What's unique or different about your style?

[FeralSmile]

I had the phrase explained to me in the following way a few years ago.

If you are passing a fancy restaurant and see sign outside saying "This Friday is Dress Down Friday - no need to wear a tie." It is reasonable to assume that the restaurant has a rule about wearing ties the rest of the time. If the rule didn't exist, there would be no need to make an exception for it.

What's interesting about this approach is that it reverse-engineers the modern meaning of "prove" into the older saying. I.e. "The existence of an exception proves that there must be a rule; if there were no rule there could be no exception".

This is logical and valid and I like it, despite it also being a reinterpretation of the original meaning, which was more or less "exceptions poke and prod at rules to see how well the rules still hold up".

 

[XerXesXu]

"Prove" in that aphorism is an older version of the word, and doesn't mean "demonstrates the truth of" but rather "tests". That form of "prove" is largely gone in modern English, and survives in a handful of phrases like "proving grounds".

The exception TESTS the rule; it doesn't show that the rule is valid.

?? It shows there's no rule.

 

[FeralSmile]

?? It shows there's no rule.

Say what now?

The existence of exceptions doesn't mean the rules don't exist. See below for an example of an exception to a rule.

If you are passing a fancy restaurant and see sign outside saying "This Friday is Dress Down Friday - no need to wear a tie." It is reasonable to assume that the restaurant has a rule about wearing ties the rest of the time.

The dress code rule clearly still exists on every other day besides Dress Down Friday, as TheRedChamber noted.

 

[XerXesXu]

I had the phrase explained to me in the following way a few years ago.

If you are passing a fancy restaurant and see sign outside saying "This Friday is Dress Down Friday - no need to wear a tie." It is reasonable to assume that the restaurant has a rule about wearing ties the rest of the time. If the rule didn't exist, there would be no need to make an exception for it.

It never occurred to me that a native speaker of English, British English at that, wouldn't know the expression.

I took my wife to vote in the local elections in the Philippines yesterday. At the gate, the security guard said we couldn't enter because we were wearing shorts. I asked when it became necessary to wear trousers to vote; he said he was just following orders. We went home, changed, came back and entered, then sat in a room where many people in shorts were completing their voting slips. Is there a rule that you need to wear long trousers to vote?

 

[XerXesXu]

Say what now?

The existence of exceptions doesn't mean the rules don't exist. See below for an example of an exception to a rule.



The dress code rule clearly still exists on every other day besides Dress Down Friday, as TheRedChamber noted.

You'll probably find that they'll admit big spenders without ties on any day of the week. Fridays they try to draw in the riff-raff. It's a marketing ploy.

 

[FeralSmile]

You'll probably find that they'll admit big spenders without ties on any day of the week. Fridays they try to draw in the riff-raff. It's a marketing ploy.

And yet you'll agree, I think, that they do turn away SOME people because of the lack of a tie. The rule, however hypothetically porous, still exists.

It's not difficult to find less-porous examples though; rules that are actually enforced, with clear exceptions. If you park in a handicapped space and a police officer sees your car there, you'll likely get a ticket unless you have a handicapped plate or placard displayed. If you're driving considerably faster than the speed limit, law enforcement officers can and often will give you a speeding ticket, but they're less likely to do so if your speed matched other drivers around you.

Tickets for parking in handicapped spots and for speeding exist, despite the clear exceptions to those rules. Honest! I'm not making them up.

 

[TheRedChamber]

It never occurred to me that a native speaker of English, British English at that, wouldn't know the expression.

It's not so much that I didn't know the expression, it's more that people use it in situations where it makes no sense.

Them: 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.
Me: Well what about 'glacier' or 'height'?
Them: Well, the exception proves the rule.

When in truth that spelling rule just...isn't good. My above example was for an instance where you can reasonably use an exception to prove a rule, rather than just 'no, my rule is still right even though there are tons of exceptions'.

 

[XerXesXu]

And yet you'll agree, I think, that they do turn away SOME people because of the lack of a tie. The rule, however hypothetically porous, still exists.

It's not difficult to find less-porous examples though; rules that are actually enforced, with clear exceptions. If you park in a handicapped space and a police officer sees your car there, you'll likely get a ticket unless you have a handicapped plate or placard displayed. If you're driving considerably faster than the speed limit, law enforcement officers can and often will give you a speeding ticket, but they're less likely to do so if your speed matched other drivers around you.

Tickets for parking in handicapped spots and for speeding exist, despite the clear exceptions to those rules. Honest! I'm not making them up.

Ooops strikes again, and again, and again.

It means there is no rule as stated. The rule is that admission is at the premises owner's unfettered discretion. Stories on Lit are published entirely at the unfettered discretion of the site owners. They're not bound by their own rules, they're not subject to any law-giver who binds their discretion.

Do you think speed limits apply to police vehicles? They do. You don't have to infer a rule, you can look it up. There's a rule giver, and it's not the police. They enforce it at their discretion.

 

[XerXesXu]

It's not so much that I didn't know the expression, it's more that people use it in situations where it makes no sense.

Them: 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.
Me: Well what about 'glacier' or 'height'?
Them: Well, the exception proves the rule.

When in truth that spelling rule just...isn't good. My above example was for an instance where you can reasonably use an exception to prove a rule, rather than just 'no, my rule is still right even though there are tons of exceptions'.

I have no idea whether you're saying you understand what that common expression means, or that you don't.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I have no idea whether you're saying you understand what that common expression means, or that you don't.

People use it in situations where I understand what they mean, but what they mean is bullshit. (Or to raise a Vulcan eyebrow, 'highly illogical')
It can, very rarely, be used in a way which makes sense, as was pointed out to me a few years ago in my example.

 

[mirafrida]

The better alternative is "I'm a great guy." He smiled.

"Smiled" is not a tag. It's part of narrative.

Some may disagree, but this is a hill I die on. I hate this kind of dialogue writing. Hate it. To me, it's the number one sign of an amateurish writer.

Yikes - I never claimed much artistry for my stories, but I thought the basic mechanics were decent. Now it turns out I'm a number-one amateur!

I suppose broadly-speaking in life, I'm a person who struggles to understand meticulous rule-following. If I can read it with either a period or a comma, and understand it perfectly well either way, then why get hung up over it...?


EDIT: checking my latest story, maybe there is less of a Simon-Doom-amateurishness-quotient in it than I feared?
"XXX," he corrected...
"XXX," she continued...
"XXX," he rumbled...
"XXX," she soothed...
"XXX," he barked...
"XXX," she warned...
"XXX," he went on...
"XXX," she protested...
"XXX," he mumbled...
"XXX," she urged...
"XXX," he growled...
"XXX," she sighed...
"Excellent," he nodded...
"XXX," she groaned...
"Come," he led the way...
"XXX," she grunted...
"XXX," he hummed...
"XXX," her voice rang out...
"XXX," he directed...
"XXX," she muttered...
"XXX," he called...
"XXX," she boomed...
"XXX," he shouted...
"XXX," she commanded...
"XXX," his lips moved wordlessly...
"XXX," she beamed...
"XXX," his voice was slightly strangled...
"XXX," she gushed...

Still, I think I stand by them, each and every one

 

[ElectricBlue]

Yikes - I never claimed much artistry for my stories, but I thought the basic mechanics were decent. Now it turns out I'm a number-one amateur!

I suppose broadly-speaking in life, I'm a person who struggles to understand meticulous rule-following. If I can read it with either a period or a comma, and understand it perfectly well either way, then why get hung up over it...?


EDIT: checking my latest story, maybe there is less of a Simon-Doom-amateurishness-quotient in it than I feared?
"XXX," he corrected...
"XXX," she continued...
"XXX," he rumbled...
"XXX," she soothed...
"XXX," he barked...
"XXX," she warned...
"XXX," he went on...
"XXX," she protested...
"XXX," he mumbled...
"XXX," she urged...
"XXX," he growled...
"XXX," she sighed...
"Excellent," he nodded...
"XXX," she groaned...
"Come," he led the way...
"XXX," she grunted...
"XXX," he hummed...
"XXX," her voice rang out...
"XXX," he directed...
"XXX," she muttered...
"XXX," he called...
"XXX," she boomed...
"XXX," he shouted...
"XXX," she commanded...
"XXX," his lips moved wordlessly...
"XXX," she beamed...
"XXX," his voice was slightly strangled...
"XXX," she gushed...

Still, I think I stand by them, each and every one

My count was eight ate legit, either an okay speech tag or an okay action follow on. The rest, not so sure.

You're right to question those two - how can you say something with no words? And was he strangled or not? That's in the "little bit pregnant" school of thought, I'd say .

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The only ones that I take issue with are these ...

"XXX," her voice rang out...
"XXX," his lips moved wordlessly...
"XXX," his voice was slightly strangled...

Is the character talking or are the body parts functioning independently?

The rest are all fine.

 

[FeralSmile]

Ooops strikes again, and again, and again.

It means there is no rule as stated. The rule is that admission is at the premises owner's unfettered discretion. Stories on Lit are published entirely at the unfettered discretion of the site owners. They're not bound by their own rules, they're not subject to any law-giver who binds their discretion.

Do you think speed limits apply to police vehicles? They do. You don't have to infer a rule, you can look it up. There's a rule giver, and it's not the police. They enforce it at their discretion.

I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, here. Clearly there IS a rule against speeding, and you're enumerating exceptions as if those mean the rule doesn't exist. It does. It limits what's allowed, which is what rules do. The existence of exceptions doesn't mean the rules have no meaning at all and will never affect anyone at all.

 

[JohnSm123]

It's an excuse for you to give up. You've been encouraged by many people and you continue to act like this beta reader has any kind of power (and they do because you stopped writing because of their comment).

The beta reader is not writing the story, you are. Fuck them and fuck their opinion.

But I can't ignore the voice inside me that tells me that beta reader is right.

 

[JohnSm123]

Fuck, you can look up lists of Elven names or Klingon names ffs!

Actually, I used a name from a list of elven names too, but it was not medieval enough according to my beta reader and some other people.

 

[XerXesXu]

I feel like you're arguing for the sake of arguing, here. Clearly there IS a rule against speeding, and you're enumerating exceptions as if those mean the rule doesn't exist. It does. It limits what's allowed, which is what rules do. The existence of exceptions doesn't mean the rules have no meaning at all and will never affect anyone at all.

No. I'm simply saying that the aphorism means what it's always meant. I find the argument that it means what it's always meant, and also it's contrary, bizarre.

'A' proposes a rule exists. 'B' demonstrates that there are exceptions which disprove the rule. 'C' argues that the fact that 'B' could disprove the rule proves that the rule must exist because if it didn't 'B' couldn't disprove it. Think in terms of 'null hypotheses'; if a test of the hypothesis results in its rejection, does that prove the null hypothesis is true? It seems to me that's your position.

The aphorism is an invitation to re-examine and introduce a new, improved rule, or new, improved null hypothesis which may have truth value.

 

[FeralSmile]

'A' proposes a rule exists. 'B' demonstrates that there are exceptions which disprove the rule. 'C' argues that the fact that 'B' could disprove the rule proves that the rule must exist because if it didn't 'B' couldn't disprove it. Think in terms of 'null hypotheses'; if a test of the hypothesis results in its rejection, does that prove the null hypothesis is true? It seems to me that's your position.

Not remotely. But "this is the general rule and there are exceptions" (which is how every rule and law in the history of mankind has worked) is not somehow disproven by finding exceptions. Honestly, this line of argumentation is tiresome.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. They are carved out of the logic behind the rule. Is this truly confusing? You cannot park in a handicapped space without risking a ticket, UNLESS you are displaying a plate or placard that shows you are handicapped.

Have you ever played "Simon says"? If the caller says "Simon says" then you should follow the rule. If they do not, you should not. This is internally consistent and fairly simple logic.

Or to return to the previous examples: you cannot drive faster than the speed limit without risking a ticket, unless you are traveling as fast as a lot of other vehicles, or you are an emergency vehicle or someone who the police will choose not to prosecute. That doesn't somehow magically invalidate the entire idea of speeding tickets. This whole argument of yours seems to rest on the idea that exceptions exist therefore there is ALWAYS a way around rules. There isn't.

Speeding tickets do in fact exist. You're arguing that they cannot. Exceptions notwithstanding, tickets are still a part of life.

You seem clever enough that I'm wondering if your refusal to engage with reality is simple trolling. I've humored you enough.

 

[XerXesXu]

Not remotely. But "this is the general rule and there are exceptions" (which is how every rule and law in the history of mankind has worked) is not somehow disproven by finding exceptions. Honestly, this line of argumentation is tiresome.

Exceptions do not disprove the rule. They are carved out of the logic behind the rule. Is this truly confusing? You cannot park in a handicapped space without risking a ticket, UNLESS you are displaying a plate or placard that shows you are handicapped.

Have you ever played "Simon says"? If the caller says "Simon says" then you should follow the rule. If they do not, you should not. This is internally consistent and fairly simple logic.

Or to return to the previous examples: you cannot drive faster than the speed limit without risking a ticket, unless you are traveling as fast as a lot of other vehicles, or you are an emergency vehicle or someone who the police will choose not to prosecute. That doesn't somehow magically invalidate the entire idea of speeding tickets. This whole argument of yours seems to rest on the idea that exceptions exist therefore there is ALWAYS a way around rules. There isn't.

Speeding tickets do in fact exist. You're arguing that they cannot. Exceptions notwithstanding, tickets are still a part of life.

You seem clever enough that I'm wondering if your refusal to engage with reality is simple trolling. I've humored you enough.

You're correct, I'm clever enough to understand well-established English aphorisms. Perhaps that's something you should consider.

Meanwhile,you probably have something to contribute to this thread:
https://forum.literotica.com/thread...ould-care-less-or-figurative-literal.1597447/

 

[FeralSmile]

You're correct, I'm clever enough to understand well-established English aphorisms. Perhaps that's something you should consider.

Meanwhile,you probably have something to contribute to this thread:
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/latest-language-perversions-à-la-could-care-less-or-figurative-literal.1597447/

I have, thanks.

 

[SimonDoom]

Yikes - I never claimed much artistry for my stories, but I thought the basic mechanics were decent. Now it turns out I'm a number-one amateur!

I suppose broadly-speaking in life, I'm a person who struggles to understand meticulous rule-following. If I can read it with either a period or a comma, and understand it perfectly well either way, then why get hung up over it...?


EDIT: checking my latest story, maybe there is less of a Simon-Doom-amateurishness-quotient in it than I feared?
"XXX," he corrected...
"XXX," she continued...
"XXX," he rumbled...
"XXX," she soothed...
"XXX," he barked...
"XXX," she warned...
"XXX," he went on...
"XXX," she protested...
"XXX," he mumbled...
"XXX," she urged...
"XXX," he growled...
"XXX," she sighed...
"Excellent," he nodded...
"XXX," she groaned...
"Come," he led the way...
"XXX," she grunted...
"XXX," he hummed...
"XXX," her voice rang out...
"XXX," he directed...
"XXX," she muttered...
"XXX," he called...
"XXX," she boomed...
"XXX," he shouted...
"XXX," she commanded...
"XXX," his lips moved wordlessly...
"XXX," she beamed...
"XXX," his voice was slightly strangled...
"XXX," she gushed...

Still, I think I stand by them, each and every one

I'll try to be clearer. These aren't "rules" like 2+2= 4, or "3 hour parking limit." Writing doesn't work that way. "Rules" of writing and grammatical "rules" accumulate over time and often have little to do with logic. They work because we all know what they are, so when we follow them we communicate to others more effectively.

Most professional editors of fiction would tell you that if you were doing a lot of what you've described above, you are doing far too much of it. Don't take my word for it. You can find tons of commentary online or in easily obtained books on writing that say much the same thing. That doesn't mean you can NEVER do it. Again, "rules" of writing don't work that way. But if you check out most esteemed published fiction, they keep this sort of thing to a relative minimum.

There are several distinctive problems highlighted with the examples you've given of this sort of thing. For instance, with your example, "Come," he led the way. The problem is that if the character says "Come" you don't need to say led the way. That's what "come" is for. It's duplicative. Your "tag" is stepping on the words of the dialogue. Just say "said." Also "he led the way" is narrative, and the correct thing is to separate the dialogue from the narrative with a period, not a comma. "Come," he said and led the way.

The examples of "protested," "corrected," "directed," and "commanded" are similar. Presumably, if your dialogue in each case is effective, then it will be clear from the words alone that the speaker is protesting, correcting, directing, and commanding. The use of these words is superfluous. These tags add nothing, and they're all longer than "said." Just use "said," the word that most simply and clearly conveys what you mean without duplicating the dialogue words.

In your "his lips moved wordlessly" you have literally contradicted yourself. If the lips moved wordlessly, then obviously no dialogue came out, so what does this mean? It's confusing. It's an example of getting caught up in the sound of words and ignoring what they are communicating, which in this case is incomprehensible.

It can also seem contrived after a while, like the author is trying too hard to spice up every single tag rather than taking the simple route, and simplicity, more often than not, is a virtue in writing. That's how it comes across to me, and that's what I mean when I say that a lot of this kind of thing makes writing sound amateurish. The pros, most of the time, do not write this way.

Some are OK, because they denote a particular way of uttering something, like "shouted," "growled," "mumbled." But what does it mean to "beam" dialogue? It's literally something you cannot do. Put a period between the dialogue and the narrative. "Hello, John!" She beamed. It makes more sense. Same thing with "her voice rang out." You're mixing up the conventions for tags and narrative. I think any professional editor would tell you exactly the same thing I'm telling you. This is Literotica. Do you have to write the way authors in the world of published fiction write? No. There's no law against writing this way. But I think most knowledgeable, discriminating readers would tell you the same thing I am.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

There are several distinctive problems highlighted with the examples you've given of this sort of thing. For instance, with your example, "Come," he led the way. The problem is that if the character says "Come" you don't need to say led the way. That's what "come" is for. It's duplicative. Your "tag" is stepping on the words of the dialogue. Just say "said." Also "he led the way" is narrative, and the correct thing is to separate the dialogue from the narrative with a period, not a comma. "Come," he said and led the way.

With this particular one, what Mira is trying to do is make it more than just dialogue, she is trying to add imagery to make the scene more immersive. This is a good thing. I wouldn't do it to every line of the banter, as that would bog down the flow. However, I would have worded it as ...

"Come," he gestured.

or ...

"Come," he gestured to follow.

This is perfectly fine as the gesture is body language that accompanies the word and is indeed part of the communication.

Tags are still verbs and if you use the same 'said' every time, it will be monotonous. Every now and then you need a synonym, and why not one that takes poetic license (like smiled)?

And let's not forget another technique that I use often and that is to omit the tag completely. If it is obvious who is speaking, you don't need a 'she said' at all. If I have two people alternating banter, I only tag or describe the first couple and then every fourth or fifth line just so that the reader doesn't lose the place.

 

[SimonDoom]

With this particular one, what Mira is trying to do is make it more than just dialogue, she is trying to add imagery to make the scene more immersive. This is a good thing. I wouldn't do it to every line of the banter, as that would bog down the flow. However, I would have worded it as ...

"Come," he gestured.

or ...

"Come," he gestured to follow.

This is perfectly fine as the gesture is body language that accompanies the word and is indeed part of the communication.

Tags are still verbs and if you use the same 'said' every time, it will be monotonous. Every now and then you need a synonym, and why not one that takes poetic license (like smiled)?

And let's not forget another technique that I use often and that is to omit the tag completely. If it is obvious who is speaking, you don't need a 'she said' at all. If I have two people alternating banter, I only tag or describe the first couple and then every fourth or fifth line just so that the reader doesn't lose the place.

Tastes are different. I would never, ever write "Come," he gestured. You can't gesture the word "come," and "gesture" doesn't mean anything. How did he gesture? What does that look like? It doesn't sound like anything. I think this is vague and imprecise writing, and I think most editors would agree.

I would say something like:

"Come." He beckoned me with his hand.

 

[mirafrida]

Yes, I'm beating this horse. I'm #$@#ing well beating it

Here are some ???s from (my fellow "number-one amateur author"?) Charles Dickens in the first several chapters of Great Expectations

"XXX," he pleaded...
"XXX," she pursued...
"XXX," he faltered...
"XXX," she interposed...
"XXX," he told...
"XXX," she returned...
"XXX," he assented...
"XXX," were her first words...
"XXX," and he made an emphatic swing...
"XXX," she tapped the bar after every word...
"XXX," he sank his voice to a whisper...
"XXX," she resumed...
"XXX," he politely hinted...
"XXX," in a tone of deepest reproach...
"XXX," and the window was shut again...
"XXX," she went on...
"XXX," he repeated...
"XXX," she stammered...
"XXX," and took me to another part of the house...
"XXX," he retorted...
"XXX," she resumed...
"That will be his place - there," striking the table with her stick...
"this heap of decay," stabbing with her stick...
"XXX," he echoed...
"XXX," she growled...

granted he does have a higher proportion of "saids" than I do

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes, I'm beating this horse. I'm #$@#ing well beating it

Here are some ???s from (my fellow "number-one amateur author"?) Charles Dickens in the first several chapters of Great Expectations

"XXX," he pleaded...
"XXX," she pursued...
"XXX," he faltered...
"XXX," she interposed...
"XXX," he told...
"XXX," she returned...
"XXX," he assented...
"XXX," were her first words...
"XXX," and he made an emphatic swing...
"XXX," she tapped the bar after every word...
"XXX," he sank his voice to a whisper...
"XXX," she resumed...
"XXX," he politely hinted...
"XXX," in a tone of deepest reproach...
"XXX," and the window was shut again...
"XXX," she went on...
"XXX," he repeated...
"XXX," she stammered...
"XXX," and took me to another part of the house...
"XXX," he retorted...
"XXX," she resumed...
"That will be his place - there," striking the table with her stick...
"this heap of decay," stabbing with her stick...
"XXX," he echoed...
"XXX," she growled...

granted he does have a higher proportion of "saids" than I do

I couldn't find my copy of Great Expectations, so I perused my copy of David Copperfield instead.

Dickens uses these kinds of phrases, but most of the time he uses "said." So his writing is not an argument for substantially replacing "said" with more high-sounding or colorful substitutes. Nevertheless, he does write this way a lot. Keep in mind that 19th-century fiction style is not usually considered the template for writing fiction now, and if you try to write in Dickens's style your writing will sound archaic. But I love Dickens and think he's masterful with words. If you like the idea of writing this way, then I don't think anybody can give you an absolute "no!" but I would use this style sparingly, and carefully think through every usage to make sure you aren't creating the "lips moving wordlessly" or "beamed" problems. I don't think even the most fervent appeal to Dickens as a model warrants those two uses.

The idea of "showing not telling" is a stronger value in fiction today than it was then, and I think it's sound. When you follow dialogue with lots of fancy tag words, to me it's like you don't trust your dialogue and you are substituting telling for showing. But many of these choices come down to judgment calls.

It's also perfectly legitimate to do away tags altogether if the meaning is still clear, and Dickens does this as well.