Search options (Page 160 of 165)

Hi, I have several words/phrases that I need to define in my book and am not sure what format is best.

1.) I have a cab driver who uses the Italian term Stronza as a curse word. One of my characters asks what it means. Currently the response is "It means bitch." I have the word "bitch" in italics without single quotes. Should it be italics or should I put the definition in single quotes. Also, should there be a colon after the word "means"?

2) (Similar to 1) Same driver uses hand gestures to insult vehicle occupants chasing him. When asked what the gesture means, he answers "It's an old Italian insult. It means your mother was inseminated by a Greek." I have "your mother was inseminated by a Greek" in italics, again without single quotes. Once more, should there be a colon after "means"?

3) I use the term AI throughout the book. It's a synonym for computer (e.g., the palace AI, personal AI, etc.). In Wikipedia, I found that artificial intelligence is always abbreviated as AI withough periods (i.e., not A.I.). AI without periods is also consistent with other abbreviations in my opening chapter, such as CO (commanding officer) and HQ (headquarters), neither of which is normally spelled with periods (i.e., not C.O., nor H.Q.).

These abbreviations all occur in the first chapter and is from a science fiction novel targetted at older teens and above. I would think readers of that age group would know what AI, CO, and HQ stand before, but maybe I'm wrong. One reviewer told me I should define all acronyms before using them, so I wrote:

     "Those cannons are three times as big as a supernova, admiral," the ships artificial intelligence system, or AI, responded.

Should AI be in italics when I define it in the example above?

4) I use the term "deep fryer" as a synonym for energy rifle (i.e., stormtrooper style blaster rifles). I have the sentence: The marines carried energy rifles, or deep fryers, and distributed them to the bridge crew.

5) I use the term Galaxinet and don't bother to define it, since it's pretty obvious what it is. I have many other words that I've made up (e.g., supernova, titan, annihilater, etc.) that the reader can generally understand from the context in which they are used. For example: "We count nine ships, Admiral. A new titan and eight battle cruisers." I later describe the titan so that it's obvious that it's the biggest/most powerful ship in the aforementioned fleet.

If I were to stop every time to explain what a word means it would come off as silly. However, as you can see, I sometimes use italics, sometines phrases like "or deep fryers", "or AI", etc., and other times I leave the reader to imagine it based on my descriptions rather than stopping to insert an explicit definitioin. The last approach seems like it would be preferable, but I can't always do it that way, as the examples above show.

Is there a standard way of handling these example?

Thanks.
Dirk

This is the new chapter 1 of version 3 of the book (technically, this is a prologue). If you haven't already read v3's Book Content Summary, please do so. It provides some useful information about the story and may help you decide if it's right for you. Please note that v3 is a separate book from v2 for technical reasons. My primary focus remains v2.

IMPORTANT CHANGES: This chapter includes a number of name changes compared to v2 to clean things up. Luna II is now called Neuer Mond since it's neutral territory (think Switzerland) and therefore shouldn't have an Imperial/Latin name. Similarly, a colossus (the largest Realm warship) is now called a dreadnaught, also to avoid the obvious Imperial/Latin connection. The opposite is true for behemoths, the largest Imperial warships - they're now called titans. For the same reason, Admiral Adalwulf is now Admiral Gaius Lupus. Incinerators (always hated that name) are now called supernovas for ship-mounted cannons, deep fryers for energy rifles, and light toasters for the handguns. :-)

FEEDBACK: Besides the usual, if anyone has the time, please nit my comma and paragraph usage with an inline review. I'd prefer to get this right up front, before I write a whole book full of errors.

Thanks.
Dirk

I've noticed a few different authors on the site using different rules to break up paragraphs, especially when it's mixed with dialogue. Following is from one of my chapters (with paragraph numbers for clarity):

     1. Next, Joseph exited the bathroom, set the weapon back to full power, and fired at the glass booth over the head of the remaining guard. It exploded in a shower of glass, momentarily stunning the guard. Joseph quickly reset the weapon to stun, then fired repeatedly at the man until he was sure this guard was unconscious as well. He called to his fellow slaves and said, “Everyone, Paul and I are leaving. If you want out of here, we can escort you.”
     2. Paul and the others came running.
     3. At Joseph’s direction, they carried the unconscious man into the bathroom, stripped both guards of their uniforms, and placed them in restraints. Joseph and Paul quickly put the uniforms on, grabbed the rifles, and led the others out of the warehouse. “Try not to act suspicious,” Joseph told everyone. “It’s a simple slave escort. Nothing more.”
     4. The group walked past multiple open warehouses where other guarded slaves loaded and unloaded ships.
     5. “So far, so good,” Joseph said.

Should the sentence in (1) starting with "He called to his fellow slaves..." be a separate paragraph? It's still a continuation of Joseph's actions. Does it come down to stylistic preference?

Same question for the dialogue in (3) that starts with "Try not to act suspicious..."

Should paragraphs (2) and (3) be combined? What about (4) and (5)?

I'd be interested in hearing as many opinions as possible.

Thanks.
Dirk