Search options (Page 25 of 30)

burnt vs. burned and -ise vs. -ize are not really (arbitrary) spelling differences but regional dialect differences: the words are usually pronounced differently (consider British ad-ver'tise-ment (-tis-) v. American ad'-ver-tise'-ment (-tize-).

There should have been a line of English spelling reformers after  Noah Webster having the common sense, at the very least, to have taken the -u- out of -our, and reversing -re to -er which has always been more than eccentric about British English speakers after the 18th century --  they should have held on to idiotic spelling habits. It's difficult enough to have multiple ways to spell what is phonetically alike, jale and jail and jael but gaol?  There is no other word in English that begins with ga-, pronounced jay, and my stab-in-the-dark reason why British English kept with gaol is the word origin in Norman French and therefore for reason of class distinction, as ceiling was for the inside manor roof  and veal  was for the lord of the manor's calf.

can be amusing sometimes; "Got a rubber?"; "I'm fagged out, mate!"

Baiting someone to argue with you is not in keeping with the twice stated intent of this thread.  As  the one who unintentionally took this to a tone in a different direction because my instinct is always to bring to mind the other side of an issue -- that what is a "good" feature of the new TNBW can be used as a "bad" feature in another way. I apologize to Janet R for having done that.  On the bright side, my niece has not quite got to the point where she will put the crazy uncle in the attic.

It is more than giving an unwelcome review (that can be made to disappear). Is it a proper NTBW attitude to un-welcome anyone who will give needling advice?  Is it proper NTBW attitude to ostracize someone who has had a vociferous (but still not crossing lines) confrontation  with someone else? [1]  I presume that is your reasoning to justify blocking someone from reading your work who never has had any contact with you.

Kittens/genocide  provides a kind of extent of "needling" advice/critique at both ends.  If a piece offers up love of kittens and the reviewer replies with a rejection of kittens, how exactly should the author respond?  Blocking the guy?  Really?  On the other hand, if a piece offers up love of genocide and the reviewer replies with a rejection of genocide, how is the author of the type who favors genocide going to respond? Blocking.  It may be understandable but is it justifiable?

[1] It is sensible to me to seek an opinion from an opinionated person, and in some ways even better, from an opinionated person with an opposite opinion.  But there, the polar extremes of the kitten/genocide reviewer won't work, though.

Well then, critiquing a blank page suits your purpose perfectly. No spelling, grammar,or punctuation errors there.

Bad ideas can only be expressed poorly. This is more obvious in non-fiction than fiction but for the latter it is true but usually hidden, perhaps even unknowingly by the author who may be "educated" in bad ideas and does not know better.

One could not have made Herr Hitler's writing better, and it is certainly a moral error to critique Mein Kampf only on the basis of his turgid and impenetrable style, and Steinbeck's content problem is an issue even if expression of that content into language by grammar, spelling and punctuation is not.

So, your point would be that sometimes an author needs neither italics nor tag?  It works in the above example because of the "He dismissed . . ." portion. If the paragraph ended with "... nottin' alike" I think a tag is necessary. Otherwise, with or without italics, it is too abrupt. Making sure the omniscient narrator's voice is different than the MC's voice is a different issue.  As a rule, if not written in 1st person limited (which is limiting) I think a worse story is one which has the same style of language throughout, very short stories and memoirs excepted.

I think the discussion following is good to look through, too.

Is Wool by Hugh Howey the sort of thing to emulate with the limited 3rd person?  I found that story a good short story/novella but an awful novel for the reason of so little material in so many words.

How is: "I am a fat, bald 75-year-old man, and I like to shoot stray cats with arrows," allowing you to feel a part of the story? Or, for that matter, "I'm a gorgeous, independently wealthy woman with two lovely children and a caring, thoughtful husband" ?

A short introduction, to set the theme and tone of the entire story,  not sequential in time, perhaps.  The movie American Sniper has a kind of prologue with him taking aim in Iraq - - then flashback  up to that same scene, and then the story progresses sequentially with inclusion of new flashbacks of his meeting his future wife, etc.  This sort of thing has become more common in movies and TV, and  I find it a little annoying, though not so much in that movie because it is non-fiction and I was familiar with the story. I also think flashbacks are easier to bear in movies than in novels.

Yes, but . . .  prologue as a flashback is a different animal, just like a forward/introduction, as Janet points out, is not a prologue either.  If it is to recap the story in a series, that is one thing, but to start a story with a flashback is a bad idea. They've been doing that a lot in TV and it doesn't play well, and for the most part, the flashback deserves the bad rep it gets. I'm struggling to limit flashbacks in the sequel to my book (Remembrances . . . ) that was all flashbacks (and false memories). I may have permanently damaged my narrative technique that should be linear and unambiguous unless one is deliberately trying to effect a different, non-traditional (i.e., non-commerical) style like I was doing in Remembrances . . .