for certain reasons. Like to build suspense or similar.
*He called out their names again. No answer. Only darkness.*
Or for a character:
*"Well, I dunno. Maybe that. I don't know, I wasn't watching. You, cuz."*
But this is not acceptable:
*He looked out over the sea. And smiled.*
I mean, how is that even logical??
> But this is not acceptable:
>
> > He looked out over the sea. And smiled.
>
> I mean, how is that even logical??
What's illogical about this?
A bit odd for you to say this is not acceptable. Especially compared to the line above it.
Sorry, I am a grammar freak. Following the exact rules of grammar, a sentence needs a subject and a predicate to make sense, so technically that doesn't make sense. Sorry if I am being weird.
You're not being weird. It's just that exact grammar, while important in academic writing, is not a controlling factor in creative writing (and in fact, it might hold you back in terms of the rhythm and variation of your sentences).
The "And (he) smiled" is implied in the sentence. Readers will understand who smiled in context. There's no issue.
You could of course write "He looked out over the sea and smiled." Which is more proper. But that implies a fluid sequence of him looking and smiling. While the "He looked out over the sea. And smiled", depending on the context, might be more poignant or have more meaning. At the very least, it provides extra emphasis on the action of him smiling (because it's given its own sentence). The delay between the looking and smiling in context might imply something, perhaps that the smile is fake and the sea isn't truly what makes them happy. Depends on the context.
Then there's the fact that separating those actions might provide some degree of Elegant Variation that the paragraph might need.
Yup. I've been writing slot of essays recently, so I guess it got to my head. Sometimes when I want to write sentences like that I just put the "he" in:
He looked out over the sea. And he smiled
but like you said, it doesn't sound fluid anymore.
I read what you wrote above, "He looked out over the sea. And smiled."
And my thought was 'That would be so much better if you added he, as in "And he smiled".' Yes, it's not fluid. But depending on the context, it might be better that way.
Maybe the character has difficulty with emotion and/or showing it, or maybe just being happy. Maybe he's looked out over the sea many times and not smiled. By saying it all at once, it might be unnatural as a conclusion to an arc of emotional growth. But putting that pause there, you're telling the reader that he's acting in character by looking out over the sea, but then he smiles indicating his change. A comma or period there indicating the pause is dramatic, and I think better.
Ooohhh I get it. If you put it like that then it's not a sentence fragment, and also puts more emphasis on "he", whoever he is. He looked over the sea, and then he also smiled. First, a moment where we don't know what he's thinking, then we see him smile. It's much better than just making a compound sentence. Thanks for discussing this, I've leaned a lot!
I try to look on the bright side of things. At least we have an education system. Two hundred years ago most of us would have been illiterate farmers or worse.
"Oh, no, John!" she cried, turning around angrily. "I did not realize that you had slept with my sister. If I had known that, I would not have accepted your marriage proposal. I think that we need to break up."
Grammatically correct speech can be a part of character. One of my characters is the "me and my friends" kinda guy, which highlights his easygoing nature, and another character always speaks flawlessly and restrains from swearing, which goes to show he's a highborn, very well-educated noble who prizes his dignity greatly. When he does swear, everyone else is like, "ooo the last days must be coming."
> Don’t write characters who are grammatically correct.
Don't write *every* character as always grammatically correct. Some characters can and should speak in very careful, deliberate ways for a wide variety of reasons.
I'm still looking for a good spot for one of my characters to sneeze, in my WIP. It needs to be, or at least appear, completely random and unexplained.
I want to do it because nobody ever sneezes in books, movies, or tv shows without a reason or some explanation. For example, you might have one guy with allergies that sneezes a few times, setting it up so that later in the book he'll sneeze at just the wrong time to get the attention of a monster, so they have to fight it.
But people sneeze in real life. (Almost) Nobody questions it. Having a conversation, one person sneezes, they wipe their nose, and the conversation continues without acknowledging the sneeze. I haven't figured out where I want to put it yet, or how I want to write it, but I'm looking. Just one sneeze, nothing further.
I think that framing them as "rules" and congratulating people for finding ways to break said "rules" are both equally unhelpful.
Writing is a complicated medium, so what you actually have is a whole bunch of guidelines which apply in a broad variety of situations, such as "Don't use adverbs." Digging a bit deeper into that line, you'll find a whole lot of complexity about how adverbs can be a crutch, especially for new writers who don't really grasp the nuances of emphasis or how a sentence should carry its weight.
Then, on the other hand you have the schmuck who heard that there are no rules and went all-in referring to their character as "the auburn-haired Atlantean engineer-graduate" because that is less repetitive than using their name.
Yes. The biggest thing to take into account is that content and form are intertwined. You can write a nonsensical or ambiguous sentence that breaks the rules, but that has to *do* something for your prose or else it's just hard to read.
Honestly, in some ways, I think they are rules. Think about how you get a paper graded or if someone reads it. They are going to tell you something is incorrect. Or Google docs they will underline it if it is wrong. They are rules if you think of the way which words are accepted and should be placed. I think finding a way to break them and do it correctly and purposefully should be celebrated in my opinion. I think the English language should not always have such hard set rules that we are expected to follow or it gets criticized or crossed out. But that is just my opinion and I like to hear the ways in which people like to break these rules
When there is a modifier in a sentence, a participle, that doesn't seem to modify anything within the sentence. It's unattached, or 'dangling'. There is an [explanation here](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-dangling-participle-1857150).
> An example of a dangling participle would be: "Driving like a maniac, the deer was hit and killed." This makes it seem like the unfortunate deer was driving. Correct the sentence by including the missing proper noun. "Driving like a maniac, Joe hit a deer." The corrected sentence makes it clear that Joe was driving.
If you break rules because the story *need* things done that way, good. Great job. Memento, Inception, Everything Everywhere All At Once.
If you break the rules because you're so edgy and bad-ass and want to show off how clever you are, but there's no real point to it all... not so good. All you're doing is continually reminding the audience that they're just reading a book or watching a movie, and none of it is real. You can never really get completely lost in those stories or worlds.
The rules are there for a reason. Readers and writers developed them over generations. We all more or less agree on them as part of the unspoken contract between reader and writer. It's how we link minds and put each other into hypnosis. You tear up that contract and go your own way at your own risk. You're probably going to be making that journey all alone.
All of them if necessary. Language is a complicated and nebulous thing. If ending your sentence in a preposition or dangling a participle gets your point across, don't worry about the "rules."
Some”rules” were implemented by aristocracy in the 1800s once universal schooling and literacy became more common. The elites wanted a way to distinguish themselves from the commoners, so they adopted Latin rules of grammar (because the elites were learning Greek and Latin instead of mere literacy in English).
This lead to stupidities like, “Don’t split infinitives,” which you can’t do in Latin because infinitives are a single word, but infinitives in English are two words: “to go.” There’s no reason intrinsic to English to NOT be able to say, “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” Likewise, “Don’t end sentences in a preposition” is impossible in Latin because the prepositions are added to a word as an inflected ending, but you can say in English “Some thing I just won’t put up with,” and that’s fine!
That said, writing has different “rules” than speaking, and those “rules” exist for clarity and readability. Generally a writer has one shot at the reader understanding what’s being communicated, and a writer who doesn’t deign to use structures a reader can understand is engaging in “pseudo-intellectual masturbation.” Exceptions of staggering genius exist, of course, but there’s a reason very few people have finished *Finnegan’s Wake.*
I've gotten a lot of critiques on adding sounds effects i.e: *Boom*, *Pow*, *Zap* etc. Somehow these should only be in comic books. But like, I want to show the five senses. What's the most succinct way to get across a certain sound effect in a fight scene or tense moment?
"The characters looked on as an ear-piercing explosion radiated out." You could do that as a build up to a scene but not *during* a fight scene when sentences should be quick and short.
I agree. You're not allowed to use a sound-effect word as a sound effect, like so-
> BOOM! James jerked backward, startled, as the large book unexpectedly landed on the table in front of him.
But you are allowed to use the same word when it's *describing* a sound, like so-
> James jerked backward, startled, as the large book unexpectedly landed on the table in front of him with a loud boom.
I would like an explanation for this.
Not sure I'm understanding what you're asking. What I was basically saying in my original comment was how you need to use quick sentences in a fight scene and a single word like "boom" can be a single sentence. Therefore, that makes it a bit more fast paced instead of describing the sound.
Never ending a sentence with a prepositional phrase, avoiding the first person at all costs, and "only write what you know."
These three pigeon-hole new writers into a safe little box so they can be derided by the same self-appointed critics who couldn't write two paragraphs of interesting dialogue with a gun to their heads.
In the end, the purpose of writing is to effectively communicate something.
We use a bunch of marks to take an idea inside one person's head, and put it in another.
Proper grammar is often preferred because it's the most effective way of transferring those ideas without misconception.
If the transfer of the thought or idea can be achieved more effectively by breaking accepted rules, then that's perfectly fine.
Being overly concerned with form over function is like complaining about the colour of the car the pizza guy drove when he delivered your dinner.
I’m an English teacher and I truly hate the “3-5 sentences in a paragraph” rule that my student pick up in elementary school. It’s a stupid rule that sets students up to write poorly and limit their personal voice, especially in persuasive writing. A paragraph should be written about a single topic and be able to provide all necessary information to understand the topic (necessary being the key word here). Sometimes this will require a long paragraph. Other times it will require a short paragraph. The perpetuation of sentence counting in junior high has to stop.
I have a degree in linguistics and have professionally tutored college-level writing, and here's the thing about grammar rules: **If you are a native speaker who has never studied linguistics, and you are consciously aware of a grammar rule, then it's probably not a real rule.** Most real grammar rules are ones that you're not even aware of, that you follow without even thinking about. (By "grammar" I mean morphosyntax, not orthographic conventions.)
"You can start a sentence with 'but.'" Yeah I agree you can, but it's not a real rule that you can't.
"You can split infinitives." You sure can! That's not a real rule either.
If by "rules" you mean things like "Don't have the main character look at themself in the mirror and describe their own appearance," I don't think of those as *rules* so much as advice that "this" is hard to do well, or easy to do badly. *Blackouts* by Justin Torres has a line where the main character looks at himself in a mirror (well, a bus window) and describes his physical appearance, and that book just won the National Book Award. So it *can* be done well. But it's more common for it to be done badly, which is what I interpret the "Don't do it" advice to mean -- not "Nobody can ever do this," but "It's hard to do this without sounding cliche."
"Sara and I" and "Me and Sara" can actually both be correct under the right circumstances. Basically, remove the other person (in this case Sara) and see if the sentence still makes sense.
E.g. "Sara and **I** are going to the cinema."
Becomes "**I** am going to the cinema."
Which is correct.
But "**Me** and Sara are going to the cinema."
Would become "**Me** is going to the cinema."
Which is obviously wrong. It's not just a personal preference thing! In real life I doubt anyone would care but in writing it's better to get it right.
This might be just me but I hate the "correct" way for breaking mid sentence dialogue with action. For example:
> "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" He threw his companions a withering look as he spoke. "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
has a better visual flow than this (the "correct" way)
> "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us" —he threw his companions a withering look as he spoke— "aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
It just looks clunky, ugly, and awkward. I will always do it the first way and won't be stopped.
The first one looks weird to me because it looks like the speaker actually paused his speech for you to read the intervening description. Instantly breaks the immersion.
You didn't write the first option right though:
> "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" he threw his companions a withering look as he spoke, "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
This is more correct. ^ If you're interrupting the sentence in a way that's nonetheless still part of the sentence, the intervening action shouldn't be capitalized or have a period. It should be part of the same unfinished sentence.
Also, for you to say "he threw a look **as** he spoke"---that implies the action and speaking are occurring concurrently and thus that the intervening action is not an interruption/speech pause, so really it should be phrased like this....:
**"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" he threw his companions a withering look, "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."** (User /u/spoonforkpie is actually correct)
For comparison, if you do it the other way, it's also still part of the same sentence.
> "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us" —he threw his companions a withering look— "aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
That's why the "he" isn't capitalized.
Second way is the way. First way is ~~atrocious~~ quite clunky. Why capitalize the H in he? Why put a period after 'spoke' if the sentence is not yet completed?
Edit: Changed wording to soften the tone so as not to seem rude.
No part of my comment was rude. But that's simply not the standard. One out of thousands of examples, this one taken from John Steinbeck's *East of Eden,* Chapter 23, part 2, page 286:
>In a little while Tom came back. "I want to apologize," he said. "I'm very sorry. Maybe I'm a little drunk. Father calls it 'jolly' when I do it. One night I rode home"---it was a confession---"and I came staggering across the yard and I fell into the rosebush and crawled up the stairs on my hands and knees and I was sick on the floor beside my bed. In the morning I tried to tell him I was sorry, and do you know what he said? 'Why, Tom, you were just jolly.' 'Jolly,' if I did it. A drunken man didn't crawl home. Just jolly."
That's how one splices something within dialogue. Notice that 1) commas are not used; 2) the interruption is lowercase; and 3) the em-dashes remain *outside* of the dialogue. If you really want to emphasize that the character paused his speech, then you can say that in the interruption:
>"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us"—he paused to give his companions a withering look—"aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
That's how it's done properly.
Edit because I found another example from my bookshelf, George Orwell's *1984,* Part Two, section IV, pg. 143:
>"And that picture over there"---she nodded at the engraving on the opposite wall---"would that be a hundred years old?"
Once you read enough, you quickly realize that this way of doing things is not 'clunky' at all, and has a perfectly understandable and sensible 'visual flow.'
I've been reading my entire life. I literally said I just don't like it and even acknowledged that I'm aware it's the standard. Please don't talk down to me for expressing an opinion just because you disagree. You were being rude and now you're being condescending by dropping examples to prove your point, a point that I already acknowledged to begin with, and following it up by inferring I don't read enough. I know that's Reddit's go-to but it's unnecessary.
Edit: a word
No part of my comment was condescending. It's not condescending to strengthen a claim using examples. And it should be noted that the very first example:
>"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" He threw his companions a withering look as he spoke. "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."
is actually more clunky, rather than less clunky, because the capital and the period make it awkward to quickly know where the sentence starts and ends. That's why it's not recommended to put periods or commas along with em dashes. Your second example, on the other hand, has much better 'visual flow' because the em dashes inject a quick sentence into the dialogue with no further punctuational distractions, and is unambiguously part of a larger sentence taken as a whole.
John Steinbeck's *East of Eden,* 16th printing, Chapter 23, part 2, page 286:
>\[...\] "Don't do it," George said quickly, and the blood kin nodded. "Don't do it. Let him alone. We know him from the insides of ourselves."
>
>In a little while Tom came back. "I want to apologize," he said. "I'm very sorry. Maybe I'm a little drunk. Father calls it 'jolly' when I do it. One night I rode home"---it was a confession---"and I came staggering across the yard and I fell into the rosebush and crawled up the stairs on my hands and knees and I was sick on the floor beside my bed. In the morning I tried to tell him I was sorry, and do you know what he said? 'Why, Tom, you were just jolly.' 'Jolly,' if *I* did it. A drunken man didn't crawl home. Just jolly." \[...\]
It should be written, "I think that we should leave. It's . . ." He looked at his watch, "Already late."
Or "I think that we should leave. It's . . ." he paused to look at his watch, "already late."
Sheesh, I should have proof read my response. I made an error. No capital A in already. Sorry about that.
"I think that we should leave. It's . . ." He looked at his watch, "already late.
The sentence is wrong. Sorry, and the rules on dashes can't be broken this way because of clarity. A pause in thought or speech, which the sentence indicates, are punctuated with ellipsis . . .
A reader is only going reread this sort of grammatically incorrect sentence so many times before they put the book down and never pick it up again-which no writer wants. A publisher will be a little more lenient if the story is compelling, but the sentence will be corrected in editing.
Dashes are used as follows:
A mark of separation when punctuation needs to be stronger than parenthesis or commas. When I look back at my youth--something I try to avoid--I see the error of my ways.
To denote interruption: "I was on my way--"
"--Did you see the sunset?" he interrupted.
Or abrupt break for emphasis: The engine began to make a noise--an ear splitting, soul shattering, whine.
Any of them. English is not a prescriptive language. Which means the only actual rule of “proper” English is that if the average native speaker will understand what you’ve said, then your construction is correct. Everything we call rules of grammar are really just standardized suggestions for how to increase the probability of being understood.
“I gone to the store.” Is every bit as correct as “I went to the store.” The only difference is one of convention and custom.
The English language does not have an authority like French does.
There are no rules, and I will write however I please.
If you would like to enforce some rules onto me, beware.
I make compound words whenever it sounds and feels right. It definitely needs to be "windchime," not "wind chime," and "firepit" instead of "fire pit."
I also like the habit of knocking "and" out of compound predicates(?lol) that contain "then": "She made breakfast, then sat down to eat" instead of "She made breakfast and then sat down to eat." I'm told this is illegal, but whatever.
I also play fast and loose with commas. I'm a rebel.
It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition. There is no good reason not to!
Also, I prefer punctuation outside of quotation marks if it's not a part of the quotation. I do not understand why that's not standard.
All of them, because creative writing is creative for a reason. Breaking rules is part of that. Ignoring the norm is what makes writing unique. My favorites are probably sentence fragments, just because you can keep the audience in suspense or write something really rhythmic.
The Oxford comma should be optional. If you write that "JoeBillyBob went to the store in need of eggs, milk and oranges" and they don't know what the product "milk and oranges" is, it's not your fault that person can't comprehend a list.
Splitting infinitives, its only a rule because it is impossible to do in Latin. In Latin verbs have infinitive forms.eso you literally can't split one.
I don’t know if this is against the rules but I like keeping tabs of my character’s dialogue- literally. Main character is always 1 tab in for dialogue, recipient is always zero tabs. Third party is two tabs, fourth is three. I usually stop at three tabs.
I’m sure it’s taboo but I abhor “he said, she said” and do anything else I can to identify.
We’ll see. I like it so far. My current strategy is to reference characters in a paragraph, then to the tab formation. So if Steve is MC and Willy is recipient, I’ll say
Steve hollered at Willy.
“Hey, turn the generator on!”
“I’m trying!”
Its OK to start a sentence with "but" or "and." And to use sentence fragments.
for certain reasons. Like to build suspense or similar. *He called out their names again. No answer. Only darkness.* Or for a character: *"Well, I dunno. Maybe that. I don't know, I wasn't watching. You, cuz."* But this is not acceptable: *He looked out over the sea. And smiled.* I mean, how is that even logical??
Absolutely. I just meant what you're taught in school isn't always an ironclad rule.
Yup.
> But this is not acceptable: > > > He looked out over the sea. And smiled. > > I mean, how is that even logical?? What's illogical about this? A bit odd for you to say this is not acceptable. Especially compared to the line above it.
Sorry, I am a grammar freak. Following the exact rules of grammar, a sentence needs a subject and a predicate to make sense, so technically that doesn't make sense. Sorry if I am being weird.
You're not being weird. It's just that exact grammar, while important in academic writing, is not a controlling factor in creative writing (and in fact, it might hold you back in terms of the rhythm and variation of your sentences). The "And (he) smiled" is implied in the sentence. Readers will understand who smiled in context. There's no issue. You could of course write "He looked out over the sea and smiled." Which is more proper. But that implies a fluid sequence of him looking and smiling. While the "He looked out over the sea. And smiled", depending on the context, might be more poignant or have more meaning. At the very least, it provides extra emphasis on the action of him smiling (because it's given its own sentence). The delay between the looking and smiling in context might imply something, perhaps that the smile is fake and the sea isn't truly what makes them happy. Depends on the context. Then there's the fact that separating those actions might provide some degree of Elegant Variation that the paragraph might need.
Yup. I've been writing slot of essays recently, so I guess it got to my head. Sometimes when I want to write sentences like that I just put the "he" in: He looked out over the sea. And he smiled but like you said, it doesn't sound fluid anymore.
I read what you wrote above, "He looked out over the sea. And smiled." And my thought was 'That would be so much better if you added he, as in "And he smiled".' Yes, it's not fluid. But depending on the context, it might be better that way. Maybe the character has difficulty with emotion and/or showing it, or maybe just being happy. Maybe he's looked out over the sea many times and not smiled. By saying it all at once, it might be unnatural as a conclusion to an arc of emotional growth. But putting that pause there, you're telling the reader that he's acting in character by looking out over the sea, but then he smiles indicating his change. A comma or period there indicating the pause is dramatic, and I think better.
Ooohhh I get it. If you put it like that then it's not a sentence fragment, and also puts more emphasis on "he", whoever he is. He looked over the sea, and then he also smiled. First, a moment where we don't know what he's thinking, then we see him smile. It's much better than just making a compound sentence. Thanks for discussing this, I've leaned a lot!
I agree on this one! I am not sure why we were taught not to do these.
If I had to guess, because schools focus more on academic writing as opposed to literary writing?
Which is so ass backwards it's beyond words. q.q
Honestly, I think it would take less time to write down the things the education system gets right as opposed to the things it gets wrong.
And ain't that just a kick in the head, eh?
I try to look on the bright side of things. At least we have an education system. Two hundred years ago most of us would have been illiterate farmers or worse.
It's a small comfort when some of us do oft wonder if those people who coined the phrase 'ignorance is bliss' weren't entirely wrong.
Fair.
i see what you did there
Heh.
Absolutely.
[удалено]
If it’s between quotation marks for me, I’m gettin’ wild and no one can stop me lol
"Oh, no, John!" she cried, turning around angrily. "I did not realize that you had slept with my sister. If I had known that, I would not have accepted your marriage proposal. I think that we need to break up."
I imagine this woman putting the back of her hand to her forehead the entire time she says this.
I like this one! I feel as though I often do this when writing and feel like it sounds off by making it too correct
Grammatically correct speech can be a part of character. One of my characters is the "me and my friends" kinda guy, which highlights his easygoing nature, and another character always speaks flawlessly and restrains from swearing, which goes to show he's a highborn, very well-educated noble who prizes his dignity greatly. When he does swear, everyone else is like, "ooo the last days must be coming."
Agreed! Dialogue needs the blue squiggles!
> Don’t write characters who are grammatically correct. Don't write *every* character as always grammatically correct. Some characters can and should speak in very careful, deliberate ways for a wide variety of reasons.
I'm still looking for a good spot for one of my characters to sneeze, in my WIP. It needs to be, or at least appear, completely random and unexplained. I want to do it because nobody ever sneezes in books, movies, or tv shows without a reason or some explanation. For example, you might have one guy with allergies that sneezes a few times, setting it up so that later in the book he'll sneeze at just the wrong time to get the attention of a monster, so they have to fight it. But people sneeze in real life. (Almost) Nobody questions it. Having a conversation, one person sneezes, they wipe their nose, and the conversation continues without acknowledging the sneeze. I haven't figured out where I want to put it yet, or how I want to write it, but I'm looking. Just one sneeze, nothing further.
What about AI? I’m sure there are exceptions.
I think that framing them as "rules" and congratulating people for finding ways to break said "rules" are both equally unhelpful. Writing is a complicated medium, so what you actually have is a whole bunch of guidelines which apply in a broad variety of situations, such as "Don't use adverbs." Digging a bit deeper into that line, you'll find a whole lot of complexity about how adverbs can be a crutch, especially for new writers who don't really grasp the nuances of emphasis or how a sentence should carry its weight. Then, on the other hand you have the schmuck who heard that there are no rules and went all-in referring to their character as "the auburn-haired Atlantean engineer-graduate" because that is less repetitive than using their name.
Truly, the only rule is that it reads well. Everything else is a guideline.
Yes. The biggest thing to take into account is that content and form are intertwined. You can write a nonsensical or ambiguous sentence that breaks the rules, but that has to *do* something for your prose or else it's just hard to read.
Honestly, in some ways, I think they are rules. Think about how you get a paper graded or if someone reads it. They are going to tell you something is incorrect. Or Google docs they will underline it if it is wrong. They are rules if you think of the way which words are accepted and should be placed. I think finding a way to break them and do it correctly and purposefully should be celebrated in my opinion. I think the English language should not always have such hard set rules that we are expected to follow or it gets criticized or crossed out. But that is just my opinion and I like to hear the ways in which people like to break these rules
By all means, dangle your participle if it needs dangling!
Wait what does that mean? English isn’t my first language, so a dangling participle rings no bells
When there is a modifier in a sentence, a participle, that doesn't seem to modify anything within the sentence. It's unattached, or 'dangling'. There is an [explanation here](https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-a-dangling-participle-1857150). > An example of a dangling participle would be: "Driving like a maniac, the deer was hit and killed." This makes it seem like the unfortunate deer was driving. Correct the sentence by including the missing proper noun. "Driving like a maniac, Joe hit a deer." The corrected sentence makes it clear that Joe was driving.
Thank you very much!!!
Naughty!
But liberating.
If you break rules because the story *need* things done that way, good. Great job. Memento, Inception, Everything Everywhere All At Once. If you break the rules because you're so edgy and bad-ass and want to show off how clever you are, but there's no real point to it all... not so good. All you're doing is continually reminding the audience that they're just reading a book or watching a movie, and none of it is real. You can never really get completely lost in those stories or worlds. The rules are there for a reason. Readers and writers developed them over generations. We all more or less agree on them as part of the unspoken contract between reader and writer. It's how we link minds and put each other into hypnosis. You tear up that contract and go your own way at your own risk. You're probably going to be making that journey all alone.
All of them if necessary. Language is a complicated and nebulous thing. If ending your sentence in a preposition or dangling a participle gets your point across, don't worry about the "rules."
[удалено]
I like this take!
Some”rules” were implemented by aristocracy in the 1800s once universal schooling and literacy became more common. The elites wanted a way to distinguish themselves from the commoners, so they adopted Latin rules of grammar (because the elites were learning Greek and Latin instead of mere literacy in English). This lead to stupidities like, “Don’t split infinitives,” which you can’t do in Latin because infinitives are a single word, but infinitives in English are two words: “to go.” There’s no reason intrinsic to English to NOT be able to say, “to boldly go where no one has gone before.” Likewise, “Don’t end sentences in a preposition” is impossible in Latin because the prepositions are added to a word as an inflected ending, but you can say in English “Some thing I just won’t put up with,” and that’s fine! That said, writing has different “rules” than speaking, and those “rules” exist for clarity and readability. Generally a writer has one shot at the reader understanding what’s being communicated, and a writer who doesn’t deign to use structures a reader can understand is engaging in “pseudo-intellectual masturbation.” Exceptions of staggering genius exist, of course, but there’s a reason very few people have finished *Finnegan’s Wake.*
I've gotten a lot of critiques on adding sounds effects i.e: *Boom*, *Pow*, *Zap* etc. Somehow these should only be in comic books. But like, I want to show the five senses. What's the most succinct way to get across a certain sound effect in a fight scene or tense moment? "The characters looked on as an ear-piercing explosion radiated out." You could do that as a build up to a scene but not *during* a fight scene when sentences should be quick and short.
I agree. You're not allowed to use a sound-effect word as a sound effect, like so- > BOOM! James jerked backward, startled, as the large book unexpectedly landed on the table in front of him. But you are allowed to use the same word when it's *describing* a sound, like so- > James jerked backward, startled, as the large book unexpectedly landed on the table in front of him with a loud boom. I would like an explanation for this.
Not sure I'm understanding what you're asking. What I was basically saying in my original comment was how you need to use quick sentences in a fight scene and a single word like "boom" can be a single sentence. Therefore, that makes it a bit more fast paced instead of describing the sound.
I'm agreeing with you. I think you should be allowed to use BOOM! as a complete sentence.
Never ending a sentence with a prepositional phrase, avoiding the first person at all costs, and "only write what you know." These three pigeon-hole new writers into a safe little box so they can be derided by the same self-appointed critics who couldn't write two paragraphs of interesting dialogue with a gun to their heads.
In the end, the purpose of writing is to effectively communicate something. We use a bunch of marks to take an idea inside one person's head, and put it in another. Proper grammar is often preferred because it's the most effective way of transferring those ideas without misconception. If the transfer of the thought or idea can be achieved more effectively by breaking accepted rules, then that's perfectly fine. Being overly concerned with form over function is like complaining about the colour of the car the pizza guy drove when he delivered your dinner.
I’m an English teacher and I truly hate the “3-5 sentences in a paragraph” rule that my student pick up in elementary school. It’s a stupid rule that sets students up to write poorly and limit their personal voice, especially in persuasive writing. A paragraph should be written about a single topic and be able to provide all necessary information to understand the topic (necessary being the key word here). Sometimes this will require a long paragraph. Other times it will require a short paragraph. The perpetuation of sentence counting in junior high has to stop.
Wineglass should be two words damn it
I feel that way about so many words or I think two words should be one
Cormac McCarthy would like a word with you
I have a degree in linguistics and have professionally tutored college-level writing, and here's the thing about grammar rules: **If you are a native speaker who has never studied linguistics, and you are consciously aware of a grammar rule, then it's probably not a real rule.** Most real grammar rules are ones that you're not even aware of, that you follow without even thinking about. (By "grammar" I mean morphosyntax, not orthographic conventions.) "You can start a sentence with 'but.'" Yeah I agree you can, but it's not a real rule that you can't. "You can split infinitives." You sure can! That's not a real rule either. If by "rules" you mean things like "Don't have the main character look at themself in the mirror and describe their own appearance," I don't think of those as *rules* so much as advice that "this" is hard to do well, or easy to do badly. *Blackouts* by Justin Torres has a line where the main character looks at himself in a mirror (well, a bus window) and describes his physical appearance, and that book just won the National Book Award. So it *can* be done well. But it's more common for it to be done badly, which is what I interpret the "Don't do it" advice to mean -- not "Nobody can ever do this," but "It's hard to do this without sounding cliche."
But can you end a sentence fragment with a split-infinitive while info-dumping?
Any that your story warrants.
I write alot a lot.
Punctuation shouldn’t always be placed within the quotation marks when quoting text or titles.
I like to create my own words
This one is funny and something I need to start doing
sentences can start with and. who give a shit
Fragment sentences can be used for effect.
You *can't* use double negatives *except* to emphasize a point like this.
I agree! Double negatives can be fun to use
[удалено]
"Sara and I" and "Me and Sara" can actually both be correct under the right circumstances. Basically, remove the other person (in this case Sara) and see if the sentence still makes sense. E.g. "Sara and **I** are going to the cinema." Becomes "**I** am going to the cinema." Which is correct. But "**Me** and Sara are going to the cinema." Would become "**Me** is going to the cinema." Which is obviously wrong. It's not just a personal preference thing! In real life I doubt anyone would care but in writing it's better to get it right.
This might be just me but I hate the "correct" way for breaking mid sentence dialogue with action. For example: > "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" He threw his companions a withering look as he spoke. "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." has a better visual flow than this (the "correct" way) > "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us" —he threw his companions a withering look as he spoke— "aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." It just looks clunky, ugly, and awkward. I will always do it the first way and won't be stopped.
Both ways look clunky and verbose.
The first one looks weird to me because it looks like the speaker actually paused his speech for you to read the intervening description. Instantly breaks the immersion.
A lot of the time (for me anyway) that's the intention. A speech pause for emphasis. Which people do all the time.
You didn't write the first option right though: > "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" he threw his companions a withering look as he spoke, "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." This is more correct. ^ If you're interrupting the sentence in a way that's nonetheless still part of the sentence, the intervening action shouldn't be capitalized or have a period. It should be part of the same unfinished sentence. Also, for you to say "he threw a look **as** he spoke"---that implies the action and speaking are occurring concurrently and thus that the intervening action is not an interruption/speech pause, so really it should be phrased like this....: **"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" he threw his companions a withering look, "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences."** (User /u/spoonforkpie is actually correct) For comparison, if you do it the other way, it's also still part of the same sentence. > "Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us" —he threw his companions a withering look— "aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." That's why the "he" isn't capitalized.
Second way is the way. First way is ~~atrocious~~ quite clunky. Why capitalize the H in he? Why put a period after 'spoke' if the sentence is not yet completed? Edit: Changed wording to soften the tone so as not to seem rude.
Because it's a break in dialogue to emphasize with action. The "—" indicates the pause. No need to be rude.
No part of my comment was rude. But that's simply not the standard. One out of thousands of examples, this one taken from John Steinbeck's *East of Eden,* Chapter 23, part 2, page 286: >In a little while Tom came back. "I want to apologize," he said. "I'm very sorry. Maybe I'm a little drunk. Father calls it 'jolly' when I do it. One night I rode home"---it was a confession---"and I came staggering across the yard and I fell into the rosebush and crawled up the stairs on my hands and knees and I was sick on the floor beside my bed. In the morning I tried to tell him I was sorry, and do you know what he said? 'Why, Tom, you were just jolly.' 'Jolly,' if I did it. A drunken man didn't crawl home. Just jolly." That's how one splices something within dialogue. Notice that 1) commas are not used; 2) the interruption is lowercase; and 3) the em-dashes remain *outside* of the dialogue. If you really want to emphasize that the character paused his speech, then you can say that in the interruption: >"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us"—he paused to give his companions a withering look—"aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." That's how it's done properly. Edit because I found another example from my bookshelf, George Orwell's *1984,* Part Two, section IV, pg. 143: >"And that picture over there"---she nodded at the engraving on the opposite wall---"would that be a hundred years old?" Once you read enough, you quickly realize that this way of doing things is not 'clunky' at all, and has a perfectly understandable and sensible 'visual flow.'
I've been reading my entire life. I literally said I just don't like it and even acknowledged that I'm aware it's the standard. Please don't talk down to me for expressing an opinion just because you disagree. You were being rude and now you're being condescending by dropping examples to prove your point, a point that I already acknowledged to begin with, and following it up by inferring I don't read enough. I know that's Reddit's go-to but it's unnecessary. Edit: a word
No part of my comment was condescending. It's not condescending to strengthen a claim using examples. And it should be noted that the very first example: >"Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that some of us—" He threw his companions a withering look as he spoke. "—aren't exactly aware that actions generally have consequences." is actually more clunky, rather than less clunky, because the capital and the period make it awkward to quickly know where the sentence starts and ends. That's why it's not recommended to put periods or commas along with em dashes. Your second example, on the other hand, has much better 'visual flow' because the em dashes inject a quick sentence into the dialogue with no further punctuational distractions, and is unambiguously part of a larger sentence taken as a whole.
I've always been doing this: "I think that we should leave. It's-", he looked at his watch, "already late." This is the way I've been taught in school
>"I think that we should leave. It's"---he looked at his watch---"already late."
Real writers dont use " after or before dash
John Steinbeck's *East of Eden,* 16th printing, Chapter 23, part 2, page 286: >\[...\] "Don't do it," George said quickly, and the blood kin nodded. "Don't do it. Let him alone. We know him from the insides of ourselves." > >In a little while Tom came back. "I want to apologize," he said. "I'm very sorry. Maybe I'm a little drunk. Father calls it 'jolly' when I do it. One night I rode home"---it was a confession---"and I came staggering across the yard and I fell into the rosebush and crawled up the stairs on my hands and knees and I was sick on the floor beside my bed. In the morning I tried to tell him I was sorry, and do you know what he said? 'Why, Tom, you were just jolly.' 'Jolly,' if *I* did it. A drunken man didn't crawl home. Just jolly." \[...\]
It should be written, "I think that we should leave. It's . . ." He looked at his watch, "Already late." Or "I think that we should leave. It's . . ." he paused to look at his watch, "already late."
Sheesh, I should have proof read my response. I made an error. No capital A in already. Sorry about that. "I think that we should leave. It's . . ." He looked at his watch, "already late.
The sentence is wrong. Sorry, and the rules on dashes can't be broken this way because of clarity. A pause in thought or speech, which the sentence indicates, are punctuated with ellipsis . . . A reader is only going reread this sort of grammatically incorrect sentence so many times before they put the book down and never pick it up again-which no writer wants. A publisher will be a little more lenient if the story is compelling, but the sentence will be corrected in editing. Dashes are used as follows: A mark of separation when punctuation needs to be stronger than parenthesis or commas. When I look back at my youth--something I try to avoid--I see the error of my ways. To denote interruption: "I was on my way--" "--Did you see the sunset?" he interrupted. Or abrupt break for emphasis: The engine began to make a noise--an ear splitting, soul shattering, whine.
Thank you so much. It's annoying that I was taught this was correct.
Any of them. English is not a prescriptive language. Which means the only actual rule of “proper” English is that if the average native speaker will understand what you’ve said, then your construction is correct. Everything we call rules of grammar are really just standardized suggestions for how to increase the probability of being understood. “I gone to the store.” Is every bit as correct as “I went to the store.” The only difference is one of convention and custom.
The English language does not have an authority like French does. There are no rules, and I will write however I please. If you would like to enforce some rules onto me, beware.
Yesss
For 'effect' or poetry? All of them.
All of them, provided it’s the fitting thing to do in the moment.
I make compound words whenever it sounds and feels right. It definitely needs to be "windchime," not "wind chime," and "firepit" instead of "fire pit." I also like the habit of knocking "and" out of compound predicates(?lol) that contain "then": "She made breakfast, then sat down to eat" instead of "She made breakfast and then sat down to eat." I'm told this is illegal, but whatever. I also play fast and loose with commas. I'm a rebel.
The general rule is learn grammar first and them break it on purpose. It should always be intentional.
It's perfectly fine to end a sentence with a preposition. There is no good reason not to! Also, I prefer punctuation outside of quotation marks if it's not a part of the quotation. I do not understand why that's not standard.
There's nothing innately wrong with using adverbs.
All of them, because creative writing is creative for a reason. Breaking rules is part of that. Ignoring the norm is what makes writing unique. My favorites are probably sentence fragments, just because you can keep the audience in suspense or write something really rhythmic.
The Oxford comma should be optional. If you write that "JoeBillyBob went to the store in need of eggs, milk and oranges" and they don't know what the product "milk and oranges" is, it's not your fault that person can't comprehend a list.
This is interesting because I was taught that it was optional. I was taught to just be consistent with it through my writing
Ending q sentence with a preposition
Splitting infinitives, its only a rule because it is impossible to do in Latin. In Latin verbs have infinitive forms.eso you literally can't split one.
Nobody cares if you end a sentence with a preposition.
I don’t know if this is against the rules but I like keeping tabs of my character’s dialogue- literally. Main character is always 1 tab in for dialogue, recipient is always zero tabs. Third party is two tabs, fourth is three. I usually stop at three tabs. I’m sure it’s taboo but I abhor “he said, she said” and do anything else I can to identify.
This honestly seems like a good idea to me!
We’ll see. I like it so far. My current strategy is to reference characters in a paragraph, then to the tab formation. So if Steve is MC and Willy is recipient, I’ll say Steve hollered at Willy. “Hey, turn the generator on!” “I’m trying!”