Yeah, there are lots of words and phrases you can use over and over and they don't jump out at you. But try using 'rectangular view on the world' 6 times in your book, instead of 'window' and people will notice! It's what beta readers do well. They'll catch these things. Very helpful. You said: But I just wonder when and how easily do your habits in casual writing crossover to formal writing? I think probably when the writer isn't aware of the difference between casual peer-group interaction and what it takes to become a universally acceptable writer. If you're aware, of course you can do both. I always want to ask 'awesome' users ...how do you describe the sight of the Milky Way on a clear night? Or the tasty nature of a plateful of spaghetti bolognese you just ate? Both of them are 'awesome?' That's like saying both of them are 'cool.' All it means is that you're favorably inclined. Cool was my generation's 'awesome.' Just as silly, really. And dates me something rotten... Mind you, we also used to say something was 'not cool at all.' Do you guys say something is 'not awesome?' Just curious.
I'm happy to say good-bye to Joyce and Woolf. I haven't read the others. 'Experimental' writing has always struck me as a steaming pile of 'look at me, aren't I clever' self-absorption. I won't further derail the thread except to say that I was surprised (stunned, really) by the number of members here willing to defend sloppy writing. We're a diverse bunch here in terms of sex, geography, age and writing genres, but I guess I assumed that an appreciation (reverence?) for proper grammar, spelling, usage and syntax would be something we all had in common. My eyes have been opened.
No one is saying it is OK to not have a clue. Somehow, that's the conclusion people often jump to when you point out there aren't really rigid rules to writing fiction. Nor did I say, or even suggest, that Joyce et al. weren't aware of the formal writing of their respective times. Clearly they all were. Telling new writers you have to do this or can't do that is just as harmful as telling them they don't have to know what they're doing (except that I don't know anyone who tells new writers the latter and lots of writing forum types who tell them the former, so from a practical standpoint the former probably does more damage). In any craft, you have to understand the fundamentals. Beyond that, I don't rule out the possibility of just about anything being made to work by someone who is good enough.
Yeah, if you're expecting uniformity or conformity across a population of individuals engaged in any artistic endeavor, you're going to be disappointed. Which is as it should be, in my view.
I ditto the word "orifice" - it makes me think of holes in your face, and in general conjures up weird, horrible-looking images in my head. @jannert - hahaha oh that would be such a shame to describe those beautiful things as "awesome" and nothing else. But then again, if I were simply updating my FB status, then yes, I might actually use that word. I mean, I did just share an amazing video of a surfer on my page with the word "stunning". It's not as bad as awesome, but it's still a simplification. But for something more casual, like a funny joke, I have often shared it with the word "awesome". And besides, wouldn't it be just a tad pretentious if I went around describing these things I share in eloquent prose all the time!? To be honest, the first word that popped into my head about the Milky Way was "beautiful" and for the spag bol it was "tasty" haha! @stevesh - just because some people see beauty in writing that breaks the mould doesn't mean they have no appreciation for proper grammar etc. It just means they're able to appreciate more than just that and they recognise the need - and the good - in exploring and inventing new things. I find your assertion of people not being able to appreciate proper grammar and writing simply because they also enjoy things that fall outside of convention very close-minded. It's okay that you don't see the good in breaking grammtical conventions and think the world can do without it - that's really fine - but to make a judgement call on other people because they don't agree with you is insulting. I would think we all respect each other as writers here, some of us (unfortunately not myself necessarily) quite experienced indeed.
It wasn't my intention to insult anyone. When I first signed up for this forum, my assumption was that it was a place where writers who want their work to be published came together to trade ideas and encouragement toward that end. I just don't think that presenting writing that 'falls outside of convention' as being a viable option for such writers is useful, since such work has a slim-to-none chance of being accepted for publication. If you follow the conventional rules, you've given one less reason for an editor to reject your submission. I don't see that as close-mindedness, just common sense. If someone wants to experiment with non-standard usage, spelling or grammar for his/her own amusement or some other personal reason, that's fine with me. I might do the same myself, and I might even enjoy reading your experiments. However, if I'm an editor for someone to whom you want to sell that story, the first run-on sentence ('comma splice' for you youngsters) I encounter will be the last, as your masterpiece will hit the bin and the rejection slip will be forthcoming. I believe all professional editors would say the same.
I appreciate your clarification. What you've said is true, of course. I guess I simply interpreted your posts to mean one should never stray from convention - I think that's really what I object to. However, it's true that you simply have to adhere to grammatical conventions and accepted methods as a new writer. Experimentation in one's published works is a privilege for those who're already published and successful. Probably shouldn't be the case, but I believe it almost definitely is the case. I guess the other danger of straying from convention for the inexperienced writer is precisely that - they're inexperienced and thus cannot be trusted to know what they're actually doing. It is better to start off by adhering to convention and only experimenting in smaller projects or ones you don't intend on publishing. One needs to know the rules before one can break them.
I think there is a difference between mistakes and experimentation. A run-on sentence will probably be a mistake, unless the author is obviously using it to make a point—like they might do in a stream of consciousness narrative. If that's the case, the point should be ...obvious? Again, it boils down to knowing the rules first. Break them if you want to, but do so with purpose. Your purpose should be clear when you do it, and it should work for your readers as well as yourself. I reckon that's the difference. A good, groundbreaking piece will get looked at by traditional publishers if you go to the right ones—the smaller literary presses. A mistake-ridden MS won't get read.
I am quickly tiring of things going viral. You get Ebola and everyone around you panics; you get a hit on YouTube and everyone crowds in to slap your back.
Oh yes, my favey, trying to find out which one is the standard freaking usage. Preventative or preventive? Inflammable or flammable? Favey or Favy? You can google it, google-fight it, and start a thread about it, and still you'll often be none the wiser in the end. Since English is spoken in so many countries and it's the lingua franca, no less, it's difficult to set the boundaries to what's acceptable and what's not. I may see something I consider wholly unacceptable in a published, even acclaimed novel, but at that point I just have to face it that all the languages keep evolving, and while I would fight against grammatical non-sensicalities like should-of and could-of or their/they're, I do find some other word class "deviations" of your curious, wonderful language a bit more acceptable, and some word order "anomalies" pretty non-jarring already, like ending the sentence with a preposition. Right now I don't have any big adjective no-nos. I'm more bothered by clichés as in very common similes like "His eyes burned like fire". In general, I wish writers used adjectives to modify a noun a bit more sparingly. Sometimes I just feel like they add very little value to whatever the author is describing (unless it's something simple, like a color, "a red chair", for example), especially if it's an obscure, low frequency adjective.
Me, too. My personal rule is to avoid more than one adjective per noun if possible, and if not, never place them together, separated by commas. I could no more write something like "his red, dirty, Tyrolean hat covered most of his blond, straw-like, shoulder-length hair" than I could flap my arms and fly. Edit: And, of course, I just did write it, proving myself wrong. You know what I meant.
Use of the word 'very,' either as an adjective or adverb: She was very beautiful. The water was very deep and turbulent. The heat was very intense. This was the very Very pistol used to summon help...
I think it basically is an adverb, first and foremost, but since I suck at word classes, I've come to call it an intensifier, which I saw somewhere but actually I can't remember if that's even a correct or real term. O_O @Wreybies will know! And I agree, very, rather, a little... So often they're just word clutter, imo.
It's an adverb when used before a verb form e.g. very tired, and an adjective when used before a noun e.g. the very heart of the maze, or very top of the mountain. It seems superfluous in most cases.
Oh, those are three words on my Jan's Bad Words list that's posted above my computer. Gradually I'm weaning myself off using them. I use the search/destroy function on my word processor to ferret them out.
Same here. Especially "a little." That was such an aaargh moment to find out how redundantly and flippantly the damn thing is scattered around the manuscript.
How about a bit, rather, just, quite, really, kind of, possibly ....aagh. Such weasel words. They always indicate less than full conviction, don't they?
But that's okay, isn't it? If that's what the writer intends. Some of them can kind of be used as phatic expressions within the sentence; more to set a tone than to give meaning.
Oh yes, nothing wrong with these words if they're used deliberately. It's just that they are so frequently a habit. If you search out your usages of them, you might well be surprised at how often they appear, and how often they aren't actually needed.
There's one of mine, along with 'basically' and I have to force myself to prune both whenever they appear.
phatic - Effect of chlorinated ali- phatic hydrocarbons on excretion of protein and electrolytes by rat pancreas. What the hell are you writing?
