National Novel Writing Month Thoughts

Printer-friendly version

Forums: 

Taxonomy upgrade extras: 

I'm a professional writer, that is, I write for a living, however meagre.

Now that NaNoWriMo is winding down, I thought I'd share a few things I've learned over the years.

I heartily recommend finding someone to edit your work, both for spelling and syntax -- the obvious candidates -- but also for the plot and development of the story itself. It's especially nice if one's editor feels free to offer helpful comments to make your story better. Just like one's own children, it's often quite difficult for a writer to see flaws in their masterpiece, but one fit of pique in response to well-meant criticism will dry up the well of would-be editors rather quickly. To put it bluntly, an editor is a writer's best friend, and a good one is like gold. They deserve little presents from time to time, and constant cultivation and affection, lest they abandon one to a well-deserved fate.

In the absence of an editor, or as a supplement to your own polishing *before* you send your pages off to be overseen, I've developed a number of tricks that I wish had been possible when I started writing.

I'll offer two or three simple ones here:

1. Spelling counts. A neat trick to make detecting errors simpler is to use an editor which detects many such errors and renders them in red. Alternatively, the Firefox browser can be used to edit directly on a web page using the plug-in feature to add a spelling dictionary and automatic spellchecking. Some other browsers have similar features, but Firefox seems the most accessible. It's free, and it works on both Macs and PCs. What's not to like?
Giving one's editor a manuscript riddled with obvious errors may tend to discourage them, as few of us like to spend our days correcting things that should have been taken care of by the author. The occasional mistake is fine, but anything more than a mistake or two per paragraph is unacceptable. If you know that you have trouble distinguishing between "your" are "you're," use your computer to search for each one and try replacing either (in your mind) with "you are." The same goes for all the shibboleths one accumulates as one grows up, whether mixing up "its" and "it's," spelling "building" as "bilding," or whatever. The very first time you receive an edited manuscript back from an editor, compare (using automated tools if possible) the original with the edited version. Make careful notes of every error, and resolve not to make that particular error again.

2. Commas count. The difference between "Hey, Rob, that man over there who's waving!" and "Hey, rob that man over there who's waving!" is precisely one comma and one capitalized word, and precisely the distinction between a simple exhortation to notice someone and conspiracy to incite a felony. Commas are always used in English to mark the vocative case, which is a fancy way of saying that you're addressing someone directly, rather than speaking about them. So "Oh my, Mom!" is addressed to one's mother, where "Oh, my Mom!" sounds rather more like the outcry of someone caught doing something naughty, and addressed to someone else, possibly one's partner in naughtiness. There is nothing that marks dialogue as amateurish so much as long runs of text with no commas. Punctuation in general is important, and a lack of, or too many, periods is irritating, but omitting the comma, which is the only marker left in English for the vocative case, is beyond the pale. If you don't like commas, please try speaking Latin, where they are optional for the most part.

3. Readability counts. I think it's unprofessional, in these modern days, not to use the screen reader software built into almost every operating system released during the last decade, often associated with an accessibility feature. On the Mac, the technology is called VoiceOver. On Windows Vista, roughly the same idea is called Narrator. On Windows XP, it's called Speech in the control panel. By listening to the computer speak your words, it's much easier to recognize many spelling errors, and to get some idea of how the story actually works as a narrative. You should also read your own story aloud. The natural pauses you make in speech are a very good hint about where *some* sort of punctuation ought to go, and speaking words aloud makes it easier to detect whether a particular speech is implausible or not.

Storytelling is primevally a spoken art form, narrated around campfires by our very distant ancestors. Literacy came very late in our history, and didn't affect the requirements of a good tale one iota. A writer's struggle to make his or her story *real* is still termed "finding one's voice," and it's hard to know what one's true voice sounds like without hearing it from time to time.

There's a fairly famous story (well, among writers) about a monk back in the Middle Ages when literacy was hard won, and usually mastered only as an adult. He complained in a letter to a friend that the chanting of his fellow monks was so loud at times that he couldn't read. The joke, of course, is that he had to sound out the words, because he'd not had the opportunity to learn sight-reading, and if he couldn't hear himself saying the sounds of the letters, just like they do on Sesame Street, he literally couldn't read.

The lesson for writers is to slow down. You can't write dialogue without speaking it aloud, and a typical writer will express the full range of emotions out loud (this is why writers often live in ivory towers -- not because they're snooty, but because they might be locked up as crazy people if overheard arguing violently with themselves) the better to capture the sound of a real conversation.

And speaking of dialog, while it's very nice stuff to have, the age of the epistolary novel is pretty much over, and even radio drama. We TV-watchers and movie-goers from birth like to be *shown* things nowadays.

Which would you prefer?

------------------

A.

The nurse said, "Your father just died."

"Ohmigod!" I cried, "He was my hero!"

B.

The nurse came in, not the pretty one, but the sturdy woman who looked like she'd been born on a farm in Minnesota and had milked cows and mown hay until she went off to college and decided to be a nurse instead. Her shoulders usually looked like they were used carrying heavy loads, but they were sagging now. She looked toward me, but not directly at me, her mouth working its way toward speech, and then turned away as she blurted out, "Your father just died," and ran from the room.

I sat down on the cheap brown vinyl couch in the corner of the waiting room, staring at the door she'd fled through. The sounds of the hospital faded away as blood pooled in my limbs, and my posture sagged. I turned slightly to look out the window. There was a yellow bird flitting back and forth along a tree limb just outside, a willow warbler I think, and it was tearing apart a large grasshopper. And then the dam broke and I cried aloud, although there was no one else in the room, no audience other than the heedless bird, "Ohmigod! He was my hero!" and then buried my face in my hands.

--------------

The more your story reads like a detailed description of a movie, the more most people will like it these days. And it will be easier to sell the TV rights later on.

Cheers...

Lots of good advice...

I'm fortunate in having a vivid auditory memory and imagination but, yes, I sometimes draw odd looks in the coffee shops where I do most of my writing by reading back dialog to myself out loud. ::lol::

I use Firefox a lot and it's pretty good at marking misspellings with those cruel dashed red underlines. I also do a lot of writing in Google docs because I'm either on my home machine, the one at the office or my laptop and with Google docs, I can store documents in one place, easily make local copies in different places and load the result into Word for a quick look before posting.

Those mechanics can be important. I don't think I could have written Blue Moon any other way.

I'm not a professional fiction writer, just a flack. I'm used to working with absurdly small word limits so I want to add something to the note about descriptions above.

Be terse and vivid. These are conflicting commands but can be additive if done right. You can be indirect and emotive with this, too, describing emotional landscape at the same time as you illuminate physical surroundings.

"The wood grain vinyl wall-covering in the reception area reminded Chase of burning Amazon forests, petroleum-based wars, and the cheap Asian-made toys he'd loved as a child--all at once. The receptionist's tumbleweed-hairstyle and the glimpses of acid-green bubblegum she showed him as she clacked away on her keyboard made him wonder if the pencil-thin corpse of John Waters were folded, spindled and mutilated in one or more of the banks of greige (a color that is neither gray nor beige) filing cabinets lining the back wall. It wasn't until the veterinarian called for him to bring The Cat That Ate Mothra into the back that he remembered; John Waters wasn't dead."

-- Donna Lamb, Flack

-- Donna Lamb, ex-Flack

Some of my books and stories are sold through DopplerPress to help support BigCloset. -- Donna

Be terse and vivid.

Puddintane's picture

Excellent advice. Not all of us can be Proust, as he already did a pretty decent job of it. I liked your writing sample, and assume it was off the top of your head. It showed a good eye, and considerable subtle humour. I realized at the end that I too had forgotten that John Waters is still with us, although he's only a year older than I am. That's the nice part of being paid to write, even if you modestly call yourself a flack, that with use the language faculty becomes more flexible and able to respond to our needs. In that sense, I too am a flack, as most of my work product was and is boring non-fiction -- or in the case of responses to RFQs, a very clever sort of pseudo-fiction masquerading as a future reality we all fondly hope can be brought to fruition without selling our souls to the Devil, risking insanity through sleep deprivation, bringing on an epidemic of divorce, desertion, and cruelty to animals among our staff, and forcing one or more of us to commit corporate harikiri as a penance if we fail. Did you ever see /The Rainmaker/ with Burt Lancaster and Katharine Hepburn? The Starbuck character reminded me uncomfortably of me at times, always looking for, and counting on the next miracle.

I just discovered Google Docs (hopelessly old-fashioned, despite living on the cutting edge of technology) but have long used ftp sites for the same purpose. Pretty much the same thing but without the bells and whistles. My text editors of choice (BBEdit and Visual SlickEdit) support automatic synchronization with a source code control system, so it's only when I need to translate from text to a presentation model that I have to get serious about tags and the mutinae of display, although I usually include at least basic XML/XHTML tags when writing, so I can easily go back and tweak things with stylesheets and added classes. This has the advantage as well of making the automation of backups easy, as I can set a cron task to sweep through my working directories and copy the incremental changed bits to yet another ftp site, and Bazaar fits the way I work, sometimes alone and sometimes with other contributors. Plus, it's available on all the major platforms, so no one can complain that their particular fave isn't supported, unless they happen to be BeOS fans.

Cheers...

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Surprise, surprise, surprise!

erin's picture

Greige is a real word! It's used to describe raw silk fabric, which actually is a sort of translucent gray-beige color. Hee!

Petroleum-based wars and tumbleweed-hairstyles are evocative but the idea that John Waters would leave a pencil-thin corpse to go with his mustache is just deliciously warped; I'm sure John Waters would even think so. Careful he doesn't steal it for his epitaph.

And The Cat Who Ate Mothra -- we have some enormous summer-time moths in Southern California, bigger than small birds -- Jeanne called them "mothras". Since you're from around here, I'm sure you must be thinking of them.

- Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

Hah

kristina l s's picture

We get Bogongs this time of year and we're just a bit Sth of Texas where everything's big so it goes. Well they've about gone now, but... oh, Bogong's... moths, look 'em up. And John Waters is an actor born in Britain and migrating as a kid. Oh..there's another one? Fancy that. not sure a word like greige should be allowed, but then who am I??? Check with the scrabble people maybe... but that word score...hmmm.

Kristina

Bogongs vs Sphinx moths

erin's picture

Bogongs get up to 45mm wingspan according to wikipedia, sphinx and hawk moths are listed as getting up to 150mm. That's about 2 inches vs 6 inches. Other sources say Sphinx or hawk moths get up to eight or ten inches wingspan, about that of a sparrow. :) And I've found anecdotes online of people who claim to have encountered ones that measured 12 or 15 inches. :) I personally have seen ones that were about 8 inches. They're heavy bodied, too. Most of them are nectar sippers and a few can hover or even fly sideways like hummingbirds, though those are much smaller. Freaky.

- Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

Bloody Big Sparrows

Either New World sparrows are much larger, or New World inches are much smaller, than they are in this sceptred isle.

I wouldn't dare venture out for my lunchtime drink if I thought that great flocks of 10 inch wing spanned sparrows lurked outside. Hitchcock would have rejoiced.

In fact I am already beginning to feel nervous about the prospect. And if I do pluck up sufficient courage, will I ever have the nerve to embark upon the return journey.?

Maybe I will have to stay there.

I can see life becoming complicated.

Again.

Hugs,

Fleurie

Fleurie

African sparrows?

erin's picture

Actually, 9 or 10 inches is the average wingspan for a House Sparrow (commonly called English Sparrow in the US). Birds' wingspans are usually about twice their length or nearly three times their height. Who would think a 13 inch tall crow would have a three foot wingspan? But they do. :)

- Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

re: Bloody Big

My Sweetie is from England and now lives here in America with me. She frequently points out the discrepancy in robins. The bird we call a robin in the U.S. is evidently not the same bird you call a robin in the U.K. The most noticeable difference, apparently, is that our robin is whopping huge compared to yours. She insists that your robin is much cuter, too.

As for sparrows, alas, the venerable spuggie (as she calls them in her Geordie dialect) is a complete import. An invasive species carted over to the New World in little cages belonging to English settlers who evidently kept them as little singing house pets. It seems odd to us to keep a nondescript little brown songbird in a cage these days, but this was before you conquered great swaths of the tropics and scooped up all the budgies and parakeets.

and Dropbears

Yeah and you have dropbears too, but we have jackalopes and Hoopsnakes.

Jan

ooh, it's big...

kristina l s's picture

... yeah I guess yours are bigger, oh stop snickering. But there's an awful lot of ours and it's all our fault. Artificial lights and all, confuses the poor critters. Evolution has a bit to answer for... but then not sure the alternative would go down too well either. All Bogong moths get a gps issued at hatching...new Govt initiative. Wonder if that'll get through the Senate. Oh... Australia has a new Govt as of an hour or so ago...

The more things change.. ah, such cynicism...

Kristina

Yea, Rudd

I don't really know much about Aussie politics, you know, but it always seemed unfair that the other two parties always ganged up on Labor, and I like the underdog.

Hope your happy with it (Howard did seem a bit of a Bushie.)

Hugs Jan

Commas are important.

I like to adjust the punctuation in the well-known song title 'What is this thing called love?'. It's amazing how many different meanings it can be made to have. Try it.

The only trouble with Firefox's spell checker is its insistence that I use 'z' where I always use 's' in words like 'sympathise' and tries to persuade me to spell 'metre' as though it were a measuring instrument rather than a unit of measurement. Though it is useful and panders to my anal attitude to spelling and grammar, even though (or perhaps because?) I'm an engineer. Though I certainly agree that both spelling and punctuation are important. I'll give up on reading a piece very quickly if either or both are very bad.

Reading aloud? Certainly not using an artificial computer voice. I can think of little else that would persuade me more never to write another word. For a start, it would almost certainly be in the wrong accent - even if it were an English one - which would irritate me beyond all measure. In any case, I don't find it difficult to read aloud in my head - isn't that usual? I think reading a piece aloud may have some value for the writer, but, since most work is intended for silent reading, the value may be over-stated.

On the whole, I prefer version 'A' - much. I assume you're suggesting the second, wordy version, full of irrelevant detail is the better. For me, it simply hides the stark reality of death and grief. Version 'B' seems to be very overwritten, perhaps deliberately ... and wouldn't the direct speech be better in separate paragraphs?

I've acted as an editor for several TG fiction writers in the past, but I confess to being my own editor and proof-reader for most of my own stuff. Perhaps I shouldn't be proud of that.

Thanks for your interesting professional insights.

Geoff

Commas are important.

Puddintane's picture

If you look through FireFox Add-ons, you will find both British and Canadian Dictionaries to download, whereupon you can enable them in the spell-checker. They probably have an Australian version as well, but your post didn't close with G'day...

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Beat me to it

In my Firefox browser, I already have an "en-us" and an "en," which I presume is British English. Go to Tools->Options->Advanced, then select the General tab, then click on the "Options" button and select your brand of Anglo lingo.

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

British Dictionary

Puddintane's picture

I think the British English dictionary is called British English,
at least it is in my list of Add-ons.

These days, American English is the default version...

Cheers....

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Firefox spelling

I've already selected the English(en) option but 'organise' and 'metre' still give me the red line. Perhaps the Firefox progammers don't appreciate the differences - especially as 'Firefox' also gives an error. OK scrub the previous two sentences :) Despite selecting English(en) in the Tools menu, I found that right clicking (or in my case, with a l/h mouse left clicking) still had US English selected - now corrected.

I am English, but from the north. We speak with a different accent from Londoners and the SE and I don't really need a voice with RP (received pronunciation) or a south eastern English accent reading my stuff aloud - particularly in a synthesised voice.

It seems Big Closet has a similar effect to BBC Radio 4 (of which I'm a great fan). Any mention of accent, correct usage, or spelling inevitably creates a disproportionate, though entertaining response. You should hear the reaction to the incorrect application of gerunds or using a plural with collective nouns. It's all great fun.

I deal quite a bit on eBay. When I sell I always try to tell the story surrounding the item, which is often something that's been cluttering our house for many years. So it always surprises me when other sellers say so little - and what little they say is in such awful, misspelled language that it's often difficult to decipher.

So thanks for helping me to get rid of those red underlines.

Geoff

OED still likes -ize

Not so long ago both -ize and -ise (sometimes -yze) were considered acceptable in Briton for words like recognize and analyze and others. Webster convinced the USA to only use the Latin ending, and that was preferred by Fowler too. OED still puts the -ize spelling first but seems to be losing the battle. Languages do grow.

You guys are pronouncing fewer and fewer R's every year too (which used to be a minority of speakers), while R-droping is disappearing on this side of the pond.

Anyway we can still almost always understand each other, which is a good thing.

Hugs

British and US English in Firefox

Okay. I actually went back and checked how to do it this time. The Tools->Options->Advanced->General tab->Languages path that I'd mentioned doesn't quite seem to work the way I expected it to. You can add (download) a dictionary, like "en-gb" if the language isn't present with the "Add" button, and then move the downloaded language to the top by clicking on the "Options" button, to supposedly make that your preferred brand of language spelling checker, then restart Firefox (as the instructions say), but that doesn't automatically make the new flavor of English your default, as the instructions would seem to imply.

For that, you have to right-click inside the text you type, here in a comment box, for instance, then select "language" from the list, then click on the new language option (en-gb, for instance) that you've just added (downloaded). If you haven't downloaded your new language already from the place in the Tools->etc.->Language path, then you can add/download right there in whatever text box you're in by clicking on the "Add dictionaries" selection from the right-click list.

Besides removing those obnoxious red underscores from proper British words like "behaviour" and "defence," it's also a good way to check all the text you've just typed against both versions on the fly, just by switching back and forth between them. Have fun! Pretend you're a Brit/Yank for a day!

Regards,

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

Commas are important...

Puddintane's picture

They do make British voices, but they cost a bit. InfoVox iVox has a package of four, one female and three male, for US$99, although they do price in Euros as well, oddly enough at one to one in some cases, which seems extravagantly generous to the Yanks. Perhaps it's a charity thing, or compassionate sympathy.

You have to look around on the Web for different sources to find the best prices.

The package for the USA is the better bargain, and the same US$99 buys seven voices, four female and three male, although one of each are children's voices. Lucy, the sole British female voice, is rated among the best text-to-speech voices in the world, and far, far, better than the default voices included with the OS-X and Vista operating systems. Sadly, they are all pretty much Received English accents, so if you're looking for a touch of Lancashire (or wherever) to remind you of home you're out of luck. And, although they have a Canadian French voice, there are no Canadian English voices, eh?

You can hear demonstrations of all their voices here:

http://www.assistiveware.com/infovox_ivox.php

Scandinavian voices are much pricier, but one supposes that Scandinavians are rare on the ground and it's difficult to bag one for language analysis.

The -ise/-ize thing is an oddity, as Fowler's and the OED both prefer the "American" "-ize" and, until fairly recently, spelling out words with the suffix "-ise" was considered illiterate by graduates of the best schools. The popular press, however, uses "-ise" almost exclusively, and many now regard "-ize" as exclusively American, although The Times Literary Supplement insists on it. Macquarie prefers "-ise," although it usually lists "-ize" as an alternative, and many scholarly publications in the UK and elsewhere insist on "-ize" editorially, since the fashion arose through the influence of English admirers of Norman French culture and habits of language, and not through the actual etymologies of the English words, which usually came straight from, or were influenced by, the Greek. Other words with the same sound are distributed essentially at random, so the distinction between "prize" and "prise" is maintained, we all "advertise," and a pirate "seizes" a vessel anywhere, except in British Courts, when referring to the legal ownership of property, in which case one has possessions that one is "seised of." This is probably straight from the old Norman law, and so properly French.

You can set both major operating systems to use a different dictionary, although the OS-X British dictionary has a few problems, so you can cut and paste into TextEdit, or any editing application that uses the system dictionary, and find an approximation of what you're looking for globally.

Firefox is a different story, as it uses its own dictionary. If you look through Firefox Add-ons, you will find both British and Canadian Dictionaries to download, whereupon you can enable them for the spell-checker. They have an Australian version as well, but your post didn't close with G'day...

Cheers....

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Actually ...

I believe that it was Noah Webster's who started the ball rolling. Besides simplifying certain awkward words, he decided to bypass the French influence and go back to the original Latin and Greek roots. So, it's "surprise," instead of "surprize" for us on both sides of the Atlantic, while disagreeing (sometimes) on "defense" and "defence," and, of course, all the lovely and logical "ize" suffixes. Now if we could only decide whether we should place the comma inside or outside the quotes, and if they should be single or double.

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

Actually

Puddintane's picture

Well, you might say it was William the Conqueror who started it in 1066, when he invaded England and all those sturdy English words got Frenchified to suit the taste of the new Norman rulers, although we must confess that the Danes had mixed things up somewhat earlier.

By the time of the Renaissance, the Norman French influence had been considerably diluted, so new words coming into the language, or being revived, like Governor, either retained their ending or went back to original forms.

Throughout the 16th and early 17th centuries, scholars argued about this or that form as the universally correct spelling, and counted angels dancing on pins in their spare time.

The estimable Samuel Johnson codified what William and his boys had imposed by force of arms and the Renaissance had modified but went further in trying to make sense of spelling, a fruitless task. His dictionary of 1755 regularised what had been somewhat catch as catch can spelling before, coming down on the side of "-our" in some cases and "-or" in others, and "-ise" rather than "-ize" mostly. British spelling more or less follows his prescriptive example, although other reforms since have changed things slightly.

Noah Webster was much later, 1828, but drew upon the same Renaissance scholarship and arguments, coming down on what seemed to him the more logical side in most cases, and the project bankrupted him, probably because he was a bit of a nut and insisted on going back to Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon roots, which nobody but Webster really gave a damn about.

His spelling books were popular, though, and so we're stuck with many, but not all, of his "restorations." But the controversy first arose in Merry Olde England, and all the points in favour of either side had been thoroughly explored long before either Johnson or Webster came along.

There's no sense to any of it, because the spellings don't reflect the real world any more. "Spelling" is a kind of code, almost as incomprehensible on its face as hieroglyphics, that maintains a distinction between *sounds* that vary almost randomly between dialects of what passes for English everywhere.

So most Americans rhyme "cloth" with "claw," where Received Pronunciation would have "cloth" rhyme with "cot." The British say "pasta" with a short tense a, whilst Americans typically use a broad ah, but they reverse this pattern with "bath," where the British use a broad ah and the Americans use some variation of a short one, usually somewhat tense. And regional variations abound. The phrase "born in a barn" is actually a joke, since in many dialects of the American south it sounds to those from "up north" like "barn in a born."

It's really the same problem that the Chinese have, with a more or less universal written language impossible to reform by Romanising the spelling, because to do so would render most of the population instantly illiterate, and trash much of their greatest literature, which would be incomprehensible to almost everyone.

In a world in which the many regions of the British Isles, Jamaica, India, North America, and the Lands Down Under all speak "English," it's impossible to have any sort of "logical" spelling that retains all the sound distinctions that people make when speaking.

Noah Webster was an idiot, and so was George Bernard Shaw, and all the rest of the "scientific" spelling reformers.

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

What I meant about Noah ...

... Webster was that he started the ball rolling for the great American-British spelling divide. When Webster's became the definitive American dictionary, it was a case of "game over."

Agree somewhat with the Chinese problem. They teach pinyin in school, the romanized, phonetic spelling, and in some places, they include it on their signs, but it probably will never catch on because, as you say, they have too many dialects -- really separate languages. When Hong Kong was turned over to the PRC, a lot of Cantonese-speaking people had to learn Mandarin to deal with their new masters, although they are still permitted to use traditional Chinese characters. In a sense, the old Chinese is already lost, because few Chinese in the PRC can effectively read anything written over fifty years old that hasn't been translated. To this day, a billion Chinese can't read a Taiwanese newspaper. The Vietnamese are fortunate that a Portuguese missionary established a western alphabet to replace the Chinese style character set way back in the 1600's.

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

Webster

Puddintane's picture

True. The odd thing was that it didn't become the "definitive" dictionary
until well after the new spellings had become popular (and we should
note that many of his inventions wound up on the cutting room floor)
because his number one all-time best-selling hits were his spelling
books, which were wild successes and spawned the dreaded spelling bee.

In theory of education, he was really quite advanced for his times,
and his ideas of easy steps, then big ones, has taken over the
pedagogical world in childhood education and been given fancy
names and private institutes and pricetags.

But the dictionary lost money by the bucket, and it were
wily plagiarists who finally reaped the most rewards, capitalising
on the *name* Webster, which was a household icon because of the
spelling books and the American mania for "bees."

Cheers....

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Only in the south ...

... of England is the long 'A' common, or for that matter the 'A' sounded 'U'. When writers try to suggest what my pronunciation of 'up' might be they spell it 'oop' which I read as rhyming with 'loop' rather than 'book'. That's not helped by the fact that the old men of my extreme youth would actually pronounce 'book' with a long 'oo' sound! In fact the long 'A' and the short 'U' sounds are probably the major divisions in English pronunciation between what we may vaguely describe as the South and the North. There are others, plus some dialect grammar variations, but I think these are the main ones.

One of the problem writers face when attempting to suggest accent/pronunciation is that they have to assume what the accent of the reader is. In my case, I'm already reading in a northern accent, so, when a writer attempts to portray someone from my part of the world, it throws me completely. Literature written mainly in dialect is very difficult to read, even for a native speaker of the dialect (perhaps even more for a native speaker), and, I think, should be avoided as far as possible. Instead, the accent of the speaker should be indicated by the context or with an indication of the the common grammar variations.

For that reason the idea of the so-called rationalisation of spelling to speech is doomed to failure. After all whose speech should be reflected in the spelling? I know there are some charming anomalies that could benefit from some rationalisation - like 'plough', 'through' or 'cough' - but I quite like those little quirks and think they add to the joy of language. However, that's the view of someone who learnt to read at five and have been reading and writing for over sixty years.

Geoff

Geoff

Suggesting accents

Puddintane's picture

I think trying to write in "dialect" is silly at best, and it's awfully easy to veer off into condescension, and from there straight to offensive contempt. As you point out, "suggesting" the proper spelling for the "accent" doesn't really work, since everyone's ideas of vowel sounds, especially, but also "r" (most notably) are all over the map. Other consonants may vary as well, so there's little stable enough to hang one's hat upon. Distinctive words can be useful, but otherwise a more neutral approach is to simply describe the accent using words, even if a simply as "a Texas drawl," or "a clipped New Zealand accent." If people know what these sound like, so much the better, and if they don't, at least they have the impression that a particular person's speech is distinctive. If you're writing a story using "local" characters only, no effort should be made at all, other than distinctive vocabulay and possibly syntax. I can think of few reasons why it would be important, for example, to know that my particular dialect readily distinguishes "chews" from "choose," and "pin" from "pen," whilst many, perhaps most, English accents don't, or that "palm" (either tree or part of the hand) have a distinct "L" in them and are not the same as "Pom." The vowel sound in "balm" is for me exactly the same as the vowel sound in "bomb," but the (for most English speakers) intrusive "L" sound defuses the confusion. Other dialects change the vowel but omit the "L," since the same distinction is made without the necessity of a complex consonant. It irritates me, though, when I see "calm" or "balm" in a dictionary with a "pronunciation key," since the dictionary pronunication is almost inevitably wrong. And the idea of "spelling reform" simplifying things is laughable. Unless one is to depict dialogue with /IPA/ precision, what's the point?

Vocabularies, on the other hand, can be quite evocative with little danger of offense. So the use of "bloke" or "moniker" regionalise quite nicely, as both words are from Shelta (the Irish Traveler's language) "munik," and haven't penetrated far beyond their usual haunts. The word "lariat," applied to a rope, is a pretty good indicator of the US SouthWest, since it's *from* Spanish but *not* Spanish at all. And "dacoit" (at least used casually) locates the speaker more or less on the Indian subcontinent.

The only place accents really matter is in rhyming poetry, since it's quite common for perfectly good rhymes in one dialect to sound a little "off" in others.

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Accents

erin's picture

The way to indicate an accent is with a few well known words--any American recognizes a Canadian accent in print if only a few words are spelled -oat instead of -out. Spelling the nominative first person pronoun "Ah" will indicate a Southerner. And spell a few -ar- sounds -ah- to indicate Boston. It's not that those people ACTUALLY talk that way, it's just convention.

Shakespeare did it, indicating people from the West shires with extra zeds in their words. Twain did it with half a dozen different dialects of the Mississippi, Kipling did it with the dialects of British subjects and soldiers in Asia. P.G. Wodehouse sprinkled a few swallowed contractions around to indicate the sort of upperclass accents his characters spoke in, partly to make fun but also to endear them to the reader.

Subtleties of accent, if used, need to be explained somewhere. If you're going to indicate that Southern Californians can recognize a Northern Californian by the intrusive 'y' sound in certain words--well, probably the rest of the English speaking world doesn't even know that. So you can't have someone from San Jose say, "I'll meet you at tyoo o'clock," and spell the odd way NorCals say the number 2 unless you prepare the reader. But in a mystery story, it could be an important clue as to where someone is from.

It's a tool and it can be misused, but it's always struck me as misleading to say never use that tool.

- Erin

= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.

Interesting

Quite a few interesting nuggets there. I especially like the one about "finding one's voice." I tried the Windows reader, mainly as a tool to catch awkward phrases and bad grammar, but gave up on it as a bad job. ReadPlease is far better. It's a freebie that has three male and female voices, one of which will be reading my next story for grammar and voice.

I have to agree with Geoff a bit -- I would have preferred a combination of A and B. Arranging a suitable scene to a mood is important, but I fear formations of adverbs and adjectives. In her mood, the protagonist might have seen "... some yellow bird ripping the guts out of a fat bug," but not the more florid phrase -- unless, in the midst of death, she is just naturally anally-retentive, of course. ;-0

I agree with your editor remarks. I self-edit, but I've edited for quite a few people at various times. Mostly it's been rewarding, and yet at times.... I don't mind correcting several hundred grammatical errors, straining to understand what the author was trying to convey, and re-writing entire tortured paragraphs, strictly attempting to fix rather than impose the editor's style -- not an easy thing to do -- once, but after that, if I see the same exact errors in chapter two, I start to resent the time lost. In the end, that sort of exercise doesn't do the editor or the author any good.

Dialog? How much varies on the story, but in general it's a bad idea to use it too often. It should be a highlight, with greater than natural prose and revealing phrases, not just as a means to move the story along, unless your name is Isaac Asimov, which it isn't, 'cause he's dead.

Regards,

Aardvark

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

"Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony."

Mahatma Gandhi

Interesting

Puddintane's picture

I agree. I deliberately added a touch of purple to the prose, to make a point. I've read Hemmingway as well, and a compromise between the two styles is best. I have to confess, however, that I tend to be obsessive about detail. Too many Georgette Heyer novels one supposes.

-----------------
I write one page of masterpiece to ninety one pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.
-- Hemingway

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

from A to B and back again

laika's picture

I guess the amount of detail all depends on the pace of the scene. If the insomniac Dean of Asian Studies
is lying in bed reflecting on his disappointing life, then you can load it up and possibly keep a thread going for pages, like Saul Bellow and all them guys. If he's running from Godzilla, then kinetics is everything, you keep the editing (to borrow your cinematic metaphor...) tight; and while you might focus on a few emblematic powerful images that'll heighten the mood, every scrap of superflous footage needs to go. I'm always
paring back or adding on details with PACING in mind. And sometimes the former is heartbreaking:
"This is so cool, but it don't fit here!" Maybe this is so obvious an observation that I should not
have mentioned it. I only have a handful of very simple rules I write by and this is one of them...
~~~Laika

.
What borders on stupidity?
Canada and Mexico.
.

Feeling and understanding

Hemingway said (tell me when I've mentioned Hemingway too often; but he is the only one of the three masters of the short story to write in English.) that short stories were about feeling and not understanding, so he cut out everything that only served to make the reader understand. (He pulled it off, not many can.)

I agree, the hardest thing is to chop out beautiful prose ('cuz it happens sooo seldom) just because it doesn't move the story.

Hugs

Feeling and understanding

Puddintane's picture

Oddly enough, Hemingway admired James Joyce as a writer, and lavished praise on Finnegans Wake and Ulysses, although Joyce takes care to bury as much meaning as possible so far below consciousness that they publish special glossaries to help one decipher the meaning.

The famous Joseph Campbell had his first success in exploring the mystic realms with his /A Skeleton Key to Finnegans Wake/ and went from there straight through to Boddhisavtas, shamans, and dream snakes.

Here's Hemingway, "They smoked a cigar."

Here's Joyce, "riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.

"Sir Tristram, violer d'amores, fr'over the short sea, had passencore rearrived from North Armorica on this side the scraggy isthmus of Europe Minor to wielderfight his penisolate war: nor had topsawyer's rocks by the stream Oconee exaggerated themselse to Laurens County's gorgios while they went doublin their mumper all the time: nor avoice from afire bellowsed mishe mishe to tauftauf thuartpeatrick: not yet, though venissoon after, had a kidscad buttended a bland old isaac: not yet, though all's fair in vanessy, were sosie sesthers wroth with twone nathandjoe. Rot a peck of pa's malt had Jhem or Shen brewed by arclight and rory end to the regginbrow was to be seen ringsome on the aquaface.

"The fall (bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonn-thunntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!) of a once wallstrait oldparr is retaled early in bed and later on life down through all christian minstrelsy. The great fall of the offwall entailed at such short notice the pftjschute of Finnegan, erse solid man, that the humptyhillhead of humself prumptly sends an unquiring one well to the west in quest of his tumptytumtoes: and their upturnpikepointandplace is at the knock out in the park where oranges have been laid to rust upon the green since devlinsfirst loved livvy."

Surprisingly, the above model of terse clarity was just Hemingway's cup of tea.

Go figure.

Cheers...

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Joyce and Hemingway...

...were two writers on different paths to the same goal. Joyce returned Hemingway's admiration (He said "(Hemingway) has reduced the veil between literature and life, which is what every writer strives to do." And he called "A Clean Well-Lighted Place' (I mention it only because it was one of my favorites long before I knew who else liked it, and it is free on line BTW.) "...masterly. Indeed, it is one of the best short stories ever written....").

Neither were interested in clarity especially; they sought to move the reader past the words, and did. The real difference was in the format they excelled at; short stories and novels are two different arts. Hemingway's novels don't really approach his short stories and novellas; Joyce need length, even when the work divides into smaller parts the pieces need each other.

Joy
Jan

A Clean Well-Lighted Place

Puddintane's picture

And how interesting, that in 1933 he was writing about the same despair and suicide that caught up with him in 1961.

-

Cheers,

Puddin'

A tender heart is an asset to an editor: it helps us be ruthless in a tactful way.
--- The Chicago Manual of Style

Grasshoppers

joannebarbarella's picture

I don't know quite how we got here, but you non-Australians (you do realise that the world is divided into Australians and the rest of the world I hope) should know that we have the world's biggest grasshoppers. Some ignorant people call them kangaroos.W.R.T. punctuation I remember a letter to our national newspaper complaining that they had published a description as follows:
"The world's biggest peanut farmer, Jo Bjelke-Petersen"
which should actually have read:
"The world's biggest peanut, farmer Jo Bjelke-Petersen"
Punctuation does matter.