# How important are the little things really?



## AdrianBraysy (Mar 28, 2018)

As writers, we always look for ways to improve our craft. That's understandable. This leads us to adopt plenty of good habits:

1. Cut adverbs

2. Show. Don't tell.

3. Describe using all five senses

Etc...

These are all good, and I do follow them myself. My question is: how much do some of these actually matter? Take cutting adverbs, for example. It's a rule I have often heard. 

Still, I have read plenty of really enjoyable stories that use adverbs all over the place:1. Plenty of Stephen King stories (although he himself advices against using them)2. The night watch, by Lukyanenko3. Plenty of books by Clive Cussler.

Smaller things, like where exactly to put commas, is also frequently talked about. I'm not saying we should be sloppy or not do our best, but I can honestly say I have read A LOT of really good books that make a ton of what we would consider mistakes, and it didn't make me enjoy them any less. When reading, I care about one thing: Is the story itself interesting? With this in mind, I'm not saying we should flat out drop the other stuff, but how important are things like cutting adverbs when the overall story is really good? It just doesn't strike me as something that could make or break a story. Or maybe it's just my personal taste of enjoying stories that have some 'rough edges' around them. Who knows. My general rule of thumb is: if I like what I'm writing, other's will like it too.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 28, 2018)

I think the little things are less important than the big things. Realistic characters and a good story are of paramount importance. 

I think there is a tendency for writing advice to focus too much on sentence structure. I think it's a mistake to worry about that during writing. Too much "writing" advice is actually editing advice. (I wonder if authors who write "how to write" books are passing along the most frequent comments of their editors.)

Other advice tries to provide structure or a formula. I think that, too, is a mistake.

When writing, your job is the characters and story. While it's nice to be able to have few edits, I think it's a mistake to hyper focus on the small things while writing. That's for the editing phase.

Ideally, one should have an editor who worries about adverbs, sentence fragments, punctuation, and the like. Without one, use what you have at your disposal. Open Office and Word do spelling and grammar checks, and Open Office is free. If you have a friend who is good with spelling and grammar, hire that friend, or try to hire a college student.

Know your strengths and weaknesses, and work with them.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 28, 2018)

Hi Adrian,

I  don’t know how one quantifies importance in line with your question. It’s all relative. 

Does cutting adverb use really matter? Yes, it matters a lot if adverb overuse is rampant in your work and multiple people have told you so. Otherwise not so much. Show don’t tell is important advice for most writers because most writers have a problem with too much telling. If you don’t, the advice is of little or no relevance as sometimes a little “telling” is ok, or necessary even. 

Advice generally is only as beneficial as far as it improves the perception of the end product. However, it isn’t wise to disregard stylistic feedback on the basis that “as long as the story is interesting”. You are 100% correct that style, spelling, punctuation and grammar won’t make your story, but it sure as hell will break it. 

Simply put, I won’t read your story if you don’t respect me enough as a reader to write competently. I won’t take you seriously if you have a Swiftian quantity and quality of adverbs or use “would of” or don’t know how to spellcheck. I don’t want to read three pages of “tell”. I stopped reading a book just the other day midway through because the writing was so riddled with basic errors and lack of sense even though I was interested in the concept it was too distracting and actually became obnoxious. 

A fair judgment? Maybe not, but I don’t give a fig. It’s the job of the writer to cater to my needs as a reader. That is why I myself spend thousands of hours editing. This author either did not bother or, worse, did and still couldn’t get it right. 

These might be “small things” to some, but they won’t be to everybody which is why care for detail matters. It’s also why I don’t always read the entirety of pieces in workshops, not if there are multiple major grammar or spelling or style flaws I won’t, because until you can write properly your story simply isn’t important.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 28, 2018)

Blackstone said:


> Hi Adrian,
> 
> I  don’t know how one quantifies importance in line with your question. It’s all relative.
> 
> ...



That's why one should always go back and edit.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 28, 2018)

Yes absolutely! I don’t expect perfection (you should see my first drafts, they are absolutely shocking) but it’s when the editing time hasn’t been put in.

I personally do up to four or five drafts just because I do make so many mistakes. I spend around three months editing line by line for two to six hours each day. That’s before I have anything professionally read, proofed or edited. I do this not because I enjoy it but because I believe it is good for me to have that sort of ownership. It’s not OCD, I don’t feel compelled to achieve perfection, I just want things as good as they can be before I unleash.

My issue when writers talk about essentially getting away with work being, to borrow the phrase, “rough around the edges”, is that it sounds a great deal like shirking some degree of quality control and, dare I say, being a little bit lazy. 

Would like to point out that I’m not suggesting for a moment that Adrian is of that mindset, only that I frequently hear this argument from people who know their work has problems but don’t necessarily have the willingness to eliminate them through the arduous process of good editing processes and rigorous self discipline.


----------



## cliche257 (Mar 28, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> Still, I have read plenty of really enjoyable stories that use adverbs all over the place:1. Plenty of Stephen King stories (although he himself advices against using them)2. The night watch, by Lukyanenko*3. Plenty of books by Clive Cussler.*



We're not talking literature then?


----------



## Char_M (Mar 28, 2018)

I agree with the above statements whole heatedly! The story is the focus, but if readers have to work to get through it i.e. wade through a bunch of widely known mistakes to get to it, they likely won't finish it. And they won't pick up another book from that author. It comes down to knowing the rules to know when it's ok to break them and how to do it. I also suggest knowing your target readers. Every reader is different, but different groups have different expectations. Know your group. Know what they want. Know what concerns them. Then you go write the story. Don't stop to edit, don't even worry if it's out of order. Just write it until it's done. Then and only then do you go back and edit. I find when I try to edit as I write, it sucks the life out of me and makes me not want to write. They are different animals and should be treated as such. 

Also remember authors themselves are different and you have to do what works for you to get that story out as clear as possible. Make it easy and fun and readers will eat out of your hands (for fiction writing). That's why we read fiction - for entertainment value. Give it them. I liken it to a party. When you arrive everything is done and ready to go, the events flow and people have a great time. VS. Getting there and your host is still setting up and asking for your help when you didn't sign up for that. Sure you're not going to leave the party because they asked you for help, but it does take away from the magic of the party when you have to go behind the scenes. And you might not go to one they host again. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 28, 2018)

The adverb thing is a ninteenth century 'grammar rule' invention. The thing that is important is not artificial  rules but common usage in an appropriate context.

Showing or telling? 'Well in one way it's telling, but look at it another way and it's showing', it's amazing how much you can say that about.

All five? There are over twenty, you don't have to be quite so specific with all, just get a gut feeling for them 

My rules;

Does it seem natural, or stilted?

Is the language used appropriate to the place and people?

When I read it aloud for the first time is there anywhere I catch or hesitate, even fractionally?


----------



## Anita M Shaw (Mar 29, 2018)

I used to visit my sons' classrooms and read my stories to them, and answer questions on writing afterwards. One fourth grade teacher wanted me to support the view of writing according to the "rules". And I told them, it was important to learn the rules so they could break them later on. Not sure what Mrs. Casey thought of that, but the kids got a kick out of it. 

Showing vs. telling is, for me, a big one. Telling is like when someone tries to explain something funny, exciting or interesting and when they don't get the reaction they're looking for say, I guess you had to be there. You know what happened but it doesn't grab your emotions as if you'd been there.

That's what showing does. It brings you into the story as if you are there experiencing everything your characters are. This is the book you can't put down. You are so into that world you don't hear your kids or husband talking to you. Don't even notice they've been standing there staring/glaring at you for the past ten or fifteen minutes. Maybe they rip the book out of your hands to bring you back to reality. And the question of when's supper gonna be ready? 

I read a young adult story once that was all narration for over 200 pages. A handful of dialog broke it up, just one or two lines. I managed to finish it because the story line was good. But had the author shown the action and used dialog to move the story along, it would've drawn me in, making the story more memorable. As it was, I was just an outsider being told of what happened, and I've long since forgotten what that was.

Commas can change the meaning of your sentences, but like you, misuse doesn't make me toss the book. I fix the meaning in my mind and read on. I'd rather no commas, I think, than an over excess of them. Then it gets distracting. But if the story is decent, I'll finish it.

There are those who feel contractions shouldn't be used. I use them everywhere. And I use fragmented sentences. People talk that way. I talk that way, so then, do my characters. Would that be considered part of my voice and style? Each of us, in any case, has a different one.

My son used to stress over the small stuff like this, and I finally told him just write the story! It can be edited later. I wish I could say he finished that story, but alas, he did not. 

I also like Olly's rules. Be natural. Reading aloud does help that, and it picks up mistakes and awkwardness much faster than a silent read.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 29, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> Does it seem natural, or stilted?
> 
> Is the language used appropriate to the place and people?



For me this is the big one. I bang on about this stuff all the time and that is because it is probably the most important thing most writers do badly at. It is also, to be frank, one of the easiest things to get right. 

My experience of reviewing the work that has been posted on this forum is limited, however I can say hand on heart that I have yet to come across any work thus far where the prose felt natural. Not a slight on said members (and I'm sure I just haven't come across the good stuff yet) it's more just that I don't think it's been made a priority. It is exactly the same situation in my 'real world' workshops.

A lot of writers (myself included, before I was given a couple of very scathing admonishments by those far better than I) tend to write with the mindset that as long as they are carrying the story forward and writing dialogue that is coherent it is basically job done. They focus primarily on the characters' actions toward the goal of the scene, and the descriptive aspects not realizing that their characters do not sound or behave like actual human beings do.

I say making writing sound natural is easy because by definition it is. Natural writing is inevitable when you are confident, free of the trappings of other people's influences, and relaxed. The hard part, of course, is getting to that place mentally -- however unless your characters are from a culture or background that you have no knowledge of whatsoever (and there is an argument to say that if this is the case you probably shouldn't have those kinds of characters in your work) writing them is just a case of bringing them to life on the mind's stage. 

Dialogue does not need to be sophisticated; it is often perfectly acceptable to have your fantasy characters talk in a relatively modern, relatively plainspoken manner (Terry Pratchett, George RR Martin, JK Rowling) and if that is the register you feel most comfortable with then learning good dialogue is just a case of sitting on a bus and listening to the chatter around you. It is certainly much better than trying to emulate the voice of somebody else, yet so many try tirelessly to do just that. Descriptions don't need to use elaborate imagery or provide some metaphorical symbolism, they just have to show clearly what needs to be shown. The narrative voice should be uncluttered and clear and as familiar as a parent relating a memory from their childhood.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Mar 29, 2018)

You mention the details that speak to your character's personality, to them as a character.  Everyone has hands, but are theirs fat or dirty or manicured? Don't mention superfluous details, just the ones that speak to your character or the scene around them.

I disagree that revealing a character is done only by their actions. There are many ways to illustrate a character, both directly and indirectly. A character is continually painted with little brush strokes here & there, peppered amongst the action.  Characters are revealed by how others see them, they are revealed by the urges they consider but restrain themselves from acting out.  People are dynamic, and the way you paint your characters should be too.  Attack from many angles.


----------



## mayko (Mar 29, 2018)

I agree with a lot of the things other people are saying in this thread. The most important things are the big stuff, the little stuff just makes the big stuff easier to get at, for the author and the reader.
Rules, though, can be broken to great effect if done intentionally and with purpose. It's all about what you're trying to accomplish as a creator. 
Personally, my writing would benefit from me following the "little" rules better, because I am not a good enough writer to break them well.
One thing to keep in mind while writing is that there is a difference between "good grammer" in the linguistic sense (what is really used and understood by native speakers/readers of a language) and what is considered "'grammatically' correct" by prescriptive standards (what your middle school english teacher was always yelling about).
If you're writing most types of nonfiction, especially in regards to dialogue, "can I go" is far more realistic and fluid than "may I go," regardless of what Miss Karrie may have told you.
This is one thing that fanfiction, with all the genre's many (many) faults, has demonstrated: an almost revolutionary rejection of the restrictive prescriptive grammar. I think it's an idea worth exploring outside of maybe historical pieces (or perhaps even there? Hmm...)

I realize I am rambling here so, tldr: 
If it feels real/natural, then you're on the right track. I like what you said about your belief that if you what you write then others will too.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 29, 2018)

> One thing to keep in mind while writing is that there is a difference between "good grammer" in the linguistic sense (what is really used and understood by native speakers/readers of a language) and what is considered "'grammatically' correct" by prescriptive standards (what your middle school english teacher was always yelling about)


.

It depends to whom I am speaking.
Depending on who I'm talking to.

"grammatically correct", did you actually ever hear anyone say 'to whom'?  "Grammatically correct" is an invention of the eighteenth - ninteenth centuries. Grammar, like all language, is infinitly variable, it depends completely on common usage, no sooner are prescribed rules formulated than they start to go out of date.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 29, 2018)

mayko said:


> I agree with a lot of the things other people are saying in this thread. The most important things are the big stuff, the little stuff just makes the big stuff easier to get at, for the author and the reader.
> Rules, though, can be broken to great effect if done intentionally and with purpose. It's all about what you're trying to accomplish as a creator.
> Personally, my writing would benefit from me following the "little" rules better, because I am not a good enough writer to break them well.
> One thing to keep in mind while writing is that there is a difference between "good grammer" in the linguistic sense (what is really used and understood by native speakers/readers of a language) and what is considered "'grammatically' correct" by prescriptive standards (what your middle school english teacher was always yelling about).
> ...



To be honest, the only goal with spelling, punctuation and grammar is to convince the reader that you're doing things for a reason as opposed to because you don't know any better. 

Of course the easiest way to convince somebody you know what you are doing is to know what you are doing.

With regard to actual grammar (and spelling/punctuation), as Olly mentioned, it's a bit of a myth that there is such a thing as right and wrong. We tend to say, for instance, that it is "would have" not "would of" because that is true when you are writing standardized English.

But what about _non-standardized English?

_I have intentionally used the phrase "would of". It was when I was writing from the point of view of an adolescent boy. I have spelled "pictures" as "pitchers" to try to capture an Appalachian dialect. Mostly the best place for this is in dialogue, but not always: The teenage boy POV was in a narrative portrayed as a series of emails. A close friend of mine writes often in Scottish English which is technically a dialect but is still a language based on grammar and form that is not standardized. Look at James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, etc. Nobody would say their writing was poor, but it wasn't always correct.

The golden rule is to write in a way that works for the piece. If you can do that, you can do what you want.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 29, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> As writers, we always look for ways to improve our craft. That's understandable. This leads us to adopt plenty of good habits:
> 
> 1. Cut adverbs
> 
> ...



There's a question of how much you should care about _everything_. Then you pose things that are not worth caring about, and I am not even sure where to start on that.

Yes, every comma matters. No, you will not find any books telling you how to do that. My free book on modern grammar comes the closest. There are rules of grammar, which no one follows, and there is what writer's do, which is a lot more important.

Yes, every adverb matters.  Same actually for the verbs. Oh, and nouns and the rest. My free book on grammar discusses about five reasons why you shouldn't use an adverb, which leaves all of those places where they can be useful or even powerful.

King is like walking on concrete; most authors are like walking on sand. You can read their work and understand it; one sentence won't bother you. It just isn't as easy.

Punctuation and grammar are the bones your ideas lie on. They are supposed to fit those ideas, which is not extremely important, except it happens every sentence.

Punctuation and grammar also give life to your ideas.

Same for all of the other techniques of writing. Jackson has a wonderful moment in her book. I had to stop to understand it, then I had to *replay it in my mind* to enjoy it. She knew it was awesome, and she should have kept rewriting it until she got it. (Or it was impossible to get right, but I have never found that to be true.) She has another awesome moment just before that which she interrupts for description.

So, in my opinion, the little details are the difference between a good book and a bad one. I have been very impressed by the punctuation and grammar skills of probably every author writing  good book, including Rowling, Meyer, King, and Montgomery (Anne of Green Gables).


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 30, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> There's a question of how much you should care about _everything_. Then you pose things that are not worth caring about, and I am not even sure where to start on that.
> 
> Yes, every comma matters. No, you will not find any books telling you how to do that. My free book on modern grammar comes the closest. There are rules of grammar, which no one follows, and there is what writer's do, which is a lot more important.
> 
> ...



Without the big picture items, plot and character, having all the commas in the correct place just give you well polished manure.

No one is suggesting that anything be published without checking SPaG. At least I'm not. But that's *editing*, not *writing*.

Have you really looked at the SPaG of some of the "great authors"? Have you looked at their "rules" and compared that to their published works? 

I just pulled up Anne of Green Gables, since you mentioned it. Here's the first paragraph : 


> Mrs. Rachel Lynde lived just where the Avonlea main road dipped down into a little hollow, fringed with alders and ladies' eardrops and traversed by a brook that had its source away back in the woods of the old Cuthbert place; it was reputed to be an intricate, headlong brook in its earlier course through those woods, with dark secrets of pool and cascade; but by the time it reached Lynde's Hollow it was a quiet, well-conducted little stream, for not even a brook could run past Mrs. Rachel Lynde's door without due regard for decency and decorum; it probably was conscious that Mrs. Rachel was sitting at her window, keeping a sharp eye on everything that passed, from brooks and children up, and that if she noticed anything odd or out of place she would never rest until she had ferreted out the whys and wherefores thereof.



Unless I'm mistaken, there's only one period, and that's at the end of the paragraph. Does that follow all the rules of punctuation? I kinda doubt it.

Not to pick on Anne, I think the same can be said for most "greats". Maybe that would make for an interesting series of threads. Discussing a paragraph or two from some "great" work.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 30, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I'm not sure. To me, the average King book doesn't really have a great plot or great characters. In _Mr. Mercedes_ the MC is a retired cop. The villain is a somewhat crazy serial mass murderer who is taunting the cop. I think King accomplishes a lot simply by writing well.
> 
> 
> > He thinks, then types.
> ...


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 30, 2018)

Not worth it.


----------



## Bayview (Mar 31, 2018)

I know I'm a broken record, but...

I don't think it's important that the little things be RIGHT; I think it's important that the little things be EFFECTIVE.

I think choosing the words that will create the effect you want is a huge part of writing. I don't think that translates to avoiding adverbs or show don't tell or any other arbitrary rule. Adverbs are a tool; use them when they're effective, don't use them when they're not. Telling is a huge part of just about any novel I've ever read (possibly every novel) and of course we should use it when it's useful to us.

It's hard to get published, and it's hard to get readers. Why not use every tool at your disposal?


----------



## Terry D (Mar 31, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:


> As writers, we always look for ways to improve our craft. That's understandable. This leads us to adopt plenty of good habits:
> 
> 1. Cut adverbs
> 
> ...



Let's look at this from a different perspective. Say you are renovating your home and are paying a contractor 30 or 40 thousand dollars to do the job for you. On your final walk-through you see that the tile back-splash in the kitchen isn't quite straight and the crown molding in the family room doesn't quite meet at the corners. Are those little things? Or the bits of egg shells you bite into in your omelette when you go out for breakfast, you know, the one that comes with the under-cooked sausage patties? Just little stuff, right? Maybe you can overlook those things if you did the remodeling yourself, or if you are making the omelette, but the small stuff counts when you are doing it for other people's consumption.

No one is perfect, and often we break rules by design, but that doesn't mean we should accept poor punctuation, or sloppy writing just because they are little things. They aren't. We should always be trying to write as perfectly as possible so we give our readers the best experience we can. Anything less is lazy.

Edited to correct errors :chargrined:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 31, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I disagree that revealing a character is done only by their actions. There are many ways to illustrate a character, both directly and indirectly. A character is continually painted with little brush strokes here & there, peppered amongst the action.  Characters are revealed by how others see them, they are revealed by the urges they consider but restrain themselves from acting out.  People are dynamic, and the way you paint your characters should be too.  Attack from many angles.



A good point. I think people are inclined to go for absolutes, so 'Revealing character can be done by actions' becomes  'Revealing character is done by actions' via a sort of Chinese whispers. Always worth looking for more angles, especially when someone tells  you there are none.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 31, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Let's look at this from a different perspective. Say you are renovating your home and are paying a contractor 30 or 40 thousand dollars to do the job for you. On your final walk-through you see that the tile back-splash in the kitchen isn't quite straight and the crown molding in the family room doesn't quite meet at the corners. Are those little things? Or the bits of egg shells you bite into in your omelette when you go out for breakfast, you know, the one that comes with the under-cooked sausage patties? Just little stuff, right? Maybe you can overlook those things if you did the remodeling yourself, or if you are making the omelette, but the small stuff counts when you are doing it for other people's consumption.
> 
> No one is perfect, and often we break rules by design, but that doesn't mean we should accept poor punctuation, or sloppy writing just because they are little things. They aren't. We should always be trying to write as perfectly as possible so we give our readers the best experience we can. Anything less is lazy.
> 
> Edited to correct errors :chargrined:



Ay-men!

A lot of writers forget, or choose to overlook, that this is ultimately a retail job as much as it is 'art'. You are, at the end of the day, selling a product to a customer. 

Terry's contractor example is a good one. The one I use is that of a restaurant. In a restaurant analogy the food would be the story and the decor, hygiene, theme, speed of service and even quality of the restrooms all the 'little things', the things that supposedly matter less than how good the food is. You are there for the food, right? 

The problem is that is not how consumerism works. If everybody based their enjoyment of a restaurant solely on the quality of the food Applebees would have gone out of business years ago and McDonald's would never have sold 'billions and billions' of their second-rate cheeseburgers. Yet both are franchises worth billions of dollars. 

So what gives?

There are no 'small things' when it comes to getting somebody to happily pay you (in money but also in time) for your work. Good food is but a single piece. Consistency is also important (are all the cheeseburgers the same shape) and so is accessibility (is the restaurant easy to find, the door unlocked and lights on, and can I get a table without calling ahead?). You have the pacing in narrative (am I having to wait half my lunch break for a lousy fish sandwich?) and good ingredients (are these nuggets made of actual chicken?). And, of course, if you happen to spot the 17 year old kid putting boogers in the coleslaw then it doesn't matter. You're done.

My advice to all writers who balk at the boring details is to in the kindest way say get over yourself. The chances are you are not in that 0.001% who are so talented that even their most lackluster, couldn't-be-bothered work still hits the big time. Stephen King could write a bestselling novel high on cocaine and not paying attention. You and I, we cannot.

 The chances are if you are to realize any mass-market potential you are going to have to adopt what is as near as dammit perfect product. That means absolute mindfulness over every word, period, comma, etc. Speaking for myself, when I write I don't think much, but when I edit I work on the committed belief that a single typo, a single poorly chosen word or slightly underdeveloped character or weakness in the narrative at any time will result in rejection and my entire reputation rests on nailing it.

Once the book is written the the creative process should be put aside and the horrible modern zeitgeist that is 'customer experience' moved to the forefront. If you are not willing or able to do that, you have no chance. That is just how it is.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 1, 2018)

I don't think anyone's suggesting that typos, questionable grammar, incorrect, confusing or missing punctuation or poor spelling won't cost you readers. I consider SPaG to be very important. And since I have a tolerable handle on it, for me that's editing, not writing.

What I think the OP intended this to be about is sentence polishing. How important is it, really? King uses -ly adverbs, even though he advocates against them. Rowling used the same word two or three times in as many sentences. Yet they sell many, many books. So how important can following those rules really be? 

I think characters, plot and story trump all those sentence polishing "rules". You can have every sentence be sharp, tight, or whatever lingo you like, and yet have a flop on your hands. And you can have repeated words, extra words, -ly adverbs, narrators jumping out on stage and stopped scene clocks, and have a best seller.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 1, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I don't think anyone's suggesting that typos, questionable grammar, incorrect, confusing or missing punctuation or poor spelling won't cost you readers. I consider SPaG to be very important. And since I have a tolerable handle on it, for me that's editing, not writing.
> 
> What I think the OP intended this to be about is sentence polishing. How important is it, really? King uses -ly adverbs, even though he advocates against them. Rowling used the same word two or three times in as many sentences. Yet they sell many, many books. So how important can following those rules really be?
> 
> I think characters, plot and story trump all those sentence polishing "rules". You can have every sentence be sharp, tight, or whatever lingo you like, and yet have a flop on your hands. And you can have repeated words, extra words, -ly adverbs, narrators jumping out on stage and stopped scene clocks, and have a best seller.



I think  the fact of it  is that *some* little things are important, and *some* little things can be almost ignored with near impunity. As Mark Twain said of the horse race, "Everyone knows one horse is going to win and another is going to lose, the interesting part is knowing which is which."

Personally I reckon grammar rules don't matter, as long as it can be understood that's fine; important are things like relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Apr 2, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I think  the fact of it  is that *some* little things are important, and *some* little things can be almost ignored with near impunity. As Mark Twain said of the horse race, "Everyone knows one horse is going to win and another is going to lose, the interesting part is knowing which is which."



And I disagree. I think SPaG is important, although grammar in speech should sound natural for the time and place. Relevance is a big thing, to me, and important. Repeating words, -ly adverbs, and some of the other rules are sentence polishing. Without a good story, even great sentences are nothing more than well polished manure.

I don't classify anything important as a little thing, nor do I worry about little things, especially during the writing phase.


----------



## Blackstone (Apr 2, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> Personally I reckon grammar rules don't matter, as long as it can be understood that's fine; important are things like relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness.



I have to disagree as well, Olly. It's not that the odd typo or poorly handled infinitive of an otherwise excellent piece will be a deal breaker in reality, so I take your point, but it comes down to a perception issue and common sense for me. Bottom line: Why risk it? 

Most (all?) industry bigwigs will make a judgement within the first few paragraphs or pages and won't read your entire work anyway - especially if we're talking novels. Even if one is not writing for the professional eye, its fair to say most readers are equally slippery. Speaking for myself if I notice poor style that early on I am going to probably assume if the writer can't handle the language with total competence and show me they have an eye for self-remediation in that regard, the story probably won't be great either. 

As mentioned before, its not a particularly fair way to judge but it's not my job as a reader (or publisher/agent/contest judge) to be fair. I am paying you. Its a foolish writer who takes liberties with their audience's patience, however small they may feel the mistakes are.


----------



## Bodes (May 21, 2018)

The adverbs advice has been killing my soul a bit, though I do understand the premise of it. Too many adverbs can be districting, but at the same time, theres a reason adverbs exist. They explain things very well. They can also be used to cut down on fanciful language. Sure, sometimes 5 sentence paragraphs about how your protagonist ran from point A to point B is useful. Other times, it's out of place and an adverb can cut down on the unnecessary language.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 25, 2018)

> Speaking for myself if I notice poor style that early on I am going to probably assume if the writer can't handle the language with total competence and show me they have an eye for self-remediation in that regard, the story probably won't be great either.





> Personally I reckon grammar rules don't matter, as long as it can be understood that's fine; important are things like relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness.



I do not see these as being contradictory, if you can manage 'relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness' you are handling language competently, even if you are not sticking perfectlyto the so called 'rules of grammar'. These were devised in the eighteenth and ninteenth century to keep language static, and were based on the 'logic' of Latin, they are not necessarily relevant today; when did you last hear someone use the word 'whom' instead of 'who' for example? Language is always in flux, and partly it is inventive and novel forms of writing that keep it that way.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 25, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I do not see these as being contradictory, if you can manage 'relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness' you are handling language competently, even if you are not sticking perfectlyto the so called 'rules of grammar'. These were devised in the eighteenth and ninteenth century to keep language static, and were based on the 'logic' of Latin, they are not necessarily relevant today; when did you last hear someone use the word 'whom' instead of 'who' for example? Language is always in flux, and partly it is inventive and novel forms of writing that keep it that way.



Language has had rules from the beginning of language. If everyone calls a table something different, we can't communicate with each other. The rules have function and purpose. 

Yes, language is always changing. It's important to find the balance between following old rules and recognizing, or even starting, new ones. But cavalier disregard for the rules is another matter.


----------



## Terry D (May 25, 2018)

Olly was writing about the 'rules' of grammar, not language; two very different things.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 25, 2018)

There is a continuous process of suggestion and correction which ensures an agreed set of norms , so we all know what we mean by 'a table', but it is a variable. In languages without a written code the change is much quicker, something similar can be seen in slang, where proper nouns change quite quickly, but even in everyday use it can be not long before a locomotive becomes an engine, a factory becomes a warehouse, or a perambulator a baby-carriage. The change in language is circulated, agreed and accepted.

The rules of grammar were formulated with the intention of 'stabalising' the grammar, whilst it is obvious that vocabulary will change, even if only to coin new words for new things, it was felt that there should be a 'correct'  grammar. This was based on the grammatical constructions of Latin, and a false 'logic'. The commonest example of its absurdity is the explanation that a double negative negates itself, so the person who says 'I didn't never do it' obviously did do it. The lie tothis is that a large part  of the population uses the construction frequently with exactly the opposite meaning; the double negative merely emphasises the negative quality of the statement. This is not a random occurrence not understood by any except the individualusing it, it is a form agreed and understood by a large group; trouble is they are not the 'right' people. It is all very well using recieved English if you are writing of the recieved classes. Use another set  of rules and manage 'relevance, appropriateness, flair and succinctness' does not imply a cavalier disregard for anything to me. In my book insistence on sticking to a single set of 'rules', even if  they are currently in common use, implies a cavalier disregard for the infinite possibilities that language offers, and a terrible restiction. Yes you need to be understood, but you only have to read a bit of 'trainspotting' to see that does not necessarily mean sticking to a standard grammar and vocabulary. What would the script of 'Harder they come'read like in recieved English? It would be ridiculous!


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 25, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Language has had rules from the beginning of language. If everyone calls a table something different, we can't communicate with each other. The rules have function and purpose.
> 
> Yes, language is always changing. It's important to find the balance between following old rules and recognizing, or even starting, new ones. But cavalier disregard for the rules is another matter.



The rules for spelling and meaning should be followed. The rules for constructing phrases should be followed. Not doing those leads to chaos. Agreement on conventions is needed to communicate.

For combining phrases, this principle suddenly doesn't hold. There are rules, but anyone can break the rules and make sense, because people can understand a sequence of meaningful phrases.

 So, right, it doesn't help to change meaning of words or misuse them, but ungrammatically combining phrases is completely different.

From my book:


> A language first constructs words.
> 
> Stop
> Help
> ...


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 26, 2018)

> The rules for spelling and meaning should be followed. The rules for constructing phrases should be followed. Not doing those leads to chaos. Agreement on conventions is needed to communicate.



The last  of these four statements is true, the first two, by the use of the definite article, establish that there is only one set of rules, which is not true, there are many sub sets and they keep changing, this does not lead to chaos, those who use dialect, or slang, for example, are quite comprehensible. There are small groups who develop specialised ways of expressing themselves that may be completely incomprehensible to outsiders, and completely 'ungrammatical' as far as 'the rules' of grammar are concerned, they are not chaotic, they follow a different set of rules. 'The rules of grammar' are an artificial concept that is continuously being outdated, revised, and replaced, innit? 

I have just been re-reading Pride and Predjudice, Ms,Austen has much to teach regarding plot construction, character fidelity, subtlety etc, but if I wrote in her language and used her rules, which were valid at the time, it would be an instant reject. The primary needs of a communication are communication and appropriateness, this may have nothing to do with any written or established 'rules'. When Ms Austen chooses to spell 'choose' 'chuse' I do not lose the thread of the narrative, before Dr Johnson there were no standardised spellings, but everybody managed to read and understand each other's writing, failing to stick to the spelling rules does not produce incomprehensible chaos, but if a character says 'He is a Northaner' rather than 'He is a Northerner', and it is deliberate, I may draw different conclusions about them.

The mad man shouting in the street may be saying he wants a sexual experience with me similar to the unusual one my mother had when I was concieved, he may mix his words and express himself in a confused way that follows no logic or grammar, but I know his meaning and intentions. Understanding is not dependant on slavishly following any set of rules. 

The language follows the understanding rather than the other way round, one does not need language to think, only to express the thought. The concept of 'radioactivity' did not exist in the relatively recent past, neither did the word; the word was coined to suit the concept, language is our slave and tool, we are not its slave.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 26, 2018)

I guess this should be sent straight to the re-cycle box, completely unintelligable  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85jRiZ6xNAU


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 26, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> The last  of these four statements is true, the first two, by the use of the definite article, establish that there is only one set of rules, which is not true, there are many sub sets and they keep changing, this does not lead to chaos, those who use dialect, or slang, for example, are quite comprehensible. There are small groups who develop specialised ways of expressing themselves that may be completely incomprehensible to outsiders, and completely 'ungrammatical' as far as 'the rules' of grammar are concerned, they are not chaotic, they follow a different set of rules. 'The rules of grammar' are an artificial concept that is continuously being outdated, revised, and replaced, innit?
> 
> I have just been re-reading Pride and Predjudice, Ms,Austen has much to teach regarding plot construction, character fidelity, subtlety etc, but if I wrote in her language and used her rules, which were valid at the time, it would be an instant reject. The primary needs of a communication are communication and appropriateness, this may have nothing to do with any written or established 'rules'. When Ms Austen chooses to spell 'choose' 'chuse' I do not lose the thread of the narrative, before Dr Johnson there were no standardised spellings, but everybody managed to read and understand each other's writing, failing to stick to the spelling rules does not produce incomprehensible chaos, but if a character says 'He is a Northaner' rather than 'He is a Northerner', and it is deliberate, I may draw different conclusions about them.
> 
> ...


There are some flaws in the logic here.

Nowadays there are some folks who do not know how to read, and that's with compulsory education. Go back a hundred years and the percentage of the population that couldn't read was greater. Go back another hundred years, and it's greater still. So the claim that "everybody managed to read and understand each other's writing" is false because many did not know how to either read or write.

If you have a good reason to deviate from the rules, there won't be a problem.

If, however, you violate the rules without cause, you will likely be judged uneducated or lazy; or both.

I believe the rules of grammar were created to make understanding easier, not make writers slaves. Even with them, misunderstandings occur. Sometimes because of poor conprehesion skills of the reader; other times because of poor word choice of the writer.

Reading old books is not the best way to learn to write, in my opinion. What made those books popular in their time is probably not true today. Reading Around the World in 80 Days, for example, is not going to teach me anything about modern writing, and the creative part of the story is available in movie format. I don't see the benefit in trying to write like Jules Verne.


----------



## Jack of all trades (May 26, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> The rules for spelling and meaning should be followed. The rules for constructing phrases should be followed. Not doing those leads to chaos. Agreement on conventions is needed to communicate.
> 
> For combining phrases, this principle suddenly doesn't hold. There are rules, but anyone can break the rules and make sense, because people can understand a sequence of meaningful phrases.
> 
> ...



The goal must be clear writing. Readers want a story, not play a guessing game. Following the rules, while telling a compelling story, is the best way to get sales, in my opinion.


----------



## Bayview (May 26, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> The last  of these four statements is true, the first two, by the use of the definite article, establish that there is only one set of rules, which is not true, there are many sub sets and they keep changing, this does not lead to chaos, those who use dialect, or slang, for example, are quite comprehensible. There are small groups who develop specialised ways of expressing themselves that may be completely incomprehensible to outsiders, and completely 'ungrammatical' as far as 'the rules' of grammar are concerned, they are not chaotic, they follow a different set of rules. 'The rules of grammar' are an artificial concept that is continuously being outdated, revised, and replaced, innit?
> 
> I have just been re-reading Pride and Predjudice, Ms,Austen has much to teach regarding plot construction, character fidelity, subtlety etc, but if I wrote in her language and used her rules, which were valid at the time, it would be an instant reject. The primary needs of a communication are communication and appropriateness, this may have nothing to do with any written or established 'rules'. When Ms Austen chooses to spell 'choose' 'chuse' I do not lose the thread of the narrative, before Dr Johnson there were no standardised spellings, but everybody managed to read and understand each other's writing, failing to stick to the spelling rules does not produce incomprehensible chaos, but if a character says 'He is a Northaner' rather than 'He is a Northerner', and it is deliberate, I may draw different conclusions about them.
> 
> ...



I agree that rules should be broken whenever the author thinks it appropriate, but I don't believe the only criteria we're after is understanding or clarity. That is, just because I'm able to understand something, that doesn't mean I'll choose to read that something for pleasure.

For example, all the comma splices in your post make it less pleasant for me to read. This may be because I've been conditioned to believe in the arbitrary "wrongness" of comma splices and am unable to abandon my unreasonable prejudices; it may be because there's actual value to ending sentences when the idea is done and the rules for writing a "proper" sentence actually enhance my ability to understand what I read. But in terms of enjoyment, it doesn't really matter which of these reasons is behind my distaste: I don't enjoy writing with a lot of comma splices, so if I'm reading for enjoyment I'll avoid writing that contains them.

There are authors who violate the expected "rules" of grammar with great effectiveness and purpose, and that's a useful tool. But for the vast majority of writers? I think following the standard rules is the best approach.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 26, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> The last  of these four statements is true, the first two, by the use of the definite article, establish that there is only one set of rules, which is not true, there are many sub sets and they keep changing, this does not lead to chaos . . ..



Basically, if I write _chuse _instead of _choose_, that -- like almost all misspellings -- is going to slow down the reader. If I have good reason for doing that, okay, but I can't think of when I have misspelled a word except to suggest dialect, slang, or some impaired state like drunkenness.

Yes, we have a choice between _judgement _and _judgment_. That doesn't make our language better. It's just annoying.

The word festooned came up. It has a nice, clear, definition. My guess is that the people writing it don't know that definition and use it just to mean something like "decorated". That doesn't help anything. One dictionary even had the definition of "decorated", I supposed to fit modern (mis)usage. Same for treasure trove, and I found one book that described dirty fresh water as brackish.

Yes, language changes. When it helps us say something we couldn't say before, that's great. But those are forming new conventions. When we lose conventions for meaning, that's a loss to our language. Enormity is gone. To mention something of importance, is _witch hunt_ gone? I sincerely doubt the average person knows how they found witches in the olden days.

So, really, no. You can think of exceptions. But conventions for spelling and meaning underly good communication and there's rarely any point to violate them.

Principle order is word same the the for. A few obscure word orders, they occasionally have marginal value. But overwhelmingly, phrases should have the correct word order (and word agreements).

Except for slang and dialect, and even there the advice to writers is to use only a little of it, to suggest slang. _Because it's hard to understand -- _no one wants to read a book of it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 26, 2018)

Bayview said:


> There are authors who violate the expected "rules" of grammar with great effectiveness and purpose, and that's a useful tool. But for the vast majority of writers? I think following the standard rules is the best approach.



Do these bother you? (Or anyone?) I realize, they might work better in context, but for out of context? I want to know if you're bothered by all ungrammatical sentences or just comma splices.

1. He puts his arms around her and they sleep spoons the rest of the night.

2. She's as skinny as her brother is fat, and regards Hodges with a watery, suspicious eye.

3. Theywere the last people you'd expect to be involved in anything strangeor mysterious,becausethey just didn't hold with such nonsense.

The first two are King. The last is Rowling; I'm guessing King avoids #3 precisely because it's ungrammatical.


----------



## Bayview (May 26, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Do these bother you? (Or anyone?) I realize, they might work better in context, but for out of context? I want to know if you're bothered by all ungrammatical sentences or just comma splices.
> 
> 1. He puts his arms around her and they sleep spoons the rest of the night.
> 
> ...



Other than the typos, I don't even know what's grammatically wrong with them, so I'm certainly not bothered. I mean, "sleep spoons" rather than "sleep like spoons" is unfamiliar, but I take it as a variation on the idiom rather than a grammar issue.


----------



## Winston (May 26, 2018)

The Universe started from one incredibly small, powerful point.
Start with that "little thing".


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 26, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Other than the typos, I don't even know what's grammatically wrong with them, so I'm certainly not bothered. I mean, "sleep spoons" rather than "sleep like spoons" is unfamiliar, but I take it as a variation on the idiom rather than a grammar issue.



Thanks! I try to make guesses on how people think about grammar, but it's nice to hear some reality, and I would like to hear from more people.

 The first sentence is missing a comma. In the second sentence, there isn't supposed to be a comma separating the two parts of a compound predicate. In the third sentence, the grammar rules say there should be a comma before _because_.

There is really good consensus on the rules of grammar. That's for any website or book that tries to list or describe them. I call that EG, for English Grammar

Actual writing has been drifting from EG since at least Hemingway. I use Writer's Grammar (WG) to refer to the grammatical constructions that are common and presumably don't draw attention from any reader. All of the above are normal WG, in my opinion, even though they are not EG.

I doubt readers notice or are bothered by comma splices, so I include them in WG. I don't know why some people are bothered by comma splices but not the other common ungrammatical sentence types. (I suspect it's the sexy name.)

And almost no one is bothered by

She looked up at him, then she kissed him.

Unless you think _then _is a coordinating conjunction, that's a comma splice, I wrote about that, tongue-in-cheek here.


----------



## Bayview (May 26, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> In the third sentence, the grammar rules say there should be a comma before _because_.



...There _is_ a comma before "because"...?

And I think the issue with comma splices is more profound than the issues you're mentioning because they're so obvious and they clearly affect the rhythm of the writing. If I were reading out loud I wouldn't read the sample sentences you gave differently if the commas were or were not there, but I _would_ read a passage differently if the comma splices were eliminated. I think it has a more profound effect on the writing. Nothing to do with the name, and, honestly, nothing sexy about "comma splice".


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 27, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Other than the typos, I don't even know what's grammatically wrong with them, so I'm certainly not bothered.



I reckon this is pretty common.The number of errors that writers make must be miniscule compared to the number most readers would be totally unaware of. I try and avoid the sort of sentence that changes meaning completely with different punctuation, because I reckon most readers would not be able to distinguish between the two versions, most don't even know what the functions of simple punctuation marks are, I didn't 'til I looked them up, and I went to a 'Grammar school'.

Sorry about the comma splices, Bayview. I am getting better, the first story I put on here was a one page sentence, but I still need to edit heavily and that tends not to happen in forum posts.

Emma. "One dictionary even had the definition of "decorated", I supposed to fit modern (mis)usage." That is what dictionaries do, they tell us how words are used, they do not tell us how they 'ought' to be used. That is why they use quotations as references. 
It is not mis-usage, only modern usage. The pedant who insists that 'nice' means 'precise, perfectly fitting' is not adding to the understanding of the vast majority who use it to mean 'pleasant'. They are simply being a boring pedant insisting on something that went out of use about the time I was born (1940's).
We do not lose out, as I said words are coined as they are needed, if we need to use the old meaning of 'nice' there are plenty of ways of doing it, and failing that we can invent new ones at the drop of a hat, but using it in an out-dated way and then insisting it is the rest of the world that is wrong and they should understand me ... well!


----------



## Bayview (May 27, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> Sorry about the comma splices, Bayview. I am getting better, the first story I put on here was a one page sentence, but I still need to edit heavily and that tends not to happen in forum posts.



Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if I had a problem with your forum posts! I just used them as a handy example of something that would interfere with my enjoyment if it were in a longer work.


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 27, 2018)

Bayview said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean it to sound as if I had a problem with your forum posts! I just used them as a handy example of something that would interfere with my enjoyment if it were in a longer work.



No problem, you are bang on the money , I know (some of) my faults


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 27, 2018)

Bayview said:


> There are authors who violate the expected "rules" of grammar with great effectiveness and purpose, and that's a useful tool. But for the vast majority of writers? I think following the standard rules is the best approach.



I disagree with this advice. First, I assume that "standard rules" means the rules as found in grammar books and websites.

In my experience, the people advocating those rules do not know those rules. And that's kind of how it has to be -- someone who knew the rules would realize how impractical they are for writing fiction. So either writers break the rules and don't realize they are doing it, or they break the rules and realize they are doing it.

As far as I know, _The Fault in Our Stars_ does not contain any comma splices. It is the only book I know of. E. B. White once said not to use comma splices, then people pointed out his use of comma splices. (His advice is now more permissive.) And they are useful -- they give a sentence a different feel.

Now, there are smooth comma splices and harsh comma splices, and a harsh comma splice will annoy a lot of people. But no one minds a smooth comma splice.


----------



## Bayview (May 27, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I disagree with this advice. First, I assume that "standard rules" means the rules as found in grammar books and websites.
> 
> In my experience, the people advocating those rules do not know those rules. And that's kind of how it has to be -- someone who knew the rules would realize how impractical they are for writing fiction. So either writers break the rules and don't realize they are doing it, or they break the rules and realize they are doing it.
> 
> ...



I think you may be overstating the "no one" in no one minds. And you're definitely overstating the shortage of books without them.

I confess, you've confused me. I would have said you're one of the most grammar-focused people I've ever encountered. Why do you spend so much energy on something you don't think is important?


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I confess, you've confused me. I would have said you're one of the most grammar-focused people I've ever encountered. Why do you spend so much energy on something you don't think is important?



Thanks, great question. Punctuation and Grammar help us tell our story. Occasionally, they do more work than the words. They are also important for making our reading easy to understand -- one misfit with what we want to convey doesn't matter, but ten or a hundred or a thousand do. Every popular book (by a first-time author) I have looked at has something good about it's punctuation and grammar. So I think it's really important.

It's the grammar rules, as found in grammar books and grammar websites, that I devalue. To use you as an example, you seem to be unaware of those rules (like not separating a compound predicate with a comma). Some of those rules work really badly (there are times when it is good to separate a compound predicate with a comma). You don't follow those rules in your books. (For example, you separate a compound predicate with a comma when that's appropriate.) I don't see a problem. If you learned the rule, went through your book to "fix" it, that would be a problem and your book would suffer for it.

I think writers should learn what punctuation and grammar can do and add those tools to their writing skills. But that's thinking in terms of function, which the rules don't do (much less encourage).


----------



## moderan (May 28, 2018)

I think's they should, too


----------



## Olly Buckle (May 28, 2018)

I would go along with that, Emma, except that because the average reader has even less idea of what punctuation can do than a novice writer they are unlikely to appreciate it. 
Can you imagine what writing 'The true history of the Kelly Gang' was like? It reads smoothly, with the voice of Irish-Australian second generation but without a comma in the book. If you simply went through and deleted all the commas it would be a mess, that is a very clever piece of writing, but I bet most readers think no further than 'What a neat idea, he didn't know about commas'. 
It still works for people on some level though, a bit like a musician orchestrating a piece of music and the listener says 'I like how the rest of the band comes in.'


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2018)

Olly Buckle said:


> I would go along with that, Emma, except that because the average reader has even less idea of what punctuation can do than a novice writer they are unlikely to appreciate it.



I agree that, just as for words, it's wrong to count on a reader knowing a punctuation rule that in fact the reader is unlikely to know or notice.

But how much is this a problem? They surely know the meaning of ?, !, and =. Whatever else, the comma separates and the period separates even more. Don't they see dashes and ellipses as different?

Actually, I always thought that if an author adopts something stylistic and uses it throughout the book, the reader will adapt. It was an easy jump from that to assume readers adapt to what many author's do.

I guess the semicolon is more dubious.

I think, therefore I exist.
I think; therefore I exist.
I think. Therefore I exist.

As far as I know, the pitch on think drops most for the period, least for the comma, and in-between for the semicolon. (This is discussed more in the book I occasionally mention.) I will test if readers are sensitive to this, though that is not the easiest thing to do. Are you thinking that some readers will read those the same way?

I still want to choose the way that best fits meaning for those readers who know the difference.

From that book:



> > He was an old man who fished alone in a skiff in the Gulf Stream, and he had gone eighty-four days now without taking a fish.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bayview (May 28, 2018)

I think it's a mistake to think of "readers" as a homogeneous mass. Some readers will care about some stuff, other readers will care about other stuff, other readers won't care about any of it. Readers of some categories/genres are more likely to care about some stuff than readers of other categories/genres.

So when I said I thought it was a good idea for writers to follow the standard rules, I meant the standard rules for the category/genre in which the writer is working. I don't think there's any risk in being _more_ correct than your audience expects, but I think there's significant risk in being _less _correct than they expect. It's another case of knowing your audience.


----------



## EmmaSohan (May 28, 2018)

Bayview said:


> I think it's a mistake to think of "readers" as a homogeneous mass. Some readers will care about some stuff, other readers will care about other stuff, other readers won't care about any of it. Readers of some categories/genres are more likely to care about some stuff than readers of other categories/genres.
> 
> So when I said I thought it was a good idea for writers to follow the standard rules, I meant the standard rules for the category/genre in which the writer is working. I don't think there's any risk in being _more_ correct than your audience expects, but I think there's significant risk in being _less _correct than they expect. It's another case of knowing your audience.



That would be good advice, you just need to be clear what you mean by standard rules. I have found it essential to distinguish the rules of grammar, as found in books and textbooks, and what writers actually do. I call that Writer's Grammar (WG). There is only one book I know of that attempts to describe Writers Grammar (which I might have mentioned once or twice).

There is no line for what is clearly in or out for WG. But comma splices would be included.  A good copy editor is also going to have a good idea of what's normal in writing, what's on the edge, and what's on the wrong side of the edge. King is an interesting marker -- my impression is that by the time he uses something in his writing, it has been proven effective and used often, but he's still ahead of people who don't keep track of changes. (IMO, of course.)


----------



## Bayview (May 28, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> That would be good advice, you just need to be clear what you mean by standard rules. I have found it essential to distinguish the rules of grammar, as found in books and textbooks, and what writers actually do. I call that Writer's Grammar (WG). There is only one book I know of that attempts to describe Writers Grammar (which I might have mentioned once or twice).
> 
> There is no line for what is clearly in or out for WG. But comma splices would be included.  A good copy editor is also going to have a good idea of what's normal in writing, what's on the edge, and what's on the wrong side of the edge. King is an interesting marker -- my impression is that by the time he uses something in his writing, it has been proven effective and used often, but he's still ahead of people who don't keep track of changes. (IMO, of course.)



I think less of writers who use comma splices. (ETA: In FINISHED, POLISHED work). If I read more than a few of them, I put the book down.

I've had editors mention when I've allowed a comma splice to slip into one of my manuscripts. They mention them as errors. So... I think you read mostly YA? Maybe they have a different standard there (although I've never knowing allowed a comma splice into one of my YA books). So, again... there's no such thing as one overarching Writers' Grammar. There are different expectations for different genres/categories, and obviously different writers have their own personal preferences/styles.

Back to the point of the thread - I disagree that the little things don't matter. That doesn't mean there aren't lots of books that get the little things "wrong", it just means that, unless those "mistakes" were made for deliberate effect, the book probably would have been better if the things had been "right".

Whether it was Flaubert who said it or someone else, the idea that someone could spend a morning putting in a comma and an afternoon taking one out suggests the flexible nature of "rules" in the hands of a master. But it also suggests that the little things matter a hell of a lot, at least to some.


----------



## Kyle R (May 29, 2018)

AdrianBraysy said:
			
		

> 1. Cut adverbs



These days, I leave my adverbs if I want them there. I take them out if I don't want them there.

King's advice certainly has merit, but it's by no means a rule. More like a suggestion to keep in mind.



			
				AdrianBraysy said:
			
		

> 2. Show. Don't tell.



The "show, don't tell!" maxim has been the cause of countless debates.

Even back in the caveman days, when our ancestors were just forming the origins of spoken language, the first tribal war started all because Og yelled, "Show!" and Ig yelled, "Tell!"

Well... not really. But it _could've_ happened. 

I was a strong proponent of the "show" camp for a long time. Now I've relaxed a bit and believe in the less committal: use your judgement. Show when you want to show, tell when you want to tell.



			
				AdrianBraysy said:
			
		

> 3. Describe using all five senses



I don't consciously think about all five senses when writing, but in the editing phase I'll often think, "Hey, what's this room smell like?" or "She drank that potion here, but I forgot to describe what it tasted like."

I believe if you _intentionally_ try to tick off all the boxes, in terms of senses, there's a risk of it feeling forced and unnatural. Even in real life, I'm not consciously aware of all my senses all the time. Usually one or two at the most.

In psychology they call this "selective attention"—meaning our brains choose to focus on only certain things at a time, otherwise we'd feel overwhelmed from all the stimulation.

Right now I'm only consciously aware of two senses: the sight of my laptop and my son playing on the floor beside me, and the sound of music playing from the kitchen. I'm not thinking about the taste in my mouth, or the scent of the air, or the feel of my clothing—and I believe that, if I were to write my perspective in narrative form, to include all those other senses would make things ... clunky. The reader would have a hard time knowing what to focus on. And the pacing would probably feel sluggish.

So I'd pick and choose your moments to hit the different senses. Indulge now and then, when you really want to paint the entire picture. But don't do it all the time, or you'll wear your reader out. :encouragement:


----------



## Olly Buckle (Jun 1, 2018)

They say there are over twenty senses, most of which don't impinge on conciousness normally. Worth remembering though, they are what will give your characters intuition and make it realistic rather than simply a literary device.


----------



## moderan (Jun 1, 2018)

The five things that people seem to forget:
Who, what, where, when, and why.
That's really all you need. The rest is icing.


----------

