Another question about comma placement.

[SimonDoom]

I agree, but in dialogue I find myself using "there's" at times because it's comes off the tongue more easily than "there're" or "there are."

It could also be part of my western dialect -- that way I can blame my parents and my neighbors.

I do the same thing in speaking. That's common.

Part of it, I think, is that when you speak the "there's" part comes out of your mouth before you've fully thought through whether the noun following it is going to be plural or singular. It's more natural to say "There's" than "there're".

 

[NotWise]

I do the same thing in speaking. That's common.

But my grammar-checker hates me for it .

 

[Athalia]

*sigh* Strunk and White is for high school themes, not commercial fiction. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had to point that out.

I respectfully beg to differ, although I know where you're coming from. Fiction does have its own idiosyncrasies, any writer -- high school, college, fiction, whatever -- should take to heart Mr. White's one guiding principle, which is clarity. That which makes the reading easier is better, and that which makes it more difficult is to be avoided.

That is the law. The rest is commentary.

 

[SimonDoom]

*sigh* Strunk and White is for high school themes, not commercial fiction. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had to point that out.

.

I think you overstate this point. You're right, of course, that the Chicago Manual of Style is a more on-point and authoritative, and much more comprehensive, guide for writers of published fiction in America than is the Strunk and White guide. But the practical question is, for writers of fiction at Literotica, how often are they different?

Not often, I think. 98% of the time, good grammar is good grammar, and the various style and grammar guides agree. I think they would agree on the issue raised in this thread. Strunk and White is a brief guide, rather than a comprehensive one, but I would estimate it's 99% accurate for the questions commonly raised by writers at Literotica. Its advantage is that it's short and cheap and easy to consult -- far more so than the Chicago Manual of Style -- and I estimate that in almost all cases Literotica authors would profit from consulting it for guidance on style and grammar and punctuation questions that commonly arise. It's not helpful to say "ignore 'Strunk and White' and look at other sources if (a) authors here are unlikely to look at other sources because they are less accessible and more costly and much longer and more complicated and (b) Strunk and White will correctly answer 98% of the questions that people ask here, as I think probably is the case.

 

[Blind_Justice]

Commas are like darts. No matter where you leave them, someone gets hurt in the end.

 

[SamScribble]

I respectfully beg to differ, although I know where you're coming from. Fiction does have its own idiosyncrasies, any writer -- high school, college, fiction, whatever -- should take to heart Mr. White's one guiding principle, which is clarity. That which makes the reading easier is better, and that which makes it more difficult is to be avoided.

That is the law. The rest is commentary.

I agree. Good writing - especially good fiction writing - is essentially all about clarity and style.

 

[KeithD]

I respectfully beg to differ, although I know where you're coming from. Fiction does have its own idiosyncrasies, any writer -- high school, college, fiction, whatever -- should take to heart Mr. White's one guiding principle, which is clarity. That which makes the reading easier is better, and that which makes it more difficult is to be avoided.

That is the law. The rest is commentary.

I don't see where you are differing from anything I posted. Where have I indicated clarity isn't important?--which is the only point you're hanging the whole "differing" issue on. Strunk and White is great for basic high school writing and a good foundation for further writing. It is very basic, though, and it doesn't cover accepted exceptions for this and that in a very flexible language. The problem is that many tend to think it covers everything, which it doesn't, and they base criticism of stories posted here on that limiting misunderstanding. This was where my part of the discussion was when the goalposts were jerked up and moved. Anyone who would think I didn't think clarity wasn't important hasn't been reading my posts for over a decade. (I'd like to receive a dollar for every time I've seen the goalposts jerked up in a discussion and moved as well.)

 

[SimonDoom]

The problem is that many tend to think it covers everything, which it doesn't, and they base criticism of stories posted here on that limiting misunderstanding.

I think you are making something of a straw man argument here. No one, as far as I know, has ever argued this. I've probably invoked Strunk & White as much as anyone, and I'm pretty sure I never said it covers everything. Obviously, it does not.

My point is that the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. While there may be more comprehensive guides, which are more applicable to published fiction, such as the Chicago Manual, they are much larger, more expensive, and less accessible. Strunk & White is cheap and easy to read. And my guess is that its answers to most of the grammar and punctuation questions that arise on this site dovetail neatly with the answers you'd find in the Chicago Manual. Most writers at this site would improve their writing by following it (or just about any basic grammar and style guide).

E.B. White wasn't a fussy, rule-bound high school teacher. He was an accomplished published author and one of the best prose stylists of American English of the 20th century. Most of Strunk & White's "rules" are practical and applicable to all types of writing. So, no, a fiction writer should not treat it as gospel or as comprehensive for purposes of fiction writing, but if it's a choice between no guide and a basic guide, it's a good basic guide to consult.

 

[KeithD]

I think you are making something of a straw man argument here. No one, as far as I know, has ever argued this. I've probably invoked Strunk & White as much as anyone, and I'm pretty sure I never said it covers everything. Obviously, it does not.

And I think you are being defensive about what the appropriate source is to use for commercial fiction and which one wasn't designed for that purpose or has claimed to be comprehensive for that purpose.

The subject here was guidance for punctuation usage in stories written for Literotica (which fall in the realm of commercial fiction). From there the goal posts were being moved to challenge me to defend positions I didn't take. I'm not going to do that. Strunk and White was written for very basic English usage in writing. It is not the last word (or the next to last word) in justification of punctuation (or much of anything else) in commercial fiction.

You jumped in to agree with differing with me on "clarity." So, maybe you too can point out anything I've posted (ever) that opined that clarity in writing wasn't important.

 

[jehoram]

That is the law. The rest is commentary.

I see what you did there.

 

[SimonDoom]

And I think you are being defensive about what the appropriate source is to use for commercial fiction and which one wasn't designed for that purpose or has claimed to be comprehensive for that purpose.

The subject here was guidance for punctuation usage in stories written for Literotica (which fall in the realm of commercial fiction). From there the goal posts were being moved to challenge me to defend positions I didn't take. I'm not going to do that. Strunk and White was written for very basic English usage in writing. It is not the last word (or the next to last word) in justification of punctuation (or much of anything else) in commercial fiction.

You jumped in to agree with differing with me on "clarity." So, maybe you too can point out anything I've posted (ever) that opined that clarity in writing wasn't important.

Well, we're both swinging at false targets, then, because I never intended to suggest I differed with you on the subject of clarity. I can't recall you saying anything I disagree with on that subject. So if I gave you the impression I disagreed with you on that I'm happy to say I do not.

For that matter I don't disagree with you about the limits of Strunk & White. The only point on which I disagree is that I think it can be useful for most authors here on most questions they are likely to raise notwithstanding its limits.

Many of us may have had solid educations of English grammar, but for those of us who have not been involved in writing extensively for their careers a refresher may be needed. Even a very basic guide like Strunk & White can be useful for that purpose. I had a very solid grammar education, have written all my life (professional, nonfiction writing, mostly) and taught English at one point, and I still forget things all the time and find S&W useful in a pinch.

 

[Erlikkhan]

I think you overstate this point. You're right, of course, that the Chicago Manual of Style is a more on-point and authoritative, and much more comprehensive, guide for writers of published fiction in America than is the Strunk and White guide.

There's a guide for grammar? Is it like a dictionary for commas? Seems like I learn something new every day.

Think I'll write a story, about a girl, who gives a blowjob, and, has commas, come shooting, out of her ears, when he ejaculates.

...but that would blow all the rules of grammar...and really suck too!

 

[Misshotndeep]

Get Grammarly already. it's free!

 

[KeithD]

Get Grammarly already. it's free!

And also not gauged fully usefully to commercial fiction. Can easily lead a writer astray there. The world of English-language fiction simply is too complex to reduce to computer programs. You can't rely on letting them save you the effort to educate yourself.

 

[Misshotndeep]

And also not gauged fully usefully to commercial fiction. Can easily lead a writer astray there. The world of English-language fiction simply is too complex to reduce to computer programs. You can't rely on letting them save you the effort to educate yourself.

Bullshit! It has rules and your just too fucking old to try something new. Take your prehistoric ass to a cave and write on a wall.
If you had ever used the product you would realize just how dumb your post is.

 

[KeithD]

Bullshit! It has rules and your just too fucking old to try something new. Take your prehistoric ass to a cave and write on a wall.
If you had ever used the product you would realize just how dumb your post is.

Umm, OK. You, of course, have a degree in professional editing to know what you're talking about--what is working right and what isn't. You, I'm sure, have the training to know what is what with that. Yes, I'm sure you do. I certainly wish you could be more passionate about it, though.

 

[Misshotndeep]

Umm, OK. You, of course, have a degree in professional editing to know what you're talking about--what is working right and what isn't. You, I'm sure, have the training to know what is what with that. Yes, I'm sure you do. I certainly wish you could be more passionate about it, though.

Oh, Barney Rubble. Not even human editing is perfect. Get with the times.

 

[KeithD]

Oh, Barney Rubble. Not even human editing is perfect. Get with the times.

Did I say human editing is perfect? When in doubt, move the goalposts.

Your degrees in editing and publishing are from where? (Mine are from UVa).

 

[Misshotndeep]

Did I say human editing is perfect? When in doubt, move the goalposts.

Your degrees in editing and publishing are from where? (Mine are from UVa).

Rofl. Who the fuck cares! Lol your just afraid of tech that will eventually replace you Barney Rubble.

 

[KeithD]

Rofl. Who the fuck cares! Lol your just afraid of tech that will eventually replace you Barney Rubble.

I'm still editing books for mainstream publishers and getting work. And you? I do so love these personal attacks by you assuming whippersnappers.

 

[Misshotndeep]

I'm still editing books for mainstream publishers and getting work. And you? I do so love these personal attacks by you assuming whippersnappers.

Hey, you're the one afraid of the tech old guy. Lol. Ok now in done. You're boring. Bye-bye now.

 

[jaF0]

This thread is giving me a pause, not so restful.

 

[KeithD]

Hey, you're the one afraid of the tech old guy. Lol. Ok now in done. You're boring. Bye-bye now.

Mainstream publishers do use technology, you know. They also require personal education and experience in knowing what to apply to what. They don't use heavy reliance on technology to avoid that. Just sayin' I see your exaggeratin' and fully understand that your animosity is based on wanting to justify believing in the easy button. Believing in that saves you the trouble of educating yourself in the business. BaBye.

 

[SimonDoom]

I did a Grammarly check of NotWise's sentence, and it was no help. It approved all three possibilities: having a comma before "and," having a comma after "and," and having a comma before and after "and."

The more I look at it the more I think the "right" answer is having a comma before "and" only. But I don't have an authoritative source for that.

 

[NotWise]

The more I look at it the more I think the "right" answer is having a comma before "and" only. But I don't have an authoritative source for that.

That's how I've written it.

I'm a little surprised that Grammarly accepted it without the comma before "and."