Search options (Page 2 of 3)

I think it is recommended that amateur or student writers don't open a novel with a prologue or dream sequence, simply because it seems to be a popular (almost instinctive) compulsion for many, and usually they are are a poorly written or executed indulgence and don't actually do the story any favours. 

The old 'learn and master the basics first' rule of thumb.

Of course when written to a high literary standard, the prologue or dream sequence is a powerful device and they appear in many successful novels, plays and screen plays.

Just as the recommended 'do's and don'ts' impressed upon a learner driver don't apply to the professional race car driver. Sometimes quite the opposite.

Very well put njc, wise words and in essence I agree.

However, the issue is and always will be, whom/how decides to what degree the style works against the story or the telling?

Subjectivity. One person's pleasure is another's poison.

There is no regulating, rationalizing or standardising subjectivity. I think the key is within your closing words; "when reviewer and author haven't come to understand each other."  The author and editor need to be on the same page, and so often they are not.

Yes, and there are books by the likes of James Joyce and Spike Milligan that are written in modernist avant-garde (all over the place in terms of tense and style). There is a book called;  'How to Speak Klingon: Essential Phrases for the Intergalactic Traveler by Ben Grossblatt.'

There are books.

I don't understand your statement?

Essentially, what this thread discusses is a case where reviewers are insisting that an author is employing the wrong style within their manuscript, merely because it is written in a style that they would not personally use.

I review as a reader. If I enjoy the read, I say so. If I don't, then I leave no review (having learned that dislike is not tolerated).

Some members review from the POV of a harsh editor. This is fine if the writer wants that kind of help and if the 'editor' is actually up to the job.

Sometimes a reader can observe review advice that is actually a 'voice changer' or even a voice killer for the author. Although reviewers can sound authoritative, sometimes their advice is not.

Watching the confidence of perfectly sound writers wobble when their style is called into question is distressing.

When calling a spade a spade at least there is no confusion as to what they are.  Individual members of 'The Elite Guard' are guards. Just as members of the  'Plumbers Guild' are plumbers. This must be true, else when referring to an individual you'd have to write, 'The Guard's dagger' or 'the Plumber's wrench' which is wrong because it should be,  The guard's dagger' or 'the plumber's wrench.'

This standard issue Guards Dagger, found buried up to the hilt in the prisoners eye socket is that particular guard's dagger i.e. her property.  And this Plumber's Wrench, belongs to that plumber. It is from his toolbox and he asked that a colleague, a fellow plumber, pass him said Plumbers Wrench.   

Forming a group of elite guards into a force called The Elite Guard presents another issue which is rank. Capitalize a military rank when used as a formal title before an individual's name but not in description.  The Commander in Chief is a commander just as Private Benjamin is merely a private.

The British Army has regiments of Guards. (The Scots Guards, the Coldstream Guards etc.) they get around the issue by referring to the guards who serve in The Guards, as guardsmen because their rank is Guardsman.

This confusion was resolved in the year 423 BC when the Romans named their force of elite guards, the Praetorian Guard. The members can then be formally called Praetorians and informally guards.

or orgasm, or admiration/approbation, or disappointment/displeasure or disenchantment/disillusionment or envy/desire...  in my case the long, loud, drawn-out sigh usually means I've opened and read my Mastercard bill. Buyer's remorse.

The first expression of exasperation is when you hold your hands out palms up, roll your eyes upwards towards an imaginary heaven and mutter, "For fucks sake!' quietly to yourself whilst slowly shaking your head. Then comes the sigh. After the gurning and cussing.

Sorry, my mistake.

Surely they is a sentence?

I think that you need the sigh to accompany the moustache losing its lustre and drooping whilst the last vestige of the glimmer of hope dies in his eyes and he bursts the treasured balloon he is holding by inadvertently over-squeezing it and have him sob through quivering lips as he stares through his tears at the bits of broken balloon in his trembling hands whilst the stem of the tall daisy-like flower that protrudes from the top of his bowler hat simultaneously wilts and then sheds its petals. One by one. 

Then... and only then, will the reader understand the degree of exasperation the Benji is suffering.

You could reinforce this with having all four wheels on his car collapse and his doors fall off in time with a loud backfire and loads of smoke. Just to be safe.

If the burn in his eyes was inflicted by stubbing the red end of a cigarette, then you'd really see the hurt in them.

So... what if the 'couple' in question are a couple of sheeps?

Quotes:

Somebody here once said (and I think it was Brosna/Nadine' of the old site), that 'very few Grammar Professors are ever published.'

I assume that to be true because her husband is a highly esteemed Grammar Professor and would know.

It's true that many of the most successful (monetarily) creative writers of this era (J.K Rowling, E.L James, Stephenie Meyer...) were not strict grammar correctness advocates within their bestselling products . Old school classics? The attributed quote of Mark Twain,  “I know grammar by ear only, not by note, not by the rules.”

Yes.

It is only right and proper that the, 'you need to learn the rules, before you can break the rules' axiom is trooped out to sit upon the fence at any discussion upon grammar variations or deviations within creative writing. No conversation upon the subject would be complete without it and we are well to be reminded.

However, the discussion here is more to do with the fact that correct grammar can often make prose within creative writing stiff and less eloquent.
I mean, in order to make creative writing a better reading experience the ‘advised best practice’ is against grammar in several respects. For example, ending sentences with prepositions isn't actually incorrect in grammar but it makes for inelegant writing. Similarly, Split Infinitives, Passive Voice, starting sentences with ‘And, or ‘But’ are actually perfectly acceptable within grammar. No law against them, but you wouldn’t want to write like that because it makes the writing appear unstylish and unprofessional.

What we are talking about here is why do we (or the majority of us) write ‘Who’ when the ‘who’ object is a preposition or an objective case and grammar law dictates we should actually be writing ‘Whom’

As with the eternal, ‘hanged’ VS ‘hung’ debate, so ‘the couple are sat upon the sofa’ VS ‘the couple is sat upon the sofa’.

Should we write the way we actually speak, or must we write the way we don’t speak?

Does grammar define the language or does language (eventually) define grammar (proven by international differences within 'English'  Grammar definitions) ?

Writing dialog is simple. Niles Crane speaks the same language very differently than Rocky Balboa. We can depict this. Narration is dialog too; the writers voice. Would I write (and expect to read) a different writing style within a romance novella than within an essay, an inventory or an affidavit?

Indeed. And that was the first part of my point.

In the course of everyday language (the way generally people speak) the word 'couple' whether plural or not, inherits the same turn of phrase. In my world I feel that more people would say,  'the couple are sitting by the fire' than would say 'the couple is sitting by the fire.'  whichever form is politically correct.

I prefer to read writing that sounds natural or enticing to my ear, even if it is not strictly grammatically correct. This is creative writing after all; not a legal document. If correct grammar is to be enforced, it would outlaw poetry and undermine many bestseller novels.