caused and due

[karaline]

hello all,

whenever i read the phrases 'caused by' or 'due to' in fiction writing it really irks me. It screams amateur writing at me*, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

Does anyone else get this? And if so, can you explain why these phrases are a problem?


*and yes, i think i may have been guilty of using them myself when I started writing

 

[Specula]

hello all,

whenever i read the phrases 'caused by' or 'due to' in fiction writing it really irks me. It screams amateur writing at me*, but I can't quite put my finger on why.

Does anyone else get this? And if so, can you explain why these phrases are a problem?


*and yes, i think i may have been guilty of using them myself when I started writing

Perhaps because you do not like causality ( a very real world thing) intruding into fantasy!?

 

[karaline]

Perhaps because you do not like causality ( a very real world thing) intruding into fantasy!?

No, that's definitely not it. I'm talking about stylistic/linguistic choices, rather than plot.

Thanks though.

 

[WinsomeWeb]

EDIT: Nevermind. I am not a smart person.

 

[NotWise]

No, that's definitely not it. I'm talking about stylistic/linguistic choices, rather than plot.

Thanks though.

I think those are both formalisms that don't fit into fiction very well. You can use them in dialogue, and the readers will probably dislike the speaker.

 

[TadOverdon]

They both seem pretty passive. And yes, they make sense in dialogue for some characters.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

So, what would you use in place of them? Asking for a friend.

 

[NotWise]

So, what would you use in place of them? Asking for a friend.

I'd use them in something like a TV newscast or announcement. I'd use them in dialog if I wanted the speaker to be unlikable. In most cases I'd use "because" or "so" instead, or just leave them out.

Causality is usually pretty clear. I don't think you need to beat the reader of the head with it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Thanks NW.

 

[SimonDoom]

Used correctly, "caused by" and "due to" are perfectly legitimate phrases. I don't understand what's irksome.

 

[karaline]

So, what would you use in place of them? Asking for a friend.

my solution is 'miss them out and start a new sentence' when i'm editing other people's writing in my head.

Lily was an orphan, due to her parents dying in a car accident when she was five years old.

Lily was an orphan. her parents had died in a car accident when she was five years old.

Used correctly, "caused by" and "due to" are perfectly legitimate phrases. I don't understand what's irksome.

Neither do I! Which is why i'm asking you guys

 

[karaline]

Causality is usually pretty clear. I don't think you need to beat the reader of the head with it.

Yes, maybe this is it. perhaps it sounds unduly formal.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Used correctly, "caused by" and "due to" are perfectly legitimate phrases. I don't understand what's irksome.

I think they are often definitive examples of telling, not showing.

But they can have their uses, "Due to the heavy rains, Bob and Sue died to stay home and fuck, rather than go to the zoo."

 

[SamScribble]

But they can have their uses, "Due to the heavy rains, Bob and Sue died to stay home and fuck, rather than go to the zoo."

Due to the heavy rains, Bob and Sue died? Yikes! (I assume they drowned. Or do I assume too much?)

 

[MelissaBaby]

Due to the heavy rains, Bob and Sue died? Yikes! (I assume they drowned. Or do I assume too much?)

Damn. Well, I hoped they fucked first.

 

[Bramblethorn]

my solution is 'miss them out and start a new sentence' when i'm editing other people's writing in my head.

Lily was an orphan, due to her parents dying in a car accident when she was five years old.

"Due to"/"caused by" are generally used in sentences where the causal connection between the two things might be unclear, or at least slow the reader down.

"Lily's parents died in a car accident during a terrible storm" - not clear here whether the author is saying the storm contributed to the accident, or if they're just setting a dramatic scene.

"Lily's parents died in a car accident caused by a terrible storm" - clarifies that we're talking about causes.

Readers can usually figure these things out by applying Grice's maxims (you probably know them instinctively even if you've never heard them named) but it's a speed bump that forces them to stop and puzzle over the meaning, and sometimes it's unclear even with thought.

"Judy was not coping at work. She was under a lot of stress." Here, it's not at all clear whether she's not coping because she's under stress, or if she's under stress because she's not coping. A "caused by"/"due to" can make this much easier to understand.

However, when we've told the reader that Lily's parents died when she was five, that makes her an orphan by definition. We don't normally use "due to"/"caused by" with that sort of by-definition consequence, and when somebody does it sounds weird.

"John was short, due to childhood malnutrition" - okay.
"John was short, due to being only five feet tall" - no.

"The accident was caused by alcohol and speed" - okay.
"The accident was caused by running off the road and hitting a tree" - no.

Often the solution for that kind of tautology is simply to remove the redundant information: chop out "was an orphan" altogether. It doesn't convey any information that's not already covered by the rest of the sentence.

If we do leave the redundancy, e.g. for better flow or dramatic repetition, it usually works better without that "caused by"/"due to", as with your example.

But it's not that those constructs are inherently bad, just that they're being used in the wrong place, which is often symptomatic of other problems with a story.

 

[lovecraft68]

Used correctly, "caused by" and "due to" are perfectly legitimate phrases. I don't understand what's irksome.

Snobbery.

 

[SimonDoom]

Snobbery.

It's partly that, and it's partly, and maybe even a bit more, a tendency to take writing "rules" too seriously.

It may be surprising coming from me because I think I sometimes come across as a grammar Nazi or scold but I think when it comes to style and word choice flexibility is important. It's important to know the rules, but it's less important always to follow them. You wouldn't want to use the phrases "due to" or "caused by" too many times, but I see no harm in using them a little bit, any more than I see a problem in once in a while using the passive voice, or using adverbs, or doing all these other things one allegedly is not supposed to do. Even comma splices and tense-shifting, two things that can set the former English teacher in me on edge, have their place.

If you actually read a lot, you realize that great writers constantly do all the stuff that we're constantly told you can't do as a writer.

 

[Emirus]

There are things which arise in life, minor to others and to them unimportant, but they annoy the hell out of us and will be there until the day we die. Which may not be too far away if we keep beating our loved one over the head with it. The only thing to do is forget it and move on. Which is impossible.

 

[karaline]

"Due to"/"caused by" are generally used in sentences where the causal connection between the two things might be unclear, or at least slow the reader down.

"Lily's parents died in a car accident during a terrible storm" - not clear here whether the author is saying the storm contributed to the accident, or if they're just setting a dramatic scene.

"Lily's parents died in a car accident caused by a terrible storm" - clarifies that we're talking about causes.

Readers can usually figure these things out by applying Grice's maxims (you probably know them instinctively even if you've never heard them named) but it's a speed bump that forces them to stop and puzzle over the meaning, and sometimes it's unclear even with thought.

"Judy was not coping at work. She was under a lot of stress." Here, it's not at all clear whether she's not coping because she's under stress, or if she's under stress because she's not coping. A "caused by"/"due to" can make this much easier to understand.

However, when we've told the reader that Lily's parents died when she was five, that makes her an orphan by definition. We don't normally use "due to"/"caused by" with that sort of by-definition consequence, and when somebody does it sounds weird.

"John was short, due to childhood malnutrition" - okay.
"John was short, due to being only five feet tall" - no.

"The accident was caused by alcohol and speed" - okay.
"The accident was caused by running off the road and hitting a tree" - no.

Often the solution for that kind of tautology is simply to remove the redundant information: chop out "was an orphan" altogether. It doesn't convey any information that's not already covered by the rest of the sentence.

If we do leave the redundancy, e.g. for better flow or dramatic repetition, it usually works better without that "caused by"/"due to", as with your example.

But it's not that those constructs are inherently bad, just that they're being used in the wrong place, which is often symptomatic of other problems with a story.

Wow! This is exactly it. I guess it must be that I understood the definitions well enough to notice when these phrases were being misused, but not well enough to put my finger on how.

Thank you for taking the time to give me such a detailed explanation Bramblethorn

 

[lovecraft68]

Due to an accident caused by icy conditions, traffic was backed up for miles.

There's nothing wrong with that sentence. You can say personal preference or style as to why you, as an individual, don't want to use them, but its not improper to use them.

A writers personal choices shouldn't involve denigrating how others choose to write.

 

[karaline]

Due to an accident caused by icy conditions, traffic was backed up for miles.

There's nothing wrong with that sentence. You can say personal preference or style as to why you, as an individual, don't want to use them, but its not improper to use them.

A writers personal choices shouldn't involve denigrating how others choose to write.

I have to level with you, I don't particularly like the phrasing above, but it wouldn't make me wince if i can across it in a story. I realise now (thanks to Bramblethorn's patient explanation), that whats been getting to me is the misuse of these phrases.

and what i've been trying to get the bottom of here, is why MY reaction to this is the way it is. If i've denigrated how others choose to write that's been accidental. in fact Lily and her unfortunate parents are a figment of my imagination, created because i didn't to quote anyone else's work.

 

[karaline]

It's partly that, and it's partly, and maybe even a bit more, a tendency to take writing "rules" too seriously.

It may be surprising coming from me because I think I sometimes come across as a grammar Nazi or scold but I think when it comes to style and word choice flexibility is important. It's important to know the rules, but it's less important always to follow them. You wouldn't want to use the phrases "due to" or "caused by" too many times, but I see no harm in using them a little bit, any more than I see a problem in once in a while using the passive voice, or using adverbs, or doing all these other things one allegedly is not supposed to do. Even comma splices and tense-shifting, two things that can set the former English teacher in me on edge, have their place.

If you actually read a lot, you realize that great writers constantly do all the stuff that we're constantly told you can't do as a writer.

I'm sorry, but the misuse (not over use) of the terms 'caused by' and 'due to' are clunky and irritating in all cases, and this is the hill I want to die on.