Dialogue vs. Narrative

[tootallday]

I can understand using dialogue as a means to indicate the level of education (without having to explain it) of the various protagonists in your stories. But when you write the narrative portions of your story and illustrate for us all how much of your education in the good use of the English language you have chosen to disregard, I sometimes have to force myself to continue reading what is a good story. When I read narrative which follows standard rules of acceptable English, I find the journey through the story smooth and pleasurable. When I come across narrative such as,

"I stayed with a friend for awhile, but didn't feel comfortable imposing on he and his wife."

Strange divisions of acceptable compound words which, in some cases, actually change what was originally intended to be the meaning. Such as, "over hauled (hauled too many times?)" when it's clear the intent was "overhauled."

The continued ignorance about the correct word (its & it's), (there, their, & they're), "She went to town with Jane and I" (should be Jane and me).

Months ago, I offered to help edit stories. Two people responded and each sent me a message--it sounded like each wanted to give me a reply. I replied back...

And my message got swallowed by the great whale, never to be heard from again.

I continue to read the newer stories. But it's (not its) amazing how my interest has waned as I realize that most of the "authors" just don't give a shit.

 

[sr71plt]

Much of narrative (in fact it's very popular in the U.S. market now) is written in the voice of a character, though. You're excluding that, right?

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... Months ago, I offered to help edit stories. Two people responded and each sent me a message--it sounded like each wanted to give me a reply. I replied back...

And my message got swallowed by the great whale, never to be heard from again. ...

It happens. However, I wonder if you might have had a better response if you had replied forward rather than "replied back".

... I continue to read the newer stories. But it's (not its) amazing how my interest has waned as I realize that most of the "authors" just don't give a shit.

The majority of stories here are intended solely as material to help the less potent to masturbate. As such, grammar and orthography are not foremost in the authors' minds.

 

[slowrimmer]

And others, granted, maybe only a few of us, are here to learn what we didn't at school.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

My Two Cents

And others, granted, maybe only a few of us, are here to learn what we didn't at school.

LOL, isn't this the truth? I hated English grammar, never saw a reason to have to learn all those rules, did poorly as a student so I opted out and took vo-tech instead. Now I wish I had learned... not that the vo-tech route did not serve me well.

I invite you to look at any of mine. I have received feedback that many readers appreciate my writing style and I do take pride in what, and how, I craft my stories. I will admit my more recent ones are better than my earlier ones as I have learned much through practice.

If you are serious about editing, why not post as to your availability in the editors thread? This would be my recommendation.

 

[bronzeage]

I can understand using dialogue as a means to indicate the level of education (without having to explain it) of the various protagonists in your stories. But when you write the narrative portions of your story and illustrate for us all how much of your education in the good use of the English language you have chosen to disregard, I sometimes have to force myself to continue reading what is a good story. When I read narrative which follows standard rules of acceptable English, I find the journey through the story smooth and pleasurable. When I come across narrative such as,

"I stayed with a friend for awhile, but didn't feel comfortable imposing on he and his wife."

Strange divisions of acceptable compound words which, in some cases, actually change what was originally intended to be the meaning. Such as, "over hauled (hauled too many times?)" when it's clear the intent was "overhauled."

The continued ignorance about the correct word (its & it's), (there, their, & they're), "She went to town with Jane and I" (should be Jane and me).

Months ago, I offered to help edit stories. Two people responded and each sent me a message--it sounded like each wanted to give me a reply. I replied back...

And my message got swallowed by the great whale, never to be heard from again.

I continue to read the newer stories. But it's (not its) amazing how my interest has waned as I realize that most of the "authors" just don't give a shit.

I think you are being unduly harsh. Most of the authors with whom I worked, wanted very much to write a story with proper grammar. The people who post on Lit are by definition, "amateurs". I do not expect them to produce English major grade prose. These things are easy for a patient editor.

When a story is written in first person, the reader can assume it is in character and is listening to the writer's natural speech. Natural speech is a matter of style, not spelling or grammar.

There are some places where a person can say, "If'in I tells you I is gwine do sum'um, you bess believe you gwine seen it done," and everyone in earshot understands exactly what he said. Putting this kind of speech into text is difficult because it has its own rules. A true understanding of English grammer (and other languages) allows an editor to see the rules of non-standard speech.

If your exchanges with Lit authors took the tone of your post, I am not surprised few responded.

 

[tootallday]

I did post an invitation to be an editor, and I've already written about the response. Another person who responded to this post saying, "When a story is written in first person, the reader can assume it is in character and is listening to the writer's natural speech. Natural speech is a matter of style, not spelling or grammar."

I can't agree. When I'm reading what is essentially someone's thoughts (since it's written in first person), the thoughts do not contain misspelling or the misuse of a homonym. Here's an example of a narrative I just pulled from a story by The Wanderer. "I don't suppose the idea of getting caught ever entered they're heads." In his head, he truly meant "their," the meaning is clear. He should have used the correct word--after all, he thought the correct word.

 

[slowrimmer]

I did post an invitation to be an editor, and I've already written about the response. Another person who responded to this post saying, "When a story is written in first person, the reader can assume it is in character and is listening to the writer's natural speech. Natural speech is a matter of style, not spelling or grammar."

I can't agree. When I'm reading what is essentially someone's thoughts (since it's written in first person), the thoughts do not contain misspelling or the misuse of a homonym. Here's an example of a narrative I just pulled from a story by The Wanderer. "I don't suppose the idea of getting caught ever entered they're heads." In his head, he truly meant "their," the meaning is clear. He should have used the correct word--after all, he thought the correct word.

Well fair point. But how fast were they typing, spell check wouldn't pick it up, grammar check might. Mine doesn't. And its an easy edit.

ps no idea what an homonym is. Don't mind admitting it. But how can I deliberately misuse it if I don't know what it is?

 

[sr71plt]

I can't agree. When I'm reading what is essentially someone's thoughts (since it's written in first person), the thoughts do not contain misspelling or the misuse of a homonym. Here's an example of a narrative I just pulled from a story by The Wanderer. "I don't suppose the idea of getting caught ever entered they're heads." In his head, he truly meant "their," the meaning is clear. He should have used the correct word--after all, he thought the correct word.

Ah, I was afraid that's what you were saying. Why would a person be any different educated in their thoughts than in their spoken language? Your position doesn't make any sense.

Please cite a publishing-style authority a little better than your personal opinion.

That said, in writing there should be a compromise between truly authentic speech patterns and standard English. The point is to give flavor to establish the character, not to make the reader struggle with a totally alien language.

I'd counsel not putting out a shingle as an editor until you are ground in recognized authorities, not just your personal opinions. This would be destructive to anyone you were "editing" for.

 

[tootallday]

If you really wanted to improve, you would look "homonym" up in the dictionary or on-line. Since looking things up to improve yourself is not part of your "gain knowledge" arsenal, I'll help you this once.

Homonym: One of two or more words that have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning, such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept). Also its & it's; their, there, & they're; peace & piece; etc.

 

[tootallday]

Ah, I was afraid that's what you were saying. Why would a person be any different educated in their thoughts than in their spoken language? Your position doesn't make any sense.

Please cite a publishing-style authority a little better than your personal opinion.

That said, in writing there should be a compromise between truly authentic speech patterns and standard English. The point is to give flavor to establish the character, not to make the reader struggle with a totally alien language.

I'd counsel not putting out a shingle as an editor until you are ground in recognized authorities, not just your personal opinions. This would be destructive to anyone you were "editing" for.

You don't seem to understand my point. The writer, in the example I offered, knew what he meant. He meant "their." When reading dialogue, I can expect to "hear" bad grammar, but I don't expect to "hear" bad spelling. It disrupts the smooth flow of the text. There is no excuse for that other than the lack of a qualified editor.

 

[sr71plt]

You don't seem to understand my point. The writer, in the example I offered, knew what he meant. He meant "their." When reading dialogue, I can expect to "hear" bad grammar, but I don't expect to "hear" bad spelling. It disrupts the smooth flow of the text. There is no excuse for that other than the lack of a qualified editor.

The point I read you trying to make is that even in the first-person narrative, the character could speak with "off" grammar but couldn't think with "off" grammar. To the extent that's what you are saying, I'm saying that doesn't make sense. The character is the character; the character wouldn't think in better grammar than they spoke and stay in character.

If you mean something else, you've lost me.

And what you "expect" to hear isn't something you want to impose on an author you are editing unless you have some authoritative style guidance to back you up. What is it it?

I agree that this doesn't really apply with homonyms, though (but this would be the case with homonyms no matter where they were found), so if you agree with what I posted about first-person narrative and consistency in both speech and thoughts, there's no disagreement.

 

[bronzeage]

I did post an invitation to be an editor, and I've already written about the response. Another person who responded to this post saying, "When a story is written in first person, the reader can assume it is in character and is listening to the writer's natural speech. Natural speech is a matter of style, not spelling or grammar."

I can't agree. When I'm reading what is essentially someone's thoughts (since it's written in first person), the thoughts do not contain misspelling or the misuse of a homonym. Here's an example of a narrative I just pulled from a story by The Wanderer. "I don't suppose the idea of getting caught ever entered they're heads." In his head, he truly meant "their," the meaning is clear. He should have used the correct word--after all, he thought the correct word.

We had the homonym discussion last week. Their and they're are homophones. A bear to great to bear, would be an example of a homonym.

The job of an editor is to make a story clear and readable. This means finding errors, whether from inattention or ignorance, and correcting.

When and editor goes beyond this, we risk errant pedantry.

 

[sr71plt]

We had the homonym discussion last week. Their and they're are homophones. A bear to great to bear, would be an example of a homonym.

Thanks. It's true that I don't know homonyms from homophones from homo sapiens. I came at editing from the "what to do when you see it" angle rather than the grammar class sentence diagraming aspect--when, of course, it's best to learn it from both angles.

 

[tootallday]

The point I read you trying to make is that even in the first-person narrative, the character could speak with "off" grammar but couldn't think with "off" grammar. To the extent that's what you are saying, I'm saying that doesn't make sense. The character is the character; the character wouldn't think in better grammar than they spoke and stay in character.

If you mean something else, you've lost me.

And what you "expect" to hear isn't something you want to impose on an author you are editing unless you have some authoritative style guidance to back you up. What is it it?

I agree that this doesn't really apply with homonyms, though (but this would be the case with homonyms no matter where they were found), so if you agree with what I posted about first-person narrative and consistency in both speech and thoughts, there's no disagreement.

I can agree with most of what you said in that last post, but you have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me offer you another example by the same author:

"Martin and I were marred a year after we met. Martin unlike me, was very cleaver and had a really good job in his fathers business."

I placed this in quotes, although it appears as narrative in the story. I count four obvious, and inexcusable, errors. As a "guru", can you spot them? This from a story allegedly "fixed" by two "editors". Is this what passes for correct work? Should I expect, because this is a porn site, not to encounter any standard of quality?

How about this beauty from the same story: " Samantha and her husband two name just two."

Is this acceptable editing? Give me a break!

 

[bronzeage]

Thanks. It's true that I don't know homonyms from homophones from homo sapiens. I came at editing from the "what to do when you see it" angle rather than the grammar class sentence diagraming aspect--when, of course, it's best to learn it from both angles.

When reading your post, I saw my own homophone, to, written for too.

This is leading to homophobia.

 

[bronzeage]

I can agree with most of what you said in that last post, but you have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me offer you another example by the same author:

"Martin and I were marred a year after we met. Martin unlike me, was very cleaver and had a really good job in his fathers business."

I placed this in quotes, although it appears as narrative in the story. I count four obvious, and inexcusable, errors. As a "guru", can you spot them? This from a story allegedly "fixed" by two "editors". Is this what passes for correct work? Should I expect, because this is a porn site, not to encounter any standard of quality?

How about this beauty from the same story: " Samantha and her husband two name just two."

Is this acceptable editing? Give me a break!

I wood want my money back.

 

[tootallday]

I wood want my money back.

Since we've gone beyond the subject into the subtle, but real, differences between homonym and homophone, (not to mention homograph and disregarding homophobe) may I ask your expert opinion on the following.

When you capitalize the word "polish", not only does the meaning change, the pronunciation changes as well (or too). This has been said to be the only word in English where this happens. Are these two words homonyms, homophones, or homographs? I know they're not homophobes.

 

[sr71plt]

I can agree with most of what you said in that last post, but you have missed the point I was trying to make. Let me offer you another example by the same author:

"Martin and I were marred a year after we met. Martin unlike me, was very cleaver and had a really good job in his fathers business."

I placed this in quotes, although it appears as narrative in the story. I count four obvious, and inexcusable, errors. As a "guru", can you spot them? This from a story allegedly "fixed" by two "editors". Is this what passes for correct work? Should I expect, because this is a porn site, not to encounter any standard of quality?

How about this beauty from the same story: " Samantha and her husband two name just two."

Is this acceptable editing? Give me a break!

Yes, I see the mistakes (unless there are more, which there might be): "Martin and I were marred[married a year after we met. Martin, unlike me, was very cleaverclever and had a really good job in his fathers[father's business."

Where I went off the rails on this thread, though, is that I don't see this as a dialogue vs. narration issue. These are mistakes wherever they appear. I don't see a connection between this and your original posting complaint.

I will make this note on editing of such a piece. It's out of context. I don't see what else is in the fully piece that could have distracted the editor as a worse--and attention-consuming--problem that the editor worked on.

Are you aware that when such mistakes make it all the way to print in the publishing industry they are still tallied up as author's mistakes--if the author made them to begin with? The manuscript editor/production editor/printer--none of them are charged for a mistake that the author made and didn't get fixed.

The way to assure that most of the mistakes are caught and fixed (there's very little perfect copy in this world, by the way) is not to make a whole lot of distracting mistakes to begin with.

So, what you are lambasting as an editor's mistake, I see as an author's mistake that didn't get fixed by an editor (unless the editor messed up what was originally just fine--which can happen too). Not good from an editorial standpoint, no, but such an author has a house to clean up before pointing a lot of fingers at anyone else.

 

[bronzeage]

Since we've gone beyond the subject into the subtle, but real, differences between homonym and homophone, (not to mention homograph and disregarding homophobe) may I ask your expert opinion on the following.

When you capitalize the word "polish", not only does the meaning change, the pronunciation changes as well (or too). This has been said to be the only word in English where this happens. Are these two words homonyms, homophones, or homographs? I know they're not homophobes.

It would be nice if English grammar were a seamless system, which could account for all ambiguities, but there are always a few words and usages which do not fit the pattern. If "polish" were the first word of a sentence, it would be capitalized and the pronunciation dictated by the following words.

It could lead to a case of confusing one's sausage with one's Shinola.

For more information, you will have to ask an expert.

 

[sr71plt]

I count four obvious, and inexcusable, errors. As a "guru", can you spot them? This from a story allegedly "fixed" by

I should have zeroed in on this in the response I already gave.

First, the errors here are the author's errors. That being the case, "inexusable" to the extent it can be assessed is at least shared.

As far as "obvious," as I noted, when an author piles up mistakes like this, they no longer are obvious. They get lost in a pile of mistakes--some getting hidden behind/underneath others. The bigger the pile of author's mistakes, the less fault it is of the editor for not catching them all--because you can only see something "obviously" "off" that is separated from other problems.

 

[slowrimmer]

If you really wanted to improve, you would look "homonym" up in the dictionary or on-line. Since looking things up to improve yourself is not part of your "gain knowledge" arsenal, I'll help you this once.

Homonym: One of two or more words that have the same sound and often the same spelling but differ in meaning, such as bank (embankment) and bank (place where money is kept). Also its & it's; their, there, & they're; peace & piece; etc.

Thanks, I did look it up myself after you dropped it in. I'm uneducated, comparatively, not stupid.

Anyway I write for fun and because theres something inside me that I need to get out. Thoughts and ideas. Grammar isn't that important to me. If I wanted publication, or peer recognition however then of course it would take on a whole new significance.

 

[tootallday]

I must admit that, although I criticize the mistakes of The Wanderer and most others, I usually manage to enjoy the stories. I do have some favorite (or favourite) authors. But I read nearly all the stories within certain categories (I deliberately avoid the topics I abhor) and find some wonderful stories by authors I normally dislike or, at least, tend to avoid. I just don't appreciate having to stutter-step through what could easily be made a smooth, as well as enjoyable, read.

 

[snoopercharmbrights]

... The job of an editor is to make a story clear and readable. This means finding errors, whether from inattention or ignorance, and correcting.

When and editor goes beyond this, we risk errant pedantry.

I have always thought that making a story "clear and readable" could include advice on recasting sentences, and sometimes more, which contain no technical errors, but are not mellifluous?

For example,

This is the Jack-grown corn-eating rat-eating cat.

is indisputably better (though a certain someone may dispute it) as:

This is the cat that ate the rat that ate the corn that Jack grew.

 

[tootallday]

I'm sure you are aware that the two Jack sentences do not come near saying the same thing.

In the first, Jack's cat was grown by Jack, the cat eats corn and also rats.

In the second, Jack grew the corn; the cat ate the rat; the rat ate the corn. We don't know if Jack grew the cat or the rat, but we don't care because the second has a rhythm and is fun to read.

The first, as you are aware, is not a pleasant read, is awkward and, as previously noted, is incorrect if it was meant to produce the same meaning as the second.

I agree with your comments about editing, however.