might end up being jarring and uncomfortable, and that's probably not what you want.

Not the best analogy, I know.  But you get what I'm trying to say.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

Yes, I concur wholeheartedly.  The idea is to use them well and not all the time.


----------



## Sam (Apr 1, 2013)

No one said "use them all the time". Why do people make that argument? We know to use them in moderation. We're not children. 

*Not having a go at you, Joe.


----------



## JosephB (Apr 1, 2013)

Heh. I was just kidding. I get a kick out of the "use them sparingly!" warnings that you always get in these conversations.


----------

