Dialogue vs. Narrative

[bronzeage]

I have always thought that making a story "clear and readable" could include advice on recasting sentences, and sometimes more, which contain no technical errors, but are not mellifluous?

For example,

This is the Jack-grown corn-eating rat-eating cat.

is indisputably better (though a certain someone may dispute it) as:

This is the cat that ate the rat that ate the corn that Jack grew.

Telling an author when a sentence needs to be recast is the difference between and editor and a "copy editor". It can be the most time consuming part of editing. Rearranging a sentence or changing the tense of a verb is straight forward. If a sentence needs more than this, I will return it to the writer with a [rework this sentence] note. I do not want to rewrite a story.

Another important part of editing, as opposed to copy editing, is to tell the writer when more is needed. Often, a critical image has been left out, or more description is needed. I once edited a story about a woman's first sexual experience. It was written in first person and she her partner had an "eight inch cock". I sent the story back with the note, "This is the first penis she has ever seen in her life. It needs more than three words to describe the sight."

 

[sr71plt]

I'm sure you are aware that the two Jack sentences do not come near saying the same thing.

Right. Snooper's example is a great one of how an editor should NOT be mucking around with the original (not to mention that there are two commas missing in Snooper's example).

(Thought this was pretty telling.)

 

[AsylumSeeker]

I'm sure you are aware that the two Jack sentences do not come near saying the same thing.

In the first, Jack's cat was grown by Jack, the cat eats corn and also rats.

In the second, Jack grew the corn; the cat ate the rat; the rat ate the corn. We don't know if Jack grew the cat or the rat, but we don't care because the second has a rhythm and is fun to read.

The first, as you are aware, is not a pleasant read, is awkward and, as previously noted, is incorrect if it was meant to produce the same meaning as the second.

I agree with your comments about editing, however.

Actually, neither is a pleasant read... makes my brain hurt! Lol

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

I'm sure you are aware that the two Jack sentences do not come near saying the same thing. ...

Pardon me, but they do mean exactly the same thing.

Parsing this we have the adjectival term "Jack-grown" applying to the next noun "corn" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating" applying to the next noun "rat" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating rat" applying to the next noun "cat". Perhaps brackets will make it clear?

This is the (((Jack-grown corn)-eating rat)-eating cat).

 

[sr71plt]

Pardon me, but they do mean exactly the same thing.

Parsing this we have the adjectival term "Jack-grown" applying to the next noun "corn" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating" applying to the next noun "rat" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating rat" applying to the next noun "cat". Perhaps brackets will make it clear?

This is the (((Jack-grown corn)-eating rat)-eating cat).

Pardon me, but they certainly don't mean the same thing--at least not in American style. In American style, there's only one noun in what you wrote--cat, and everything before it modifies that. (Find and identify another noun in that sentence, please. "Jack-grown" is a combined adjective, as are "corn-eating" and "rat-eating") You have attributed all of the action to the cat, and the original didn't do that.

Some other British style editor want to support what Snooper asserts? Because this certainly has changed the meaning in the American style.

 

[tootallday]

Pardon me, but they do mean exactly the same thing.

Parsing this we have the adjectival term "Jack-grown" applying to the next noun "corn" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating" applying to the next noun "rat" and the adjectival term "Jack-grown corn-eating rat" applying to the next noun "cat". Perhaps brackets will make it clear?

This is the (((Jack-grown corn)-eating rat)-eating cat).

That's ridiculous! Suppose I write, "She's the most beautiful, well-read, intelligent woman I ever met" (and I just did). By your analysis, "beautiful" modifies "well-read," which modifies "intelligent," which finally modifies "woman." And the conclusion is that only the term next to the word "woman" describes her. If I change the order of the modifiers (by your reckoning), I change the entire meaning of the sentence. In my English, that won't happen. You can change the order of the adjectives all you want, they still only describe "woman."

By the rules of English that I learned in America, adjectives can't modify adjectives. Only adverbs can do that. Adjectives can only modify nouns (and other substantives). I often wondered what was meant by "from the ridiculous to the sublime." I'm beginning to understand.

 

[bronzeage]

That's ridiculous! Suppose I write, "She's the most beautiful, well-read, intelligent woman I ever met" (and I just did). By your analysis, "beautiful" modifies "well-read," which modifies "intelligent," which finally modifies "woman." And the conclusion is that only the term next to the word "woman" describes her. If I change the order of the modifiers (by your reckoning), I change the entire meaning of the sentence. In my English, that won't happen. You can change the order of the adjectives all you want, they still only describe "woman."

By the rules of English that I learned in America, adjectives can't modify adjectives. Only adverbs can do that. Adjectives can only modify nouns (and other substantives). I often wondered what was meant by "from the ridiculous to the sublime." I'm beginning to understand.

It's been a long time, but I recall adverbs modify verbs. In the sentence, "She is a really beautiful woman," the adverb "really" modifies the verb "is".

 

[tootallday]

It's been a long time, but I recall adverbs modify verbs. In the sentence, "She is a really beautiful woman," the adverb "really" modifies the verb "is".

You are wrong. Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and even other adverbs. In your example, really (an adverb) is modifying beautiful (an adjective), and beautiful is modifying woman. She is NOT a really woman nor is she really is, but she is a really beautiful woman. She's a woman. She's a beautiful woman. She's a REALLY Beautiful woman.

 

[tootallday]

For further clarification, as a guru, I'm sure you agree that placement of words, and for that matter, punctuation, in a sentence can affect their meaning. If I were to say She's REALLY a beautiful woman, or, She REALLY is a beautiful woman, than I would agree that REALLY is modifying IS. But that's not the case in your example.

 

[tootallday]

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

That's the title of a book you may have read. It sounds like a hunting story or perhaps a murder mystery. Take out the comma and now it may be a book about panda bears.

Interesting, no?

 

[tootallday]

You really have me going now. Have you ever heard the song, "Throw Mama From the Train?" The lyrics are (really): Throw Mama from the train, a kiss, a kiss. Throw Mama from the train, a good-bye.

Placement of words and punctuation can (really) make a difference.

 

[bronzeage]

You are wrong. Adverbs modify verbs, adjectives, and even other adverbs. In your example, really (an adverb) is modifying beautiful (an adjective), and beautiful is modifying woman. She is NOT a really woman nor is she really is, but she is a really beautiful woman. She's a woman. She's a beautiful woman. She's a REALLY Beautiful woman.

In the name of errant pedantry, I submit this,

Adverb, definition:
the word class that qualifies verbs or clauses
a word that modifies something other than a noun

What the fuck do I know? I work on cars for a living.

 

[tootallday]

In the name of errant pedantry, I submit this,

Adverb, definition:
the word class that qualifies verbs or clauses
a word that modifies something other than a noun

What the fuck do I know? I work on cars for a living.

Here's a definition which is a little more complete:

adverb [ˈædˌvɜːb]
n
(Linguistics / Grammar)
a. a word or group of words that serves to modify a whole sentence, a verb, another adverb, or an adjective; for example, probably, easily, very, and happily respectively in the sentence They could probably easily envy the very happily married couple
b. (as modifier) an adverb marker Abbreviation adv

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Here's a definition which is a little more complete:

adverb [ˈædˌvɜːb]
n
(Linguistics / Grammar)
a. a word or group of words that serves to modify a whole sentence, a verb, another adverb, or an adjective; for example, probably, easily, very, and happily respectively in the sentence They could probably easily envy the very happily married couple
b. (as modifier) an adverb marker Abbreviation adv

This is a great example of why I bypassed formal education and instead went to vo-tech.

 

[bronzeage]

This is a great example of why I bypassed formal education and instead went to vo-tech.

Next, we debate whether a preposition is the sort of thing to end a sentence with.

 

[tootallday]

Next, we debate whether a preposition is the sort of thing to end a sentence with.

I heard a story about Winston Churchill which, at the time, appeared to put an end to the question put to him about that very subject. He, a reknowned public speaker and quick wit, had committed the sin of ending a response with a preposition. When confronted with his "sin," he allegedly replied, "That is something up with which I will not put."

 

[bronzeage]

I heard a story about Winston Churchill which, at the time, appeared to put an end to the question put to him about that very subject. He, a reknowned public speaker and quick wit, had committed the sin of ending a response with a preposition. When confronted with his "sin," he allegedly replied, "That is something up with which I will not put."

The complete quote was. "This is the kind of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

You didn't think I made up "errant pedantry" all by myself, did you?

 

[tootallday]

The complete quote was. "This is the kind of errant pedantry up with which I shall not put."

You didn't think I made up "errant pedantry" all by myself, did you?

Thanks for the correction. My memory of something so old, that I actually heard it from my father in the 50s, wasn't too bad, though.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Next, we debate whether a preposition is the sort of thing to end a sentence with.

I think I should abandon being an editor and instead send them your way, as I am obviously inferior.

 

[tootallday]

I think I should abandon being an editor and instead send them your way, as I am obviously inferior.

Don't tell me that shit. I know now that I would be lousy at it. I wouldn't have the patience with a writer who says, at the beginning of the story: "As always I must also add, that I can never leave a story alone. I will most likely add some cock-ups on my read through after they have seen it."

More than one has used this type of statement, and I wouldn't tolerate it. No one would be able which were not my "cock-ups" and which were.

Nope. It's not for me. I am giving it a try at this time with someone who seems very nice and honest. So we'll see.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... I wouldn't have the patience with a writer who says, at the beginning of the story: "As always I must also add, that I can never leave a story alone. I will most likely add some cock-ups on my read through after they have seen it."

More than one has used this type of statement, and I wouldn't tolerate it. No one would be able which were not my "cock-ups" and which were. ...

That's one reason why AS and I say "Please do not credit me ..."

I have two other reasons, but this is certainly a factor.

 

[Samuelx]

I prefer the narrative to dialogue most of the time.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Don't tell me that shit. I know now that I would be lousy at it. I wouldn't have the patience with a writer who says, at the beginning of the story: "As always I must also add, that I can never leave a story alone. I will most likely add some cock-ups on my read through after they have seen it."

More than one has used this type of statement, and I wouldn't tolerate it. No one would be able which were not my "cock-ups" and which were.

Nope. It's not for me. I am giving it a try at this time with someone who seems very nice and honest. So we'll see.

Actually I was responding to bronzeage, an issue that has been resolved through a PM (or so I think). It's easy to get confused, toot, so don't feel confused. I have done this myself. Just be glad that the EF is SO MUCH slower-paced than the AH! In the AH one can hardly start a thread before it disappears in the rapids of others. I like to equate the EF to Mayberry, or Andy Griffith (old TV show, showing my age now).

 

[AsylumSeeker]

I prefer the narrative to dialogue most of the time.

I believe both narrative and dialogue advance a story. The type of story drives more of one versus the other. Perhaps you have formed this opinion basd on experience, as it can be difficult for many writers to write dialogue and pull it off successfully.

For example, if two characters are stuck on an elevator, one would expect more dialogue. One stranded on an island, more narration, unless the character is imagining things, like "Wilson!" (sorry, a reference to a Tom Hanks movie).

 

[bronzeage]

I believe both narrative and dialogue advance a story. The type of story drives more of one versus the other. Perhaps you have formed this opinion basd on experience, as it can be difficult for many writers to write dialogue and pull it off successfully.

For example, if two characters are stuck on an elevator, one would expect more dialogue. One stranded on an island, more narration, unless the character is imagining things, like "Wilson!" (sorry, a reference to a Tom Hanks movie).

Many writers find it difficult to write natural sounding dialog, but any dialog is better than, "Terry came running into the house and said the barn was on fire and I told him to go put the fire out."