A complete sentence has a subject (the person/thing/whatever the subject is about-a noun) and a predicate (the action or whatever that the subject does - a verb). "fully reclined" has no noun, and "mouth agape" has no verb.
Correct. If you can replace the comma with a full stop and have two 'standalone' sentences, it's a comma splice.
You've got it. Complete sentences are what you're calling stand-alone lines. They're complete thoughts with at least one noun/pronoun and one verb. Though some "sentences" can be a single imperative verb only. And in, "Go!" "Stop!" "Speak!" Ergo, your example is fine. Me, I occasionally and defiantly retain comma splices in dialogue, when I want the run-on effect. When someone is breathless, for example, or when the speaker is a young child. I like semicolons well enough, but littering the speech of a little kid with them seems wholly out of character.
Semi-colons in dialogue always look weird to me. I know we don't speak in full stops or commas either, but semi-colons seem wrong. There's not much logic between what doesn't bother me and what's a gripe.
I use them because they look weird; the sentence after a semicolon feels different, in an off-key piano-horror-scene sort of way.
For me, I'm just jerked out of the story; reminded that I'm reading... and as a reader, I don't like that. My number 1 goal as an author is to disappear. But I realise not everyone approaches writing the same way.
I played a game once, and in the middle of a fight the Game Over screen popped up. I freaked out, threw the controller, all the average things you tube videos show of livid gamers. There was no way I'd died in that fight, the game was cheating! That's when I noticed there was something off, something not quite right. The screen said "Fission Mailed" The game was still on. I'd scrambled for the controller; why'd I have to throw it so far away? Why'd it take me so long to notice it'd gotten unplugged? Obviously I lost the fight, but I never forgot that feeling, that anger, followed by confusion and panic. It's probably why I'm such a jerk. Well... one of the reasons. My point is, if I have one at all, is that sometimes the reader needs to get messed with a bit. A little 'chapter 17' hello to keep them on their toes. But yeah, to each their own. I'm off to sleep now, for reals this time, I swear.
No they're not comma splices. Can you tell why? It's important not to react to every comma as if it's a potential splice. The question to ask yourself is 'are they both (or all) complete sentences?' So Chet was flat out in the passenger seat. That's a complete sentence. Fully reclined. That's not a complete sentence. Mouth agape. That's not a complete sentence. So no ...these are not comma splices. Chet was flat out in the passenger seat, fully reclined, mouth agape. That's correctly punctuated. However, here's the sentence re-written incorrectly WITH two comma splices. Chet was flat out in the passenger seat, he was fully reclined, his mouth was agape.
Thanks, @jannert, I think it's finally clicked with that explanation and I'm delighted to report I'm now 99% sure I don't use comma splices. At least I think I'm sure. I'm probably about 48% sure I'm 99% sure I don't use them.
Really, it just takes a bit of practice. If you haven't done them, try doing the exercises in that link I gave you earlier to the Bristol University grammar website. It's an interactive quiz, and only takes a few minutes, but you should be good to go after doing it.
I'm going to catch hell for this one, but I've just written a sentence with four comma splices in a row is the only way to go.
As a new writer, I'm 90% sure that 90% of the things in this thread have been used by me in my older or current pieces. This is not a good thing. One of things that I've picked up MYSELF doing a lot is that I use a lot of commas. Not really in grammatically incorrect situations, but I extend a lot of my sentences by joining several clauses, usually 2-4. Since my readers haven't really pointed this out in particular, I'm not sure if it's just me, but it grinds on my nerves considering I'm the one who is writing it. As an example: "Only four sprouted from her back; the remaining, smaller pair sat on her head, resting on each side just above her ears. To him, they resembled headpieces, but to Celeste, he could only imagine the anxiety they brought." ...they're wings, just for clarification. As a second example: the sentence I wrote just before I said 'As an example:'
I think long sentences are fine as long as the commas are used correctly and as long as there's some variety (ie. not all long sentences).
@DarkusTerror - I think some of your extra commas come into play because you're 'Yoda-ising' sentences a bit. There's probably a formal term for what I mean, but if the 'standard' sentence would go 'subject verb object', you're making it 'object, subject verb' (thus needing extra commas). There's nothing wrong with it per se - it places emphasis on the object, which might be the point - and I had no problem reading your post, but if a whole novel was full of such sentences, I'd probably want more variety. For example: aiming for optimal clarity would probably be written as: Not saying that's better; it would depend on the point of the sentence in your piece. Addressing the overall topic: I don't think I have many particular style gripes. I can usually get on board even if something throws me at first, although too much repetition can cloy (same sentence constructions, lengths, etc, all the time). Also, I'm possibly @doggiedude 's critiquer that pointed out overuse of 'was [blank]ing' verbs where the past participle, [blank]ed, would sound more natural to me: I've seen this come up in a lot of posts in the Workshop. Not that 'was [blank]ing' should be 100% avoided, but they have different implications, which I think often gets overlooked. My main gripe might be in the grey area between content and style, but I think people overexplain things, leading to what I consider redundancy. Often comes as unnecessary adjectives/adverbs, or seems that the writer can't decide whether to show or tell, so they do both. E.g. Joe clenched his teeth, scowled angrily and gathered his breath before loudly screaming blue murder at the neighbourhood. He was mad. It's filler, it's condescending (as if the writer thinks the reader can't figure things out for themself), and it's about as engaging as a sudoku puzzle that someone else has already finished.
Okay, I am WORKING to accept the singular "they" - I swear, I'm trying. But do I also have to accept the singular "themself"?!? Please, tell me I don't!
Nah, it was actually 'them's elf', as in 'the reader can't figure things out for the elf belonging to both the writer and the reader'! Well if you accept a singular 'they' pronoun, it's going to need a corresponding reflexive Or I could tap a few more buttons and make it 'her- or himself', but if I'm going to be PC, I really think the world should help me by instituting gender neutral pronouns. ETA: Should 'to each their own' really be 'to each her or his own'?
People don't like, own, things man. Things are things and people are just there dude. This line applies just as much now as when I used it to explain to my roommate why I ate his meatloaf.
I thought that it would be "themselves": "It's filler, it's condescending (as if the writer thinks the reader can't figure things out for themselves)
@ChickenFreak @Iain Aschendale - but then you've got plurality mismatch. I can see that for myselves.