The paragraph: It's a really simple question: why does he use the word "and" twice in those sentences, instead of a comma? I'm Norwegian, but I think it seems really heavy-handed still. I thought it was simple grammar not using the word twice in a sentence like that? Unless there is some secret rule I don't know about? I've seen this numerous times in the writing of George R R Martin but not so much by anyone else. And so, if this is grammatically incorrect or heavy-handed, why would the publisher not tell him to stop using "and" like this?
Yeah, I've been reading his books lately, and this is something that he does. I'm sure I've seen it from other writers also, but I can't name any. Well, I do it, but it might be that I picked it up from Martin. I'm Norwegian also (fistbump) but I don't find this clumsy or inelegant at all. I actually think it flows better than it would with commas. Is your issue more specifically about it being done twice in such quick succession, perhaps? I've read the scene in question, and I'm sure he does it for a certain effect; to make the writing more "immediate", or frantic, if you will. I think it's fine to do this in short, quick bursts, less so as part of longer sentences, and not with more than three seperate items (though I've been known to do it with four) but I'm hardly an authority on style or "proper" grammar.
I just wonder if it is in fact grammatically correct, because way earlier when I had beta readers I also did this in near same style, something I picked up from Martin perhaps, or perhaps not. Anyways I got a flack for it (as in they meant it was grammatically incorrect). Then I see this contrasting information continue to present itself in novels, which of course are proofread by agents, editors, and what not.
I can think of two reasons. One is style. The second is to create an element of surprise. Based on this thread, I'm guessing you expected only two items but then Martin hits you with a third. Either way, it boils down to personal preference.
If there exist tablets of Divine Mandate, upon which are chiseled the immutable, indisputable laws of grammar, I've yet to be given a look. Languages are wily beasts, ever evolving and mutating; but they are livestock, ours to make use of. There are things you cannot do, of course, and grammar should certainly always be respected, but I'm of the opinion that we, creative writers especially, are allowed to play it a little fast and loose. Especially when it comes to things like this, which I personally consider more a question of style than anything else.
Really? For me it reads quicker than if one 'and' were replaced by a comma, to say nothing of Oxford ones. It must be the way I internalize my reading; successive "ands" tend to become 'n. I just sat down to read some Ray Bradbury, and I noticed he does this too. He does some other very interesting things with style, actually, and I find him a joy to read.
It's correct (assuming that you, not he, inserted the spare "of"?). Commas would also be correct. To me, it's a clear and deliberate style choice. I dislike Martin's writing, but I rather like this particular piece of style gingerbread--as long as it's sparsely used. Your beta readers were incorrect in their claim that this is incorrect. I think that sometimes people get confused about the distinction between strict grammatical correctness and style questions, and that your beta readers did that in this case.
It's called a polysyndeton. It's a stylistic device. It's breaking the standard grammatical structure, but it's not wrong. I'm kind of surprised that he did it in back to back sentences, but he's the pro . . . The opposite is this gem (which I sort of hate) the asyndeton. It shows up all the time in certain genres (noir, crime, newbie fiction, etc.): He sharpened his axe, laced his boots, headed outside. Bah, I shouldn't have derided it. It's just an effect. It just grates on me . . . feels fake, but that's just me. polysyndeton: details feel piled on rather than simply listed asyndeton: details feel terse and immediate, very to the point Oh, and the normal use of and (like you've been taught) is called syndeton.
I think it was a deliberate parallel/repetition thing--that the back to back sentences were an essential part of the style choice. He was wearing a and b and c, which he was deprived of. So he's left with d and e and f, none of which are actually clothes. The parallel structure, by implication, compares them to clothes.
