# Conjunctions



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 26, 2015)

Using too many conjunctions is one of the bad habits I'm trying to break. Aside from these are there any others I should be lean on using?


So
However

For
And
Not
Because
Or
Yet

In TZC Prelude- I discovered that I used ' and ' 92 times :: flinch ::
Yeah, those sentence will be reworded- if possible.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 26, 2015)

There's nothing wrong with conjunctions, as long as you're not regularly starting sentences with them.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 26, 2015)

Conjunctions are invisible words. Readers barely even register them as they go, I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 26, 2015)

Yeah, that's one of my problems. At one time, a teacher told the class "It's okay to start a sentence- like a character's lines- with And." 
20 years later I'm learning- that's not true.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Aug 26, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> Yeah, that's one of my problems. At one time, a teacher told the class "It's okay to start a sentence- like a character's lines- with And."
> 20 years later I'm learning- that's not true.



Really? I find the opposite. 20 years ago, I was being taught never to start with "And", I find these days it seems to be ok.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Aug 26, 2015)

Bishop said:


> Conjunctions are invisible words. Readers barely even register them as they go, I wouldn't worry about it.



The exception, of course, being a sentence that drags on and uses conjunctions to just keep going so it grows tedious and the reader loses interest and stops reading your story because he can't stand how many conjunctions you used.


----------



## Sam (Aug 26, 2015)

Ah, yes. 

Let's remove adverbs, conjunctions, adjectives, weak verbs, and gerunds from our writing. 

Can someone please make a list of the words we're allowed to use? That'd be dandy.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Aug 26, 2015)

Hello Mz

I don't think any publisher today will smack you for starting a sentence - or even a paragraph - with 'and' if: (1) it's consistent with your style, (2) you use it judiciously - to break up an otherwise much too long sentence, for example, and (3) it keeps the story moving along.

Yes, I know according to the strictest formal rules of grammar and style it's forbidden, but just as ending a sentence with a preposition or splitting an infinitive is frowned upon, good, established writers of prose do it all the time.

Go for it.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 26, 2015)

92 and's though - it does seem excessive. The piece, right now, is just under 3,000 words.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 26, 2015)

92 out of 3,000? That's about 3%. That doesn't sound all that excessive to me. I doubt I would notice it were I to critique the piece.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Aug 27, 2015)

Hello Mz

Do an 'and count' for the last sentence in Joyce's _Ulysses_.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Aug 27, 2015)

The underlying issue is HOW are you using these words (and other conjunctions ... there are more)
Conjunctions, depending on their usage, tend to give the written word a 'Legalese', contract sounding style.
Remember, it's suppossed to be dramatic fiction so the 'Howevers' and the 'therefores' tend to take us out of a fantasy, fantastic story and make us think we are in English class again.  (Obviously depending on the scope and genre .... YA?  Not too many 13 year olds using However and Therefore in their day to day conversation .... Military Thriller?  Could be.)
They are called conjunctions since they tend to connect clauses or ideas.  Could those ideas stand alone in their own sentences? 
So check if it's the vocabulary or the style that  is your issue.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 27, 2015)

Funny thing about going on an 'and' hunt, it leads to other interesting places. And that's the truth...


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 27, 2015)

No kidding Bazz.... As I was reviewing the piece in question- I happened to notice another word that kept popping out - hand. So I did a word search on the document just for S & Gs and found that it hand / hands appears 17 times. 

John Oberon- the piece in question is The Zodiac Chronicles ~ Prelude- link here


----------



## Bishop (Aug 27, 2015)

I find this thread to be a cautionary tale to those using word processors (as we all should be, don't be a Luddite!). Technology will aid you in creating, formatting, quantifying, correcting, editing, and overall writing your work. But don't let its ability to micro-manage the text become a driving force for your own fears.

And is an invisible word. Unless used copiously, and I do mean COPIOUSLY, no one will notice. And trying to nit-pick it out of every sentence will force your sentences to start sounding ridiculous as you ornately weave them into convoluted messes just to avoid using the word "and". I think King was the man who said, "Never use a $5 word when a $.05 word will do." Use the word that works, use the word that makes sense... the reader will appreciate it.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 27, 2015)

another word that appears to be a problem of mine is "the" Again, using my piece TZC for example "the" appears 207 times.

maybe I should have called this thread "excessive word use" LOL


----------



## Sam (Aug 28, 2015)

In my current WIP, approximately 120k long, 'the' appears 9,000 times. 

So effing what? There has never been a reader who ever said, "Nah, I didn't like that book. The writer used 'the' too many times". 

'The' is the most common word in the English language, which makes trying to remove it the most pointless exercise in futility I've ever heard of.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 28, 2015)

Don't let a damned word counter tell you that you have a problem with word choice. Read the piece and let your inner 'editor's ear' tell you that. Repetitive words are only a problem when they create issues with the flow of the narrative. If a word is truly used too often the effect as you read the work will be like driving along a wash-board road -- _thump-thump-thump-thump_. If that happens you'll know it.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 28, 2015)

I disagree. I think the more efficiently writing enters a reader's brain the better. Let's look at her first four paragraphs::
_
Work around the archaeological dig waned as the early summer sun set below the horizon. Inside one of the tents Doctor Lynn Tristain used a brush to gently sweep away the centuries of dirt from the artifact she held. 

She traced her fingers over the surface of the disk. The Celestial Shields were the first part in the find of her career. To the world, the artifacts were just stone disks bearing symbols of the elements and astrological signs. To her colleagues they were a myth. 

The intricate details were meant to depict the effects of the wind. The outer edge was shaped into twelve chevrons. The second ring was carved to show the movement of the wind. The center field was engraved with the elemental symbols of Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius. 

She set the disk to rest on the small table beside its three companions. They were similar with each depicting the signs of fire, earth, or water. With a sensation of triumph, she stood back to marvel at her discovery.
_
That's 172 words and 25 (over 14%) are "the". Let's see if efficiency improves the read:

_Work around the archaeological dig waned with an early summer sunset. Inside a tent, Doctor Lynn Tristain gently brushed away centuries of dirt from an artifact she held.

She traced her fingers over the disk. The Celestial Shields were the first part in the find of her career. To the world, they were just stone disks bearing elemental symbols and astrological signs. To her colleagues, they were myth.

Intricate details depicted the effects of wind, and twelve chevrons defined the outer edge. The second ring was carved to show wind movement, while the center field was engraved with symbols for Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius.

She set the disk on a small table beside its three companions. They were similar, each depicting signs of fire, earth, or water. With a sense of triumph, she marveled at her discovery.
_
138 words and 11 of them "the".

What's your verdict? Did it enter your brain and move the story more quickly? Was it easier to read? Was any meaning lost despite a 20% reduction in words?

It makes a difference, Sam, and it's not futile.


----------



## Sam (Aug 28, 2015)

No, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever, and it is most certainly futile. Ridiculously and ludicrously futile, to say nothing of delusional. 

Next we'll be removing words with the letter 'e' in them. After all, it's the most common letter of the alphabet. 

Can't abide all those es!


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 28, 2015)

Alrighty, Sam...to each his own.

Snowleopard, here's my opinion. Most likely, over your entire book, you don't use "the" or conjunctions any more than any other writer. However, as you saw in your first four paragraphs, there are pockets in your writing where you may use these words excessively. Here's what I'd do: search your writing for whatever words you feel creep into your writing unnecessarily, and look for those pockets. Revise only the pockets and leave the rest alone. If you search for "the" in your first four paragraphs...well, it's riddled with it, lol. If you see other patches that look like that, that's your flag to edit.

That's my two cents.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 28, 2015)

Sam said:


> No, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever, and it is most *certainly* futile. *Ridiculously* and *ludicrously* futile, to say nothing of delusional.
> 
> Next we'll be removing words with the letter 'e' in them. After all, it's the most common letter of the alphabet.
> 
> Can't abide all those es!



Geeze, Sam. You gotta start working on those 'ly' adjectives.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

I'm actually at a loss for words on this one... if you ran these search functions on a King or a Rowling, you'll get the SAME results.

*You don't notice these words in the text.* Readers will never go, "Damn, this novice author really leans on the use of 'the' don't they?" When's the last time you read a book and actually said, "Well, they used 'and' 908 times. #AwfulBook." You're only seeing them because you're specifically looking for them. Then, when they're highlighted in your mind, you can't stop seeing them. It's a self-fulfilling phobia, and completely counter productive to good fiction. Now, you're going to over-complicate your prose just to avoid the simple, necessary word "the". Next, you'll get rid of the word "is" and replace it with "remains" and it'll look awful. "Jack is on the hill." "Jack remains on the hill."

Stop. Stop this now, before you take perfectly good fiction that you wrote and turn it into something Joey Tribbiani wrote with a thesaurus. Put this piece you're editing into a drawer, let it sit for at least two weeks. Come back to it, read it, and I promise, you'll not even notice these words. Distance yourself from the text to come at it fresh. You're micromanaging your fiction.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 28, 2015)

I've done that- stepped away from the piece for a time- several times- in some cases, a few days or a week passed, in others- a few months. Still, when I come back to it- certain words glare ( or still glare) at me. It feels like it starts with one word and then cascades- and I tumble down a hill. So I step away for a time, come back to it, and the insanity repeats itself, repeats itself, repeats itself.... ( Like the kid said in Transformers 2)

Maybe I should rename this thread- issues with TZC LOL



Terry D said:


> Geeze, Sam. You gotta start working on those 'ly' adjectives.



I've not even begun to work on the gerunds, yet.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

So if you remove "the" and "and", then the gerunds, then the adverbs... Next, we better cut back on those pesky nouns, all over the place... verbs are on the block after that, of course!

Soon, you'll be left with the barest bones of a story, with no embellishment or basic prose for a reader to connect to.

Think of it this way: "The", "And", "But"... those aren't really words as much as they're punctuation. "The" and other articles signify specificity, serve to differentiate. They're often as necessary as commas or periods. "And" and "but", and other conjunctions, connect clauses. They're like dashes or... yeah, again commas! Or periods! They're necessary parts of the language and cannot be removed. Let's remove them from the previous sentence:

They're necessary parts of language cannot be removed. Hm, sounds odd. Let's put a comma in to clear it up some. They're necessary parts of language, cannot be removed. Ah, better! But wait... necessary parts of which language? There's a lot of those... I suppose it's necessary for ALL languages to have articles and conjunctions, but we're talking English within prose here. So we need "the" to point out that specificity. Next, that comma... without "and" the clause is just tacked on, doesn't flow. It implies it's one continuous thought, and therefore comes across sounding like someone unable to separate two thoughts on a single subject. "I like pie it tastes so juicy!" comes across childish, "I like pie, and it tastes so juicy." Two separate thoughts, conjoined by that necessary little word that makes it sound adult. Now let's add extra context. Compare:

"I usually hate that juicy flavor. I like pie, it tastes so juicy!"

VS

"I usually hate that juicy flavor. But I like pie, and it tastes so juicy!"

Two necessary conjunctions that change tonality and clarify a lot. The first one now sounds like the narrator is suffering a very recent blow to the head and the second one comes across like someone pointing out one of their own little contradictions--suddenly, instead of off-putting, it seems human.

Of course, sometimes they truly are benign reductions in word count when you trim them. But you are in severe danger of removing one-too-many organs from the patient, so to speak, and killing your prose.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 28, 2015)

I guess Strunk & White were totally deluded, ridiculous, and off base then, huh? They took it to the point of counting characters, not just words.

I agree that a search of just about any book would yield the same numbers; I already said that. Snowleopard most likely uses those words no more than anyone else over the course of an entire book. But wouldn't you agree that maybe in several paragraphs here and there throughout a book, an author may overuse certain types of words? I know you've read excerpts with too many adverbs or adjectives, and you've probably advised authors to lighten up their purple prose a few tints. Excessive use of articles, prepositions, or conjunctions is similar. They can quickly clutter, clog, and dull expression. However, overuse of these words tends to affect specific sentences and paragraphs, whereas overuse of adverbs and adjective tends to infect larger chunks of writing.

It's just a matter of opinion, and really, personality. I'm more analytical and calculating. I think there should be a reason for every word I write, and if a word can't justify its presence in a sentence, it needs to go. You, not so much. You're more go with the flow, see what happens. Who cares if there's ten, twenty, thirty percent more words than necessary in a piece? People won't ever notice. Just so long as you say what you need to say.

I'm first to admit I'm often the lone voice in this arena because, let's face it, the writer demographic is populated with a lot of fat right brainers who don't like rules or authority too much, lol. But for myself, I can't escape the axiom "Brevity is the soul of wit", and if you want people to apprehend meaning through reading, it's usually best to move as many words as possible out of the way so they can see it clearly.

But as I say...to each his own.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 28, 2015)

Just a short here. It's not like I'm saying remove words like "archaeological" that's an important one. It's the small, 2, 3, and 4 letter ones that are in question. I'm looking at each one thinking "can I revise this part?" not just the word but what's around it. Such as replacing "the girl" with Jessica ( the character's name ) or 'her'.

Some of these small words, I'm sure, can be revised- the ones that stump me are like the paragraph- as noted in a critique- ""all of these sentences begin with 'the'. It's ones like these that stump me. There were other comments on these areas that keep them in my focus- and honestly, they stump me. Hence the focus on conjunctions.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> So if you remove "the" and "and", then the gerunds, then the adverbs... Next, we better cut back on those pesky nouns, all over the place... verbs are on the block after that, of course!
> 
> Soon, you'll be left with the barest bones of a story, with no embellishment or basic prose for a reader to connect to.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone would or could argue that various parts of speech are unnecessary...now that _is_ ridiculous, lol. However, many have argued against the overuse of certain parts of speech, and that's what I did. Nothing ridiculous about it. Tons of writers do the same.

If you're arguing for the appropriate use of parts of speech, I guess I don't understand the value of stating the obvious.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> It's not like I'm saying remove words like "archaeological" that's an important one. It's the small, 2, 3, and 4 letter ones that are in question. I'm looking at each one thinking "can I revise this part?" not just the word but what's around it. Such as replacing "the girl" with Jessica ( the character's name ) or 'her'.
> 
> Some of these small words, I'm sure, can be revised- the ones that stump me are like the paragraph- as noted in a critique- ""all of these sentences begin with 'the'. It's ones like these that stump me. There were other comments on these areas that keep them in my focus- and honestly, they stump me. Hence the focus on conjunctions.



Rephrasing a few sentences to avoid starting on the same word, for the sake of flow, is not an uncommon revision. What IS an uncommon revision is actually calculating the number of times you use a word, then like a shock squad, hunting each down and trying to remove/revise it. Your beta has a point--but it's not about the number of "the"s in your work, it's the start of each sentence. Rearrange some--that's not removal, or even overuse. It's just repetition. To make those changes, all it takes is one or two different sentence openings to change the flow, and even then, a lot of readers probably wont notice or care. As I said, "The" is an invisible word the vast majority of the time.



John Oberon said:


> I don't think anyone would or could argue that various parts of speech are unnecessary...now that _is_ ridiculous, lol. However, many have argued against the overuse of certain parts of speech, and that's what I did. Nothing ridiculous about it. Tons of writers do the same.
> 
> If you're arguing for the appropriate use of parts of speech, I guess I don't understand the value of stating the obvious.



I'm arguing that hunting down every article or conjunction with a word finder will quickly result in a seek-and-destroy mentality for words that are absolutely necessary for prose. It's a slippery slope that slows down production and editing of author, and often leads them to micromanaging parts of fiction that are perfectly fine and understandable.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 28, 2015)

Perhaps the word processing programs have made it far too easy to delve this deep in to nitpicking. It takes, what, one or two click- and check marking the box "find all matches" and typing the specific word in the entry field to locate the target word? It's about 5 seconds, if that much.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 28, 2015)

Bishop said:


> I'm arguing that hunting down every article or conjunction with a word finder will quickly result in a seek-and-destroy mentality for words that are absolutely necessary for prose. It's a slippery slope that slows down production and editing of author, and often leads them to micromanaging parts of fiction that are perfectly fine and understandable.



It does? Huh. Odd I've never developed that mentality. So...just to be clear...when I cut 20% from those four paragraphs with no real loss of meaning, you're saying all those cut words were "absolutely necessary"?

I don't know what all the stink is about. What's wrong with searching for a word, and if you see a mass of that word concentrated in a few paragraphs, trying to reduce its use a bit? I mean if some don't want to do it, fine. Let the words splatter where they may, lol. But if others want their words to fit together a little more tightly and want to work a little harder at craftsmanship, I see nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 28, 2015)

This isn't working harder at craftsmanship, this is calculating percentages of word usage; you're putting math into writing. Stop that. Math is bad. Bad math.



John Oberon said:


> It does? Huh. Odd I've never developed that mentality. So...just to be clear...when I cut 20% from those four paragraphs with no real loss of meaning, you're saying all those cut words were "absolutely necessary"?



In some places, those words were necessary. A few spots where I liked her version better than yours:

To her colleagues they were a myth. VS To her colleagues, they were myth.

That "a" is important. A myth is a central story or idea. One. Saying 'they were myth' without the 'a' disassociates them with one another. They're not a part of one myth together, they're just all false in their own right. That's a change in tone that can be important depending on the myth itself, and its place in the story. Or it could be utterly inconsequential--but either way, connotation changed there.

Next:

With a sensation of triumph, she stood back to marvel at her discovery. VS With a sense of triumph, she marveled at her discovery.

Removing the action of standing back seems benign. Okay, let's be honest, it sort of is benign. But it changes the character again. With her movement, I'm seeing her take a step back, put her hands on her hips and smile at the discovery. For some reason, with just "she marveled at her discovery" it seems more self-serving in tone. She's LITERALLY taken back by the object in the first example, and in the second, she's full of herself. 

Others are smaller, but still make changes: "Inside one of the tents" indicates that there's an entire camp set up, many people, many tents. "Inside a tent" is just that--could be a lone tent, with only one person around. It changes the perception of setting.

Sometimes, it's effective to remove the 'the's: 

They were similar with each depicting the signs of fire, earth, or water. VS They were similar, each depicting signs of fire, earth, or water.

Frankly, this should be 'and' instead of 'or' at the end in both versions, as it's an inclusive list--unless she is legitimately unsure which are represented. The second example is better here, with little change in tone between the two. But, through it all, we've only really removed two words. Two invisible words that a reader would never even think twice of whether they're there or not.

THAT'S the point. Hunting down and considering each and every instance of "the" in a 100,000 word piece is neurotic. Reading and editing the piece and fixing the awkward, repetitive phrases... that's great. It makes the prose flow better. But nit-picking and calling it 'better craftsmanship' simply because you've economically removed a single word--that's like using a toothbrush to clean the floors and saying it's a better clean.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 28, 2015)

squeaks in with a quip- Bishop- your example is one of the section I call a troublesome spot'. I used the word "OR" to indicate that each shield was different- each one representing one of the 4 elements.

It's a troublesome spot because some thing the 4 shields depict all 4. others think it's an info dump. And others- they just don't get it. Hence the tag. It seems fine to me but then, my brain / mind doesn't work like everyone else's. LOL


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 29, 2015)

_In some places, those words were necessary. A few spots where I liked her version better than yours:

To her colleagues they were a myth. VS To her colleagues, they were myth._

_That "a" is important. A myth is a central story or idea. One. Saying 'they were myth' without the 'a' disassociates them with one another. They're not a part of one myth together, they're just all false in their own right. That's a change in tone that can be important depending on the myth itself, and its place in the story. Or it could be utterly inconsequential--but either way, connotation changed there._

But...but...I thought people "don't notice these words in the text", lol. Thank you for backing off that statement. It makes me feel better to find you now agree with me that people, even you, notice these words, and they can both add and detract from meaning. I think you're blowing the difference in meaning here a little out of proportion, but meh.

_Next:

With a sensation of triumph, she stood back to marvel at her discovery. VS With a sense of triumph, she marveled at her discovery.

__Removing the action of standing back seems benign. Okay, let's be honest, it sort of is benign. But it changes the character again. With her movement, I'm seeing her take a step back, put her hands on her hips and smile at the discovery. For some reason, with just "she marveled at her discovery" it seems more self-serving in tone. She's LITERALLY taken back by the object in the first example, and in the second, she's full of herself._

She put her hands on her hips and smiled? Where was that? Must've been a different revision. She wasn't taken back by the object, she stood back herself of her own volition. In both cases, she feels triumphant and marvels at her discovery, but you think for some reason, her triumphal marveling seems less self serving and she's not so full of herself if she stands back.

OK, I disagree with you for some reason, lol...but I will agree with you that it was a benign change.

_Others are smaller, but still make changes: "Inside one of the tents" indicates that there's an entire camp set up, many people, many tents. "Inside a tent" is just that--could be a lone tent, with only one person around. It changes the perception of setting._

Again, do people notice these words or not? They do, right? That's what I think. You agree with me then, right? And that stuff you said at first was...well, what was it?

And again, a benign change. The setting is an archaeological dig. Those are typically large affairs. "Inside one of the tents" indicates there's more than one tent, might be just two, might be ten, who knows. It does not indicate anything about how many people are there. If work was waning, I imagine there were much fewer people there at this particular time. The only real difference my "a tent" makes is that it may have been the only tent, but since this is an archaeological dig, and I wrote "a" and not "the", we are free to believe it was one tent of an indeterminate number.

_Sometimes, it's effective to remove the 'the's: 

They were similar with each depicting the signs of fire, earth, or water. VS They were similar, each depicting signs of fire, earth, or water.

__Frankly, this should be 'and' instead of 'or' at the end in both versions, as it's an inclusive list--unless she is legitimately unsure which are represented. The second example is better here, with little change in tone between the two. But, through it all, we've only really removed two words. Two invisible words that a reader would never even think twice of whether they're there or not._

So people _don't _notice these words? They're _invisible_ now? But you just said...I wish you'd make up my mind, lol. By the way, Snowleopard, that's EXACTLY why I didn't change it. I thought of using "and", but then I saw you did not include wind in the list, and that the list applied to the "companions". I thought it very astute of you to use "or" there.

_THAT'S the point. Hunting down and considering each and every instance of "the" in a 100,000 word piece is neurotic. Reading and editing the piece and fixing the awkward, repetitive phrases... that's great. It makes the prose flow better. But nit-picking and calling it 'better craftsmanship' simply because you've economically removed a single word--that's like using a toothbrush to clean the floors and saying it's a better clean.
_
I didn't say to consider each and every instance of "the", though you certainly could, and I would because I'm an exacting SOB when it comes to my writing. Anyway, all I told her to do was search for "the" in her piece, and where she sees concentrations might be places she wants to revise. That's reasonable, isn't it?

So fixing repetitive phrases, good; fixing repetitive words, bad; fixing invisible repetitive words that nobody notices, not only bad, but neurotic...unless they become visible and somebody notices they change connotation, or the perception of setting, or something else, for some reason.

Got it. lol.


----------



## Bishop (Aug 29, 2015)

In order to clear something up, I'll offer this. My wife reads books at 450 words per minute. That's a pretty insane speed, if you ask gents like me who read at probably 20 words per minute because we're also having to field random tech questions from your colleagues because it's lunchtime and you're trying to read while eating a sandwich with twenty other twenty-something tech nerds around. Eyes read the words, mind interprets them as they come. Like a conveyor belt. You take them in as they come, and their meaning and connotations connect in your head. 

When I say a reader 'doesn't notice them' I'm NOT saying a reader doesn't DIGEST them. That'd be an asinine statement. You take in their meaning as they come, but two sentences later, you're at the two sentences later part, digesting that now. I suppose it should have been more a note like "bothered by" instead of "noticed". The point, that I believe was rather obvious, is that readers don't get irked by them. They're invisible words--they still have meaning and context within the story, but they don't stand out in the narrative. Use "monochromatic" more than once a paragraph, people will likely raise a brow. Use "the" more than once a sentence, no one even takes it beyond its context within the sentence.

So I stand by the statement. I just assumed that some critical thinking might occur here.

As for the part about hands-on-hips, etc... we're talking about a medium that uses, in essence, very little to connect to an audience. Imagination--on the part of the reader--does more in literature than any other artistic medium. It requires the writer to put in just enough of the story and setting and characters to convey the entire tale, but also enough to flavor it, all while trying to keep it to a reasonable length. My point in the statement I made, is that with the original sentence, I see more of the character's reaction in my head--my mind fills in the blanks a bit and takes it one step farther. This is important in a written medium because it lets the reader superimpose their own experiences, emotions, ideas, context... a lot of things, really. It actively pulls in the reader's mind and fills what gaps we writers leave--and no matter what, we leave them. So sure, the text doesn't say that, but it gives us SOME character action, that my mind (and my own experiences of standing back and looking at something with reverence) filled in the gaps. It connected me with the character, which in my opinion is the earmark of good fiction. Because without character connection, a novel is just a plot summary.

That all being said, my head really hurts from this brick wall I've been banging it against, so I'll just leave it be from here on out.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 29, 2015)

The words are invisible, nobody sees them, nobody notices them, but everyone digests them because when they see them, they notice they can change connotation, perception, etc. Sure...got it. Thanks for that critical thinking.

Here's some more critical thinking: ALL words matter. ALL words make a difference. NO words are invisible. NO words are unnoticeable. And you amply proved this stance, probably against your will, lol.

I won't gainsay your reading experience. Suffice it to say words mean things, and they can't mean anything if they don't exist.


----------



## Sam (Aug 29, 2015)

Given the fact that Cambridge University conducted research into reading and found demonstrable evidence to suggest that nobody reads every word on a page one after another, then you are in fact wrong that no words are unnoticeable. 

The only people who stress over words are pedantic writers. Readers do not give a flying f**k.


----------



## JustRob (Aug 29, 2015)

Having just jumped in here from my thread on aphantasia I have made a connection between the two. Aphantasia is a condition which prevents me from visualising what I'm writing about, but an aspect of this condition is that I am very sensitive to what the words _sound_ like just as much as what they are describing. I have mentioned before that my prose is also my poetry and my choice of words is more about keeping the rhythm going than complying with any rules about the frequency of particular words. I sometimes catch myself adding an unnecessary word just to correct the beat of the information flow. Readers have commented that my writing is easy to read and maybe this is a consequence of this habit. Even my very long sentences flow evenly. In fact I once took two consecutive long sentences out of the first chapter of my novel and posted them in the poetry section simply by chopping the text into lines and they scanned perfectly. 

Prose has many qualities and I don't think there's any algorithms for measuring exactly how they all add up. It just depends on what gels in a particular reader's mind. 

On the subject of individual words mattering, I recently scanned _very_ rapidly through somebody's story of a couple of hundred pages on two of our E-readers simply to check that the formatting was all working correctly for them and in the process picked up two places where they'd written the plural "women" instead of "woman". I was only glancing at each page but that error leapt out at me while all the noise words discussed here made no impression at all. Yes, readers have a scale of importance that they apply to words and no doubt many are almost undetected at the speed that some people read.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 29, 2015)

I beg to differ about this 'invisible word' issue. I disagree with this based on the simple fact that someone here pointed out a paragraph stating "All these sentences begin with 'THE'". So, either she is an exception to this rule or the rule is wrong.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 29, 2015)

Sam said:


> Given the fact that Cambridge University conducted research into reading and found demonstrable evidence to suggest that nobody reads every word on a page one after another, then you are in fact wrong that no words are unnoticeable.
> 
> The only people who stress over words are pedantic writers. Readers do not give a flying f**k.



I'm pretty sure there are many millions of people who would disagree with both you and Cambridge. You see, those many millions of people not only read every word on a page one after another, they _memorize_ them, and they know instantly if a single word is missing or added. I myself can quote passages from C.S. Lewis, Mark Twain, Kipling, Shakespeare, the founding fathers, and several other writers.

But of course, that does not mean that readers who do not give a flying f**k do not exist. We need look no further than you and Bishop.

And you can be sure that attitude toward reading affects writing.


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 29, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> I beg to differ about this 'invisible word' issue. I disagree with this based on the simple fact that someone here pointed out a paragraph stating "All these sentences begin with 'THE'". So, either she is an exception to this rule or the rule is wrong.



Hmmm...I wonder which it is, Snowleopard? I can give you a hint if you like, lol.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 29, 2015)

I'd rather not speculate- I've actually been trying to resist bringing up that comment- but it seems it was bound to happen. On the good side of it- she got me to thinking about this 'invisible word' - maybe it's not so invisible (when you use it too much.)


----------



## TipGrundlefunk (Aug 29, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> There's nothing wrong with conjunctions, as long as you're not regularly starting sentences with them.



But why not?


----------



## JustRob (Aug 29, 2015)

I tire of this discussion, and the hour is late, and yet I recollect the works of Samuel Pepys. So to bed.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 30, 2015)

Bishop said:


> Conjunctions are invisible words. Readers barely even register them as they go, I wouldn't worry about it.



Yep. What he said. Dialogue tags (he/she said and the like) are pretty much invisible to readers as well.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 30, 2015)

Sam said:


> Ah, yes.
> 
> Let's remove adverbs, conjunctions, adjectives, weak verbs, and gerunds from our writing.
> 
> Can someone please make a list of the words we're allowed to use? That'd be dandy.



I'm pretty sure that would leave us about 30 "useable" words, Sam. Although...I am not entirely sure useable would be one of them.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Aug 30, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> Just a short here. It's not like I'm saying remove words like "archaeological" that's an important one. It's the small, 2, 3, and 4 letter ones that are in question. I'm looking at each one thinking "can I revise this part?" not just the word but what's around it. Such as replacing "the girl" with Jessica ( the character's name ) or 'her'.
> 
> Some of these small words, I'm sure, can be revised- the ones that stump me are like the paragraph- as noted in a critique- ""all of these sentences begin with 'the'. It's ones like these that stump me. There were other comments on these areas that keep them in my focus- and honestly, they stump me. Hence the focus on conjunctions.



Here's the thing, Mindy...

Bishop is absolutely correct in saying that you are trying to "micro manage" a perfectly good piece of fiction. I can understand your reasons for wanting to make every bit of ZC as good as it can be. I am trying to do the same with my work. But, think about this from our (the readers) perspective. 

I, as a reader, have never thought about how many times 'and' or 'the' shows up in a story. Only a severely hyper critical reader might notice something like that. The VAST majority of readers simply dismiss those words out of hand. 

What you have is GOOD. The only reason I noticed how many times a certain word showed up is because you mentioned it.

My opinion...stop editing that section and move on to the next. If you don't, you'll wind up editing it into oblivion. As it stands, it's pretty damn ed good.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 30, 2015)

And yet, someone felt it was important to mention that in one paragraph- all the sentences begin with "the". 

I don't see it as micro-managing. It's about fixing the problems that people point out. Ergo, this person thinks the paragraph is a problem. So, how do I fix it? And it snowballed from there.

Taking a break from the piece - while helped to lower the stress- did not help the problem. When I returned to the project- the issue was still glaring at me. The other frustrating part is that 2 people / reviews are in contradiction of each other. Now, how do I deal with THIS issue? 

"some of the sentences can feel a little abrupt, as if you've taken a dislike to conjunctions"

"I would take out about every other conjunction, too."

These perspective basically cancel each other out. So, while I appreciate the critiques- and would like to receive more from all of those who reviewed this first piece- I'm at a lose at what to do. 

There were other comments on this particular paragraph and at least one other - which is why I work on it. More than one person brought them to my attention. Aside from making it as Lynn recording her notes on tape- I don't know what else to do. This doesn't solve the problem for the other section people had issue with. And that I can't have her using a recorder. The words choppy and report-ish were used. 

If more than one person points out a problem regarding the same section- then there's a problem. In this case it's primarily the conjunctions. 

It's not that I'm trying to please all of the reviewers. And I don't believe in throwing out the best and worst to stick with what's in between. For all that does- I could be throwing away something that only one person caught- for example: after finishing with the cluster from here- I sent a copy to my editor and Beta K. I haven't heard back from Jen. Beta K, however, caught a bundle of things, that needed fleshing out, that no one else had caught.


----------



## Terry D (Aug 30, 2015)

On using feedback from groups: Knowing what readers think of your work-in-progress can be very helpful, but their input needs to be weighed against your vision for the work. Most of us use other writers as our beta readers and we need to understand that writers will bring their own stylistic prejudices to their critiques (even if they say they won't, it's human nature). Most of their input will be spot-on, but it should never be taken as gospel. Sometimes you need to leave your work alone if you are comfortable with it, even if others are not.

On repeated words: It's not the number of times a word is used, it is the job that word does, and its effect on the flow and pace of the section. Trust your ear.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Aug 30, 2015)

Hi SnowLeopard. I could be wrong, but it looked like one feature of your writing is that you do not often put two independent clauses into the same sentence. A lot of people avoid semicolons; presumably avoiding dashes is common; you can get a lot of support for avoiding comma splices; but I didn't see many compound sentences with the comma/conjunction connection.

For example, your old version (and presenting problem):



> The intricate details were meant to depict the effects of the wind. The outer edge was shaped into twelve chevrons. The second ring was carved to show the movement of the wind. The center field was engraved with the elemental symbols of Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius.



Possibilities:

The intricate details were meant to depict the effects of the wind -- the outer edge was shaped into twelve chevrons, the second ring was carved to show the movement of the wind, and the center field was engraved with the elemental symbols of Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius.

or 

The intricate details were meant to depict the effects of the wind: The outer edge was shaped into twelve chevrons, the second ring was carved to show the movement of the wind, and the center field was engraved with the elemental symbols -- Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius.

And others could do better.

Again, I am working from an old version, and I cannot study it near as much as you. You perhaps do not have this limitation; it isn't necessarily bad. So take this how you want. I can send you my chapter on connecting sentences if you want. Best wishes.


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 30, 2015)

Thanks Emma. please, send. My reason for not using dashes is that I had it verbally beaten into me not to use them (among other things). I don't think that I had cruel teachers in school but when it came to a handful of certain things, they dropped a NO like a hammer. There was no sugar coating the don't list from them. Some teachers just don't fathom the power they have of influencing young minds. Others do and get a power trip from it. And some teachers are just plain scarey when it comes to that ' don't list '


----------



## Terry D (Aug 30, 2015)

MzSnowleopard said:


> Thanks Emma. please, send. My reason for not using dashes is that I had it verbally beaten into me not to use them (among other things). I don't think that I had cruel teachers in school but when it came to a handful of certain things, they dropped a NO like a hammer. There was no sugar coating the don't list from them. Some teachers just don't fathom the power they have of influencing young minds. Others do and get a power trip from it. And some teachers are just plain scarey when it comes to that ' don't list '



How right you are. It's only when we are grown that we understand -- some of us, some never do 'get it' -- that if those teachers who hammer home all the don'ts really knew a damned thing about creative writing, they'd be writing instead of teaching. Now, I'm not saying they are all a bunch of drooling idiots -- my ninth grade English teacher was great at fostering creativity -- but many don't have a clue what it takes to tell a story. The good news is, those pedantic teachings can be un-learned, and their residuals can actually be helpful. Most of those "nevers" have a grain of truth in them that we can learn from. So, instead of wilting under the heat of "never use dashes", bask in the warm glow of 'use dashes with caution' and know why you are using them. The same goes for all the rules that really aren't rules.


----------



## Green Rabbit (Aug 30, 2015)

It's a teacher's job to teach us the "correct" way to use all of those rules and tools, and our job as writers to dance and play with them. It's like the first time a kid realizes you can stick Lego bricks together in ways they weren't intended and their eyes light up. Your middle school English teachers (or at least mine) were trying to beat the basics into your head so that someday you would be able to write a resume that wasn't full of hyphens, ellipses and semi-colons -- and that's great, but as a writer you have the authority to arrange those 26 letters and wiggles and squiggles in any way you see fit.

(As long as your editor approves...)


----------



## MzSnowleopard (Aug 31, 2015)

By 7th or 8th or 9th grade (depending on the teachers and exposure) a student should be versed in the technical aspects of non-fiction writing. And that's the problem. Teachers are focused on non-fiction. Sure, in some classes they dissect a piece of fiction like Paradise Lost or Dante's Inferno but they're not taught how to write fiction or what the rules of fiction are. 

I'm turning 44 next month and I still don't know all of the rules governing fiction. When I right, the first draft it rough- it's meant to simply get the idea out of my head and on paper before it's lost in the grey matter. I'll go through draft after draft until I'm satisfied with what I have. Then I send it out to my editor and betas for fresh perspectives. 

When I first wrote this piece- it was preamble short- less than 1 page of a Word file. My editor said "you have got to expand on this." 3,000 words and some years later- I have yet to reach the point of the original piece- where they leave the island. And there's more to come- there's a second scenario going on at the south pit. And that too is in the works. 

Honestly, the conjunctions issue is small in comparison to what I've had to deal with over the years that have stalled this project. The most recent being the crew replacing the roof of my building and my not being able to go elsewhere to write. It took them about four months. I've only returned to writing in the last few weeks. In this time I've made some decent progress expanding and fleshing out this scenario. I consider that progress.

Now, about those conjunctions.... LOL


----------



## John Oberon (Aug 31, 2015)

Green Rabbit said:


> It's a teacher's job to teach us the "correct" way to use all of those rules and tools, and our job as writers to dance and play with them. It's like the first time a kid realizes you can stick Lego bricks together in ways they weren't intended and their eyes light up. Your middle school English teachers (or at least mine) were trying to beat the basics into your head so that someday you would be able to write a resume that wasn't full of hyphens, ellipses and semi-colons -- and that's great, but as a writer you have the authority to arrange those 26 letters and wiggles and squiggles in any way you see fit.
> 
> (As long as your editor approves...)



I disagree. I don't think it's a writing teacher's job to teach the correct way to use rules and tools. Of course, there's a place for rules for beginners, but if a teacher doesn't advance a student out of that stage pretty quickly, it's time to find a new profession. I can quote rules, but when I teach, most often I show how I do it, explain why I do it that way, why it's good, and which author taught it to me. Often, I'll quote a rule and explain why I _don't_ do it that way. For example, the rule (at least in America) says that you always place a period inside double quotes. I have this crazy idea that quotes don't determine where a period is needed, but the end of a sentence does. A teacher should be a mentor reading and explaining good writing, not a dictator propagandizing a manifesto.

Here's the philosophy I try to inculcate into beginners: Use the fewest words possible to convey your intended meaning clearly, skillfully, and artfully. I find if a person accomplishes that, the writing is concise, penetrating, and often, pithy.


----------



## John Oberon (Sep 1, 2015)

Or:

_Intricate details depicted the effects of wind, and twelve chevrons defined the outer edge. The second ring was carved to show wind movement, while the center field was engraved with symbols for Gemini, Libra, and Aquarius._


----------

