Individual Style VS Perfect Edits & the problem of AI.

[MillieDynamite]

Far be it from to be a contrarian, but, I'm gonna be. It was suggested that it is improper to begin sentences with And or But. This was true in the last century. The first half of the last century. Only in the minds of English teachers, not writers. But (see, I started with that word) it is no longer the case. And I have no less than Merriam Webster to back me up on that. Not the cute little negro child from the TV show of the same name (Webster, not Merriam).

What to Know
It's perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence with and (as well as doing so with words such as but or or). Using and at the beginning of a sentence has been a practice for over a thousand years.

Get the full story here ... Is it Ever Okay to Start a Sentence With 'And'?

 

[MillieDynamite]

Examples from published Literature

Hans Christian Andersen, "The Emperor's New Clothes":

'But the Emperor has nothing on at all!' cried a little child.

Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (1869):

But that vast portion, lastly, of the working-class which, raw and half-developed, has long lain half-hidden amidst its poverty and squalor, and is now issuing from its hiding-place to assert an Englishman's heaven-born privilege of doing as he likes, and is beginning to perplex us by marching where it likes, meeting where it likes, bawling what it likes, breaking what it likes—to this vast residuum we may with great propriety give the name of Populace.

Jane Austen, Northanger Abbey:

'And what are you reading, Miss —?' 'Oh! it is only a novel!' replies the young lady: while she lays down her book with affected indifference or momentary shame.

Francis Bacon, "Of Death":

And therefore death is no such terrible enemy, when a man hath so many attendants about him that can win the combat of him.

If those aren't good enough for you, I can put many more up for you to read.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I suppose I'm just piling on, since so many examples have already been provided. But when we are dispelling a persistent myth, there's no need to pull back any punches!

Here are 10 counterexamples breaking this so-called Tenth Commandment of Grammar; these authors would likely be considered "great writers" by most.

I. The Thirty Mile River was wide open. Its wild water defied the frost, and it was in the eddies only and in the quiet places that the ice held at all. Six days of exhausting toil were required to cover those thirty terrible miles. And terrible they were, for every foot of them was accomplished at the risk of life to dog and man. A dozen times, Perrault, nosing the way broke through the ice bridges, being saved by the long pole he carried, which he so held that it fell each time across the hole made by his body. But a cold snap was on, the thermometer registering fifty below zero, and each time he broke through he was compelled for very life to build a fire and dry his garments.
(Jack London, The Call of the Wild)

II. At first Bartleby did an extraordinary quantity of writing. As if long famishing for something to copy, he seemed to gorge himself on my documents. There was no pause for digestion. He ran a day and night line, copying by sun-light and by candle-light. I should have been quite delighted with his application, had he been cheerfully industrious. But he wrote on silently, palely, mechanically.
(H. Melville, Bartleby the Scrivener)

III. There was a piece of ornamental water immediately below the parapet, on the other side, into which Mr. James Harthouse had a very strong inclination to pitch Mr. Thomas Gradgrind junior, as the injured men of Coketown threatened to pitch their property into the Atlantic. But he preserved his easy attitude; and nothing more solid went over the stone balustrades than the accumulated rosebuds now floating about, a little surface-island.
(Dickens, Hard Times)

IV. Many days passed before we could speak to the Golden One again. But then came the day when the sky turned white, as if the sun had burst and spread its flame in the air, and the fields lay still without breath, and the dust of the road was white in the glow. So the women of the field were weary, and they tarried over their work, and they were far from the road when we came. But the Golden One stood alone at the hedge, waiting. We stopped and we saw that their eyes, so hard and scornful to the world, were looking at us as if they would obey any word we might speak.
(A. Rand, Anthem)

V. At the next corner she got out, of course; and as she had no more money, she had to walk the rest of the way to the yards in the pouring rain. And so all day long she sat shivering, and came home at night with her teeth chattering and pains in her head and back.
(Upton Sinclair, The Jungle)

VI. Men and women came to see her, met her down town, where she went to do her marketing, brought her home in their cars--and came in for a moment to talk and to rest, in the glamour that still played in her smile. But men who did not know her no longer followed her with admiring glances in the street; a diaphanous veil had come down over her beauty, destroying its vividness, yet bringing neither wrinkles nor fat.
(Fitzgerald, The Lees Of Happiness)

VII. About midnight, while we still sat up, the storm came rattling over the Heights in full fury. There was a violent wind, as well as thunder, and either one or the other split a tree off at the corner of the building: a huge bough fell across the roof, and knocked down a portion of the east chimney-stack, sending a clatter of stones and soot into the kitchen-fire. We thought a bolt had fallen in the middle of us; and Joseph swung on to his knees, beseeching the Lord to remember the patriarchs Noah and Lot, and, as in former times, spare the righteous, though he smote the ungodly. I felt some sentiment that it must be a judgment on us also. The Jonah, in my mind, was Mr. Earnshaw; and I shook the handle of his den that I might ascertain if he were yet living. He replied audibly enough, in a fashion which made my companion vociferate, more clamorously than before, that a wide distinction might be drawn between saints like himself and sinners like his master. But the uproar passed away in twenty minutes, leaving us all unharmed; excepting Cathy, who got thoroughly drenched for her obstinacy in refusing to take shelter, and standing bonnetless and shawl-less to catch as much water as she could with her hair and clothes.
(E. Bronte, Wuthering Heights)

VIII. It was nearly half-past twelve. He had just come back from church, hoarse and weary with preaching. He preached with fury, with passion, an iron man beating with a flail upon the souls of his congregation. But the souls of the faithful at Crome were made of india-rubber, solid rubber; the flail rebounded. They were used to Mr. Bodiham at Crome. The flail thumped on india-rubber, and as often as not the rubber slept.
(A. Huxley, Chrome Yellow)

IX. I drew a great security in this particular from her mere smooth aspect. There was nothing in her fresh face to pass on to others my horrible confidences. She believed me, I was sure, absolutely: if she hadn't I don't know what would have become of me, for I couldn't have borne the business alone. But she was a magnificent monument to the blessing of a want of imagination, and if she could see in our little charges nothing but their beauty and amiability, their happiness and cleverness, she had no direct communication with the sources of my trouble.
(Henry James, The Turn of the Screw)

X. "There's the scarlet thread of murder running through the colourless skein of life, and our duty is to unravel it, and isolate it, and expose every inch of it. And now for lunch, and then for Norman Neruda. Her attack and her bowing are splendid."
(Doyle, A Study in Scarlet)

 

[MillieDynamite]

The quotes provided in the two preceding posts were from...

What great writers have used coordinating conjunctions at the start of sentences?

 

[dmallord]

A man walks into a restaurant. He tells the staff "I'm allergic to seafood, so please don't give me any seafood." They say "okay", but they serve him a dish with crab meat in it. He gets violently ill, because he's allergic to seafood. His friend drops by to tell the staff "Now look at what you have done. Don't you think it's time you stopped serving seafood?"

A man walks into Harry's House of Seafood ("Serving Seafood Since Long Ago"). He tells the staff "I'd like some of your seafood!" They serve him a dish with crab meat in it. He gets violently ill, because he's allergic to seafood. His friend tells the staff "Now look at what you have done. Don't you think it's time you stopped serving seafood?"

A man who's not allergic to seafood walks into Harry's House of Seafood and tells the staff "I'd like some of your seafood!" They tell him "Sorry, we gave up serving seafood after we saw the destruction in our paths. How about a garden salad?"

Humous, it brought a smile to my face. Cleverly written. I get it. There is nothing wrong with a nice salad. After what happened in this thread, a salad would been better than losing a soul.

Awkward and Amen should not cut the soul out of a writer or deride them while standing up on their personal soapboxes and preaching to the masses about their personal beliefs in the guise of offering a review. That's bad service and eventually affects the draw of clientele, even when they aren't allergic, customers do not appreciate vitriol.

I'll have the tofu salad. At least I hope that is still on the menu.

 

[alohadave]

How about you stop sniping at them and just not submit stories to be reviewed by them if you have a problem with how they do it.

No one is forcing you to submit for review or even to read the thread if you don't like them.

 

[KeithD]

A man walks into a restaurant. He tells the staff "I'm allergic to seafood, so please don't give me any seafood." They say "okay", but they serve him a dish with crab meat in it. He gets violently ill, because he's allergic to seafood. His friend drops by to tell the staff "Now look at what you have done. Don't you think it's time you stopped serving seafood?"

A man walks into Harry's House of Seafood ("Serving Seafood Since Long Ago"). He tells the staff "I'd like some of your seafood!" They serve him a dish with crab meat in it. He gets violently ill, because he's allergic to seafood. His friend tells the staff "Now look at what you have done. Don't you think it's time you stopped serving seafood?"

A man who's not allergic to seafood walks into Harry's House of Seafood and tells the staff "I'd like some of your seafood!" They tell him "Sorry, we gave up serving seafood after we saw the destruction in our paths. How about a garden salad?"

A man walks into a restaurant wanting to order seafood and having seen a sign by the door that the restaurant had a great seafood chef. He orders an exotic fish meal that is delicious but that makes him keel over and die.
The autopsy shows that the fish was a rare, poisonous one.
A detective comes to the restaurant to speak with the famous seafood chef.
"The fish you served the man killed him. Who told you you were a great seafood chef.? asks the detective.
"It says so right on the sign by the door," says the chef. "And the man thanked me when I gave him the fish and gave me a smile right before he keeled over. Isn't that affirmation of what I provided him?"
The detective gives the chef a peculiar look and changes the subject. "Who put the sign there?"
"I did," says the chef.
"And putting a sign up made you a great seafood chef?" asks the detective. When the chef doesn't answer, the detective asks, "What cooking school did you go to?"
"None," says the erstwhile chef. "I'm a plumber. But I've eaten a lot of seafood myself, so I decided I was a chef, and all I needed to do was to put that sign out and the customers came in search of a great seafood meal."
"Any of them ask to see your cooking school diploma?"
"No. Why should they? There's a sign by the door that says I'm a great seafood chef."

 

[KeithD]

Awkward and Amen should not cut the soul out of a writer or deride them while standing up on their personal soapboxes and preaching to the masses about their personal beliefs in the guise of offering a review. That's bad service and eventually affects the draw of clientele, even when they aren't allergic, customers do not appreciate vitriol.

But they continually do, and the naive, starved for attention and the possibility of affirmation, eat it up.

 

[TheRedChamber]

A man walks into a restaurant wanting to order seafood and having seen a sign by the door that the restaurant had a great seafood chef. He orders an exotic fish meal that is delicious but that makes him keel over and die.
The autopsy shows that the fish was a rare, poisonous one.
A detective comes to the restaurant to speak with the famous seafood chef.
"The fish you served the man killed him. Who told you you were a great seafood chef.? asks the detective.
"It says so right on the sign by the door," says the chef. "And the man thanked me when I gave him the fish and gave me a smile right before he keeled over. Isn't that affirmation of what I provided him?"
The detective gives the chef a peculiar look and changes the subject. "Who put the sign there?"
"I did," says the chef.
"And putting a sign up made you a great seafood chef?" asks the detective. When the chef doesn't answer, the detective asks, "What cooking school did you go to?"
"None," says the erstwhile chef. "I'm a plumber. But I've eaten a lot of seafood myself, so I decided I was a chef, and all I needed to do was to put that sign out and the customers came in search of a great seafood meal."
"Any of them ask to see your cooking school diploma?"
"No. Why should they? There's a sign by the door that says I'm a great seafood chef."

I'm not going to strain the seafood analogy anymore. The first page of A&O's review thread covers pretty comprehensively what qualifications they have and includes comments by yourself and other posters still arguing here. Whatever happened, their stall was pretty neatly set out right from the beginning. Saying you need to be a professional critic to give criticism is equivalent to saying no-one will ever receive criticism on this site.

 

[dmallord]

I'm not going to strain the seafood analogy anymore. The first page of A&O's review thread covers pretty comprehensively what qualifications they have and includes comments by yourself and other posters still arguing here. Whatever happened, their stall was pretty neatly set out right from the beginning. Saying you need to be a professional critic to give criticism is equivalent to saying no-one will ever receive criticism on this site.

@KeithD's analogy did a good job on the detective 'Fish' story. Your comment missed the point. Let me try to refresh that.

I don't believe I stated anything about having to be a professional critic to be able to offer a critique. I've known many men and women who best professionals on some serious topics.

You can be upfront about the service you intend to provide - A&O, or as I call them, Awkward and Amen, hung out a shingle as critics, they didn't say they were professional status. No one expected them to be. Reading their thread shows some incitefulness, but it often smacks of callous insensitivity. That's the point, I believe you missed.

My objection is that what they offered in this scenario was poor conduct and poor judgment by any standard. No one should be pilloried, excoriated, and have the pair of them pontificate over the writer, attempting to force their precepts onto her as if they had every right to do so. Much of what was written had nothing to do with the writer. It was focused on the precepts of A&O. It was soapbox pedantry. And was exceptionally bad form, bad by 'professional' or 'moral' standards. It was - wrong.

 

[KeithD]

Saying you need to be a professional critic to give criticism is equivalent to saying no-one will ever receive criticism on this site.

OK, how many times have I pointed out that this isn't set up to be a critique site? This would be a good place to note that the mantra of the editorial profession is "First do no harm." Self-proclaiming yourself by hanging out an "open for business" sign does not, in itself, give you credentials for doing surgery on other people's babies. The current issue points out that this pair can't give a critique without asserting their own morality judgments on theme and content and that they can't even get some of the basic technicals right. Not receiving criticism on this site is better than receiving damaging opinion. So, yes, that's what I'm saying--in trying to protect the writers here.

IN ADDITION, no one has picked up on my comment that thrashing critique plastered on the board rather than sent privately is not constructive (as illustrated by the last couple of days here). You'd only do it to preen your own feathers.

 

[dmallord]

How about you stop sniping at them and just not submit stories to be reviewed by them if you have a problem with how they do it.

No one is forcing you to submit for review or even to read the thread if you don't like them.

To whom are you addressing this? Or is just tossed out into the air for anyone to grab and take aim?

My comments have nothing to do with being forced to submit anything. If you followed the various actions that precipitated my comments, you would know the actions of the AwkwardMd and her sidekick unfairly did damage to a writer by unloading their own baggage onto the writer in a very acquisitive manner. They need to know that. The writer has left the site over this treatment.

I read threads I don't always agree with. Some I ignore, as you suggest. This one, however, is egregious. So, I have put in my $0.02 worth of commentary to bring balance to this mess.

 

[alohadave]

To whom are you addressing this?

It's to you, I just didn't quote your post.

If you followed the various actions that precipitated my comments, you would know the actions of the AwkwardMd and her sidekick unfairly did damage to a writer by unloading their own baggage onto the writer in a very acquisitive manner. They need to know that.

I'm well aware of what happened, in what order.

The writer has left the site over this treatment.

Not according to her own words. Whether you believe her or not, I'll take what she stated publicly at face value.

So, I have put in my $0.02 worth of commentary to bring balance to this mess.

Yeah, I dispute that you've added any balance to this, and are in fact airing your own grievance with them.

 

[Omenainen]

Much of what was written had nothing to do with the writer.

The whole review has nothing to do with the writer and everything to do with the story being reviewed.

We’ve had a bunch of “I didn’t read the story, but” on our thread. This conversation is starting to sound a lot like “I didn’t read the story, and I didn’t even read the review, but…”

Read the story, read the review, tell us in our review thread which parts of the review you disagree with and why, and what points you would make instead.

You don’t want a review from us, don’t ask for one. You’re even welcome to warn others to not ask for one on account of us being amateurish assholes or whatever. Everybody wins when people only wanting positive feedback stay away from our thread and the ones wanting our feedback can ask for it.

 

[AwkwardMD]

To whom are you addressing this? Or is just tossed out into the air for anyone to grab and take aim?

My comments have nothing to do with being forced to submit anything. If you followed the various actions that precipitated my comments, you would know the actions of the AwkwardMd and her sidekick unfairly did damage to a writer by unloading their own baggage onto the writer in a very acquisitive manner. They need to know that. The writer has left the site over this treatment.

I read threads I don't always agree with. Some I ignore, as you suggest. This one, however, is egregious. So, I have put in my $0.02 worth of commentary to bring balance to this mess.

We live rent free in your head because you allow it. You should do something about that.

 

[TheRedChamber]

OK, how many times have I pointed out that this isn't set up to be a critique site? This would be a good place to note that the mantra of the editorial profession is "First do no harm." Self-proclaiming yourself by hanging out an "open for business" sign does not, in itself, give you credentials for doing surgery on other people's babies. The current issue points out that this pair can't give a critique without asserting their own morality judgments on theme and content and that they can't even get some of the basic technicals right. Not receiving criticism on this site is better than receiving damaging opinion. So, yes, that's what I'm saying--in trying to protect the writers here.

IN ADDITION, no one has picked up on my comment that thrashing critique plastered on the board rather than sent privately is not constructive (as illustrated by the last couple of days here). You'd only do it to preen your own feathers.

Reviewers are not editors. I agree that A&O could have dialed back the amount and the tone of what they said. They went at Emily hard, no doubt. However, I'd argue that having this kind of open criticism is useful for the board as a whole, even if you think this particular review was a misfire or mean-spirited. It allows other writers to look at a story, see what someone else has said about it, and see if there are lessons to be learned from their own writing. And frequently disagree completely with the reviewer. Sure, it can better to get some of this from beta readers before you publish, but its also not possible to open up the story to all interested people if you're doing it that way.

 

[Omenainen]

Far be it from to be a contrarian, but, I'm gonna be. It was suggested that it is improper to begin sentences with And or But.

This is not accurate in context of our review. Come take a look at the review and the story being reviewed before thinking, “what shitty reviewers to give grief over this!”

 

[Omenainen]

I see the way Emily writes as HER voice, HER style. It may nor be technically perfect by textbook standards, but it works for her.

Tying this all back to the original post. I don’t see the way Emily writes to be a case of personal style that should be encouraged. To me, that seems like saying “I like your style of having spinach on your teeth” or “that toilet paper looks really good on your shoe.” In my opinion, friends don’t let friends publish something like this. While I think everybody is responsible for who they listen to and what they publish, I think you haven’t done her any favors with this approach.

Seeing that the original post presents us in a way that makes it seem we criticize personal style for no reason, or nitpick the use of conjunctions, I encourage people to take a look at the story to see if they agree. You don’t need to read a lot, the first paragraph or two will do. Then do what you will with what you find. I, for one, have learned to not ask Djmac1031 to proofread my stories.

 

[dmallord]

We live rent free in your head because you allow it. You should do something about that.

That is exactly the type of comment I am discussing.

Don't flatter yourself. You are not living in my head. I wouldn't even consider renting you a space, so don't think your smirky comment holds any water for me. You have no sense of shame. I do ignore you - except in this case, when you violated someone well beyond your usual levels. That's the point. You trashed and burned a soul.

My last remark on this thread.

 

[CalebZhass]

How about you stop sniping at them and just not submit stories to be reviewed by them if you have a problem with how they do it.

No one is forcing you to submit for review or even to read the thread if you don't like them.

Taking offense in a harsh review, when we asked for one is... well... not entirely reasonable, but not unforgivable either. When one asks for a review, they don't necessarily ask to be demolished and the fact that "they asked for it" is just no excuse to be unnecessarily rude or cruel.

Sometimes that is not intended however and it is simply one's abrasive style showing through in the feedback, so I believe it is just as fair (and even desirable) to provide feedback on the feedback itself in these cases, so similar mishaps can be avoided in the future.

I'm not sure what actual words triggered this thread, but it is in general a good idea to not single out people in public. If some folks have personal issues, that's what private conversations are for. This sort of public trial by popular opinion rarely gets anywhere.

 

[CalebZhass]

Their style is well-known, yet writers still turn to them for marketing their goods. After all, bad advertising is still advertising; perhaps even more effective.

You can't walk out of the blacksmith's shop with a swollen hand and casually say, "Foolish me, I thought it was the goldsmith."

We don't easily take offense unless we choose to, to some extent. If someone hurls nonsensical insults our way, we either ignore or laugh. However, if there's a grain of truth behind the harsh words, that naturally stings, and that's just life. Adults should handle hurt like adults.

gosh i hate these arguments. Its prime examples of victim blaming. "You shouldn't be surprised to have been raped, going into that dark alley alone in your skimpy outfit."

That is what you just said there. I sure am not qualified to judge what happened, but I can tell now, this thread is not a solution. Initially I though this whole thread is about review practices sparked by some harsh reviews. Only this morning did I realize there was an interpersonal drama underneath it. I guess I was missing some context on the account of me being new here.

"Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words can't hurt me."
It is a lie. Words can and do hurt and they can cut deeper than any blade forged from even the finest steel. they cut into your heart and soul and that takes far longer to heal than our body and is far more likely to scar even after healing.

Worse yet, the wounds of the heart and soul are invisible, so you cannot tell how far someone is from breaking.
Never take it lightly how and what you say to someone as your words might be the last push they need to break for good and you'll never know

Anyway, if there is a drama, it is on those involved to sort it out and going before the court of public opinion will do nobody any good, other than inflate some EGOs.

I am sad to see yet another person burned by forum attitude (in general) and I can only hope the forum population can learn from that. :/

 

[onehitwanda]

Adults should handle hurt like adults.

Joined: Jan 2024

one could observe the irony of a clear forum regular with an opinion like that registering an anonymous alt purely, it seems, to wade in here.

 

[StillStunned]

When I was a much younger StillStunned, whenever my siblings and I fought, my mother would give us a few minutes before telling us to kiss and make up or she'd knock our heads together.

After all these decades, I'm beginning to understand how she felt.

 

[onehitwanda]

When I was a much younger StillStunned, whenever my siblings and I fought, my mother would give us a few minutes before telling us to kiss and make up or she'd knock our heads together.

After all these decades, I'm beginning to understand how she felt.

There's no realistic way to make people change their behaviour and opinions without it coming from within them.

Wisdom is just learning to accept this.

 

[StillStunned]

There's no realistic way to make people change their behaviour and opinions without it coming from within them.

Wisdom is just learning to accept this.

The threat of getting our heads knocked together was usually enough to make us stop behaving the way we were.