Clauses - Dependent and Independent and starting a sentence with And or But.

[KillerMuffin]

This is one of the biggest offenders that I come across in my editing. Putting clauses together badly. Doing that creates the classic runon sentence. Yes Whisper, I'm fixing that!

An independent clause is simply a complete sentence in and of itself. It has a subject and a predicate. You can whack two independent clauses together with a conjuction. An independent clause doesn't depend on anything else to get it's meaning. The officer blew his whistle. The cars stopped. The officer blew his whistle and the cars stopped.

A dependent clause (also called subordinate) has a subject and a predicate, but it cannot stand alone because it does not express a complete thought. Because she walked into the room. But she ate cake instead. And there was peace. These aren't actually complete thoughts, they don't express complete thoughts.

This brings us to starting a sentence with But or And, which has become more and more grammatically acceptable, but it isn't correct. Why? The two conjuctions require the information that is usually located in the prior sentence to complete the thought of the subordinate clause they are hooked to. She ate some lettuce because she was on a diet. But she ate two slices of cake for dessert. This is most obviously wrong. He touched her nipple with a sprocket and she came instantly. He slipped his wrench lower and she came again. And again. And again. Is it incorrect, yes. Is it wrong? Other than the fact that it's just really bad writing, not really. It adds impact.

Grammar the judgement call.

 

[Madame Pandora]

Ehhhh....screw it.

Lewis Carroll and a few others made up their own WORDS for heaven's sake ;-)

Seriously, I understand about having your grammar in order, certainly out of place run-ons and jagged lurches in structure damage the quality of a story, but I would NEVER sacrifice grammar for overall effect if it is down to that and only that.

Read it aloud. If it sounds better, the simple truth is that it probably IS better, regardless of whether it's grammatically correct or not. Shakespeare is dripping with grammar errors…how’s THAT for bad writing? ;-)

Just MHO

MP

 

[Weird Harold]

This is one of the biggest offenders that I come across in my editing. Putting clauses together badly. Doing that creates the classic runon sentence. Yes Whisper, I'm fixing that!
...
Grammar the judgement call.

I also find that clauses, especially prepostional phrases, are the biggest source of punctuation errors in what I edit.

See my comments on the other thread about context.

MP said: "Seriously, I understand about having your grammar in order, certainly out of place run-ons and jagged lurches in structure damage the quality of a story, but I would NEVER sacrifice grammar for overall effect..."

That pretty much summs up what I mean about context is everything.

 

[Closet Desire]

I know....

...this is out of character, but sometimes authority must be questioned! I don't see the "But" and "And" used that way too often yet, when it's done right, I sort of like it. My undergrad English teachers used to rip me apart for something called "comma splices". Yeah...yeah...I know what they are, how to prevent them, so forth. I avoid them by turning independent clauses into sentences and avoiding the whole argument.

Back to the point, we're taught all these rules and they are good rules and they help us write good papers and get good grades and jobs and all that, but I think really talented writers manage a balance between the rhythm of spoken language and that of proper written language. That means that sometimes...oh my god...he's gonna do it...ya gotta start a sentence with "But"! Yeah...just like my daughter when you tell her to do something.

Lord David Cecil was a highly admired scholar from Oxford who had the knack for writing academic papers in a conversational style that just makes you want to read more...even if you don't care about the subject matter.

Oh well, my two cents worth. I still admire people who are comfortable editing...it's a fine balancing act isn't it? (That means I'm not including myself among editors...they are the enemy...just kidding...really)

 

[Whispersecret]

KM, you know I start sentences with conjunctions. I probably do it more often than I should, and I certainly taught my first graders that THEY should not do it. However, someone already mentioned that doing so can add a certain emphasis to a point, as long as you don't overdo it. It is something that I'm trying to keep my eye on in my writing.

Because Weird Harold pointed out to me that I tend to write overly complex sentences, I sometimes do it to simplify things, which may or may not be the best solution to a convoluted sentence. Most often, I try to do it only when I'm making an emphatic point, as in your example with the wrench.

What I saw more often in my editing, and which is completely unacceptable, were dependent clauses like this:

Walking toward me, her tits jiggling like jello.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I'm just enjoying the hell out of my grammar today. Really, I am. I've been reading my grammar books again. Okay, Whisper can spank me but no one else, you guys smack too hard.

Runon sentences are confusing, period. There isn't much merit for them because they are confusing. If the reader has to read something more than once to figure out what the heck is going on, well, the merit of having a runon for impact is nil. There's a story posted on the feedback board by Cheryl Wants It (http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=15455) which is basically a bunch of runons strung together. Some of the sentences in that story were fine despite the 'runonness' because the overall impression it gave was that the narrator was a youngish, excited girl. Since the story revolved around a youngish, excited girl, well it fit in fine. Unfortunately the runon tendency happened all the time, so instead of being literarily acceptable, the story was too tedious to read. This was a case of where the bad grammar enhanced the story and the same bad grammar got in the way.

And about the starting with conjunctions things, I do it all the time. There is a time and place for it.

The point is that when you screw with your grammar, you should know what you're doing. The correct way to do it and why doing it wrong makes your story better. Bad grammar by accident, in my humble (yeah right) opinion, rarely comes across well. Bad grammar by design is usually an enhancement to the story it is located in.

 

[Jake2001]

I find myself taking an active interest in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure, that bored me to tears when I was in school. I realize now, how important the mechanics are as to how well a thought is conveyed. The image can be entirely lost when the reader has to stumble across a poorly written sentence or paragraph.

Question: Would it be considered correct that anything (within reason) included inside quotation marks is fair game? For instance, dropping the 'g' at the end of a spoken word (as in, "are you commin to get me?"). Other examples might be the use of slang or common expressions used in contemporary conversation (such as, "There ain't no love lost there pal" said Harry).

 

[KillerMuffin]

Generally, anything goes inside the quotation marks. This is where the characters speech patterns and the way they say things reign supreme. For instance, I am writing a story with an Army Sergeant in it. My characters refer to the Sergeant as "Sarn't" because that's the way most people say it when the vocally abbreviate it. Outside of quotation marks, he is referred to as Sergeant.

"Well, it tain't no nevermind 'tall."

 

[Whispersecret]

Yes, you can have leeway inside quotation marks, because people do mangle the language when they speak, but be careful of overdoing accents and stuff like that. If you try to read Gone with the Wind, I dare you to find the darkies' speech easy to read. Try to strike a balance.

 

[Never]

But, Killer, Muffmeister, I don't see anything wrong with starting a sentence that way. And what's this I hear about dependent clauses, subordinates and predicates? I really haven't a clue.

Anywho, as everyone here is so into grammar let's play a game, er, let's play 'Fix Never's para'- um, I mean, lets play 'Fix the paragraphs.'

Tears for the dead man, tears for himself. No, no, he must not waste the water of his body this way. Water was too precious, water was life. A life he must live. A life he could not, would not, let be taken from him.

There must be a way. There must be a way. That was his only thought as the march continued deeper into the endless dunes.

I know it's wrong because I get the little green lines underneath it, I just don't know how it's wrong.

 

[Closet Desire]

Ahhh...what a delight!

Enthusiasts of grammar are often like plastic surgeons in a sea of money and ugly faces...can't wait to change everything and make it perfect!

I could correct it, but then it wouldn't be complete would it? In fact, it wouldn't be "proper"...the flavour would be lost. We think this way. We speak this way. And, I think it has a place in literature and good writing.

Uh uh...not touchin' it with a barge pole.

 

[Weird Harold]

Tears for the dead man, tears for himself. No, no, he must not waste the water of his body this way. Water was too precious; water was life. A life he must live. A life he could not, would not, let be taken from him.

There must be a way. There must be a way. That was his only thought as the march continued deeper into the endless dunes.

I don't have "check grammar while typing" turned on. because it slows things down.

However, the way I have my copy of Word configured, it only found one "comma use -- No suggestions" fault and reported 20% passive voice. I changed the comma to a semicolon. (a period would work also.) and underlined the passive voice.

I don't think I would change anything other than the comma. Too much passive voice can make a story "flat and uninteresting" (according to Purdue Universities Online Writing Lab) but there are times when it is the "best" way to say what you want.

I do agree with CD to the extent that if you let Word's grammar check dictate your style, you're going to cut out a lot of the interesting bits. A lot of Word's "suggestions" are really questions to make sure you are using the right choice among "commonly confused words" or have things punctuated correctly. I get a lot of "Missing that" faults, because often the word 'that' is implied when people speak even though it should be stated.

All of Word's grammar and style rules seem to be business oriented. The programers who set them up never thought of people using words like cumming so the only choce it can come up with is Cummins which is a manufacturer of Diesel engines.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Writing is like baking a cake. Most people have to put all of the ingredients together in the correct order, then bake for the correct amount of time. After allowing it to cool down the correct way, you slice the excess parts of the cake off, you know where it rose in the oven, and then frost it.

Some bakers are so talented with cake baking that they don't have to follow the rules, they can bake the cake however they want and it comes out deliciously.

Most people have to write following the rules. They have to write sentences in the correct way, in the correct order, develop a little plot and character, then chop out all the drivel, send it to an editor to be prettified.

Some writers are so talented with writing, they don't have to follow the rules. They can just write however they want and it comes out wonderfully.

The question one must ask themselves is, if I don't follow the generally accepted grammar rules, does that make my writing genius or juvenile? Does it get it's point across without the rules or does it just make no sense? Does the bad grammar get in the way of the writing or does it improve the writing?

Obviously Huck Finn would be written with proper queens english. Just as obviously, Wuthering Heights wouldn't be improved by bad grammar. It's all subjective. However, for the AVERAGE (note use of the word average, as to mean run of the mill, median, not superlatively genius, won't win the nobel or the booker in anyone's life time sort of average author) good grammar is a necessity. Not perfect grammar, that's impossible, but good grammar.

I always use good grammar and a good editor. Can't count the number of times Whisper has said something to the effect of, "Oh my god Muff, what in the hell were you thinking??? You can't do THAT!!"

 

[Whispersecret]

Yeah, that's me--the Jaws of editing. You put your story in my ocean and when you pull it back, it's bloody and mangled. Half of it's missing, and I have a big grin on my face. <winks at KM>

Now, as for Never's little tidbit, I understand the need for the fragmentary feeling, but I think it is just a tad overdone. Because I haven't read the lead-up, it's hard to judge, because if he's on the verge of madness, you might want to push the choppy feeling. Still, here's what I would do if it were mine.

He shed tears for the dead man, tears for himself. But as he felt them dampen his cheeks, he willed them to stop coming. No, no, he must not waste his body's water this way. Water was too precious. Water was life, and he would not give it up. Not without a fight.

There must be a way. There must be a way. He repeated that to himself over and over as the march continued deeper into the endless dunes.

Heh heh. Well, as usual, I really messed around a lot with that. Sorry, Never. I was, however, intrigued. My immediate questions as a reader are:

Who's the dead guy? Friend, enemy, maybe? Why is he marching? Is it a forced march? Was he abandoned? Or did he kill the guy and now is feeling remorse?

Good writing should always inspire questions in the reader and a yearning to find out the answers to those questions.

 

[Closet Desire]

You guys are ruthless...

Killer belongs in the Marines and Whisper...well...I suspect Whisper is a contract killer by day! Hee...just kiddin'

Remember that thread about useless dissertations? Mine was on Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. Funnily enough, her sister Charlotte thought she could improve it so she edited it and changed Josephs language for the 1850 edition. There are considerable differences between Emily's original and the subsequently released edition.

Although Emily was homeschooled by a Cambridge educated father as well as for nearly a year in Brussells she was not formally educated as a writer. Moreover, education was spotty at best, particularly in the north, so much of what she wrote was simply what she was used to. She did read a lot of Scott and Hogg (Blackwoods) as well as the "Penny Dreadfuls" and I'm sure she picked up quite a bit of technique from that.

I've been through the library at the Bronte Parsonage (used to serve on the board of directors) and haven't found any really authoritative books on writing. Seems the style was to learn from literature hence a lot of similarities between writers of the period.

Whoa...I'll rein myself back!

 

[KillerMuffin]

I've never read anything by either of the Bronte sisters. It was the only piece of literature that came to mind at the time.

 

[Closet Desire]

I would NOT...

...recommend you rush right out and buy any of it!

Five stages of research for an English PhD...

1. Passion and excitement about enlightening the world.

2. Boredom and apathy about the whole idea.

3. Massive burst of energy to slap something together that will pass.

4. Convince the "experts" you know something.

5. Sheepskin

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: I would NOT...

...recommend you rush right out and buy any of it!

Five stages of research for an English PhD...

1. Passion and excitement about enlightening the world.

2. Boredom and apathy about the whole idea.

3. Massive burst of energy to slap something together that will pass.

4. Convince the "experts" you know something.

5. Sheepskin

Latex is better, sheepskin isn't that effective of a barrier, it's porous. I didn't know condoms were needed... uh... I don't want to know. No, really, I don't. No, that's okay. Well... I do like that sort of thing, but it might be better in an email if you just insist on telling me.

 

[Closet Desire]

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Hey...the sheepskin comes in handy later on to keep you warm when you're sleeping on the streets. Everybody knows that a PhD and a buck will get you a cup of coffee!

What else do you think they would give away in North Yorkshire...where men are men and sheep are wary!

 

[CRaZy]

Grammar is very, very important. If you are a reporter it is vital. If you are writing an essay, it is vital. If you are a story writer, it is important to know the rules of grammar so you can break them. Stories are CREATIVE writing. This gives you a license to meddle with the rules. Shakespeare broke all the rules. So does Stephen King (whom I respect for his craft if not his content). The grammar police could have a field day with the Harry Potter stories.

If a one word sentence adds to the tone and suits the development of your piece - go ahead. If beginning a sentence with "and" assists with the flow of your story - go ahead. Do make sure it is a conscious decision to break the rules rather than a lack of understanding of the basics of grammar in the first place. AND, whatever you do, stick to the rules when writing your PHD. Your professor will love you for it.

Actually, do you want to know about my PHD? It is, believe it or not, about functional systemic linguistics (fancy word for grammar). I wrote a paper called, "Is Functional Systemic Linguistics Like Sex?" My thesis was that if you think too much about grammar your writing doesn't work. Same in the bedroom. Analyse it too much and....So, how did the hallowed gods of linguistics take to my paper? Well..er...they didn't say much. I would like to believe they were overwhelmed with my genius. It was more just shock though, I think.