A quick grammar check

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

How 'bout this.

The screens focused on filtered information customized to his plans. The top three featured silenced headline news from the Middle East, South Africa, and Russia. The bottom three streamed global stock market quotations.

I like that, but the word featured kind of sucks.

 

[CopperSkink]

Before I begin, y'all have my permission to shoot me for what I'm about to say.

I had to teach myself how to write for no better reason than sitting in a class and listening to some guy talk about grammar causes my brain to shut down. When I run into a problem on the dog training field, there are people I can consult with for advice, but no one can tell me what's best because each dog is different even as each handler/dog relationship is different. Because that's my style of learning, I use the same approach to writing: Run into a problem, check some sources, decide what looks best.

In the end, is English grammar an art, or a science? I submit that a science will be agreeable by all parties, no matter the language barrier or religion (setting aside for the moment that religion tends to shove science out of the way). Contrastly art will always come down to the eye of the beholder. I listen to music that would make my father throw up and I'd never go all the way to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa.

Is writing an art, or a science? If it's a science, shouldn't there be one law everyone can agree upon?

 

[_Lynn_]

Before I begin, y'all have my permission to shoot me for what I'm about to say.

I had to teach myself how to write for no better reason than sitting in a class and listening to some guy talk about grammar causes my brain to shut down. When I run into a problem on the dog training field, there are people I can consult with for advice, but no one can tell me what's best because each dog is different even as each handler/dog relationship is different. Because that's my style of learning, I use the same approach to writing: Run into a problem, check some sources, decide what looks best.

In the end, is English grammar an art, or a science? I submit that a science will be agreeable by all parties, no matter the language barrier or religion (setting aside for the moment that religion tends to shove science out of the way). Contrastly art will always come down to the eye of the beholder. I listen to music that would make my father throw up and I'd never go all the way to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa.

Is writing an art, or a science? If it's a science, shouldn't there be one law everyone can agree upon?

That would be the publishers guidelines then, wouldn't it? And they use the CMS, right?

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

Before I begin, y'all have my permission to shoot me for what I'm about to say.

I had to teach myself how to write for no better reason than sitting in a class and listening to some guy talk about grammar causes my brain to shut down. When I run into a problem on the dog training field, there are people I can consult with for advice, but no one can tell me what's best because each dog is different even as each handler/dog relationship is different. Because that's my style of learning, I use the same approach to writing: Run into a problem, check some sources, decide what looks best.

In the end, is English grammar an art, or a science? I submit that a science will be agreeable by all parties, no matter the language barrier or religion (setting aside for the moment that religion tends to shove science out of the way). Contrastly art will always come down to the eye of the beholder. I listen to music that would make my father throw up and I'd never go all the way to the Louvre to see the Mona Lisa.

Is writing an art, or a science? If it's a science, shouldn't there be one law everyone can agree upon?

It is important to be consistent in a story; nonetheless, some latitude for the sake of art is allowable. Breaking rules can give a desired effect, but at this juncture, I seek clarity in meaning and a smooth style (I'm learning CS--I have a long way to go).

That would be the publishers guidelines then, wouldn't it? And they use the CMS, right?

That's my main resource. I also use the info at eXcessica (not that I have anything there--maybe someday).

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

...Is writing an art, or a science? If it's a science, shouldn't there be one law everyone can agree upon?

That would be the publishers guidelines then, wouldn't it? And they use the CMS, right?

Not all of them, though quite possibly most in the USA do.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Not all of them, though quite possibly most in the USA do.

There is a problem that slavish adhesion to the CMS (or other style manuals) hides. Punctuation is neither grammar nor style - it is convention and was 'invented' with the printing press in the sixteenth century. French pays slavish attention to 'grammar', with book upon book pontificating about the use of the imperfect, the simple past, the historic past or even the subjunctive tense.

Honni soit qui mal y pense!

French story dialoque punctuation is a quagmire and to raise the subject of punctuation as a matter of style will get you laughed at.

Anglophone writers should declare their nationality as publishers re-edit books for the UK or Australia.

There is no Holy Grail in printers' marks.

 

[sr71plt]

Seriously, sr, what is the true global take on the serial comma?

I'll just note my experience in professional editing. Of nearly 30 mainstream publishers (including three UK ones) I've edited books for, 0 (zero) have failed to specify specifically in their editorial guidelines that their style uses the serial comma. And they all (including the three UK ones) use either the Chicago Manual of Style or the APA guidelines for their editorial authorities. Both of these specify the serial comma.

I'm on the road until next week at this time, so I can't site the CMA and APA sections on this at this moment. But I'll be happy to do so, if you wish, when I get home (not that reality in the publishing world will mean much to you). Because this isn't some quirky opinion of my own that I'm putting out there.

Writers can do whatever they wish, of course. Literotica isn't likely to balk at the nonuse of the serial comma--and if any writer here is good enough to get their work in the mainstream they can just find out for themselves how the real publishing world works.

 

[talismania]

While publishers adhere to a preferred style, and would dearly love if all their writers turned in manuscripts that need no further editing... they do accept manuscripts that are less than perfect. The most important thing to the publisher is that the story rock.

Of course, if the manuscript is a grammatical mess, no publisher will read far enough to find out that the story rocks.

My point being that the writer should spend the most energy on writing a rocking good story. Let the juices flow. Polish those scenes, ante up the suspense, and make that dialog shine.

Is grammar a part of that? Absolutely. Used properly, punctuation and sentence structure are nearly invisible to readers... which means that the reader sees only the images, characters, and world the writer creates. The reader "hears" the dialog. The reader has no reason to ever notice the words on the page.

So that's why writers micromanage grammar and punctuation, trying to achieve perfection. I'm in the camp that believes in writing as art. What distinguishes the professional from the amateur is command of the craft. Writers don't always agonize over how they use their punctuation, but every good writer respects the power of the little buggers.

 

[sr71plt]

My point being that the writer should spend the most energy on writing a rocking good story.

I absolutely agree with this--and writers submitting to the mainstream tend to spend too much time on the formatting and grammar and too little time on the context. Publishers are looking, as you say, for "a rocking good story" (although not just any rocking good story--they are looking for a rocking good story that fills a specific slot in their coming catalogs).

Two "howevers," though.

1. The better the condition of a manuscript, the less fundamental cleanup the publisher's editor has to do and the more time they can spend helping the author to make the context even more rocking (and more maketable).

2. In writing just for Literotica, if you screw up the fundamentals a lot, bunches of readers won't read through that to appreciate the context, no matter how "rocking" it is. They'll bomb vote your story and leave you nasty comments about your literacy. And you'll just have to live with that if you don't spend time polishing up the grammar and punctuation.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

The Harvard, Oxford, serial comma is surely now totally optional. Lynne Truss in 'Eats Shoots and Leaves' files it as archaic. Is there really a body of publishers that think today it is gospel?

I absolutely agree with this--and writers submitting to the mainstream tend to spend too much time on the formatting and grammar and too little time on the context. Publishers are looking, as you say, for "a rocking good story" (although not just any rocking good story--they are looking for a rocking good story that fills a specific slot in their coming catalogs).

Two "howevers," though.

1. The better the condition of a manuscript, the less fundamental cleanup the publisher's editor has to do and the more time they can spend helping the author to make the context even more rocking (and more maketable).

2. In writing just for Literotica, if you screw up the fundamentals a lot, bunches of readers won't read through that to appreciate the context, no matter how "rocking" it is. They'll bomb vote your story and leave you nasty comments about your literacy. And you'll just have to live with that if you don't spend time polishing up the grammar and punctuation.

I couldn't agree more. I thought that this is what I've been arguing on Stories Feedback and you have disagreed with. Get the fundamentals right and you are half-way there. We fell out over first person, which I continue to think is a powerful POV but difficult for a first-time fiction writer to handle within your para 2.

 

[CopperSkink]

I also agree with "rocking" and "fundamentals" and all that goes with it [not that that means anything to anyone, only I learned in speech class (is that proper? Should it be capitalized?) that while in a town meeting, people that agree with the man standing up should say so].

I believe more firmly that the majority of the readers who are likely to see such a story will favor dirtier and easier reads no matter what the grammatical condition or the epictitude of its grandor. Goddammit. Of course it's easier to believe that than simply suffer the concept that I'm a bad writer ::S

 

[Paul Reagan]

I believe more firmly that the majority of the readers who are likely to see such a story will favor dirtier and easier reads no matter what the grammatical condition or the epictitude of its grandor.

The majority will, no doubt. My eye tends to get "snagged" when commas (or splleing erorrs or wrong grammer or whatever) are in places they shouldn't be at all, discounting any stylistic considerations (which is what we're discussing here).

– PR

 

[sr71plt]

The Harvard, Oxford, serial comma is surely now totally optional. Lynne Truss in 'Eats Shoots and Leaves' files it as archaic. Is there really a body of publishers that think today it is gospel?

God, you're thickheaded. The question has been answered several times here. As I said, do what you want (but if you tell other writers to do something that won't be constructive for them, I'll chime in). If it gets to a mainstream publisher they will follow their authorities, which have been cited to you here.

I couldn't agree more. I thought that this is what I've been arguing on Stories Feedback and you have disagreed with. Get the fundamentals right and you are half-way there. We fell out over first person, which I continue to think is a powerful POV but difficult for a first-time fiction writer to handle within your para 2.

Again, you're too thickheaded to pretend to know what I've agreed or disagreed with.