Info for FF moderators and writers. - Making & Breaking Rules

[Steve]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Heidi <heidi at h...> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 10:58:19 +0000 (GMT), udder_pen_dragon
> <udderpd at y...> pasted in a poem that's been passed around
> online for years regarding the faliability of spell checkers, and
> commented,
> 
> 
> > This I now dedicate to all Fiction Alley Moderators who believe
that a comma is more important than the story or the meaning of words.
> > 


> Heidi:
> 
> And, as I'm one of the FA admins, I'm not really sure how to take
> that, so I'm asking all of you what your thoughts on stories are.
> 


Steve:

There's good news and bad news; for every rule in the English language
there are roughly three exceptions to the rule (from memory; 1,000
rules and 3,000 exceptions).

Bad News- That makes English a very confusing language even for people
who have used it effectively their whole lives.

Good News - That gives us the flexibility to speak and write very
expressively.

In addition, English is a living language; it grows and expands to
accomadate current needs. Things that used to be against the rules
have become the standard.

Some examples and pet peeves-

Ellipsis ...
1.) The omission of a word or phrase necessary for a complete
syntactical construction but not necessary for understanding.
2.) sometimes used to indicate pause or hesitation when writing dialog.

I'm concerned primarily with definition 2.) which is accepted as part
of the applied definition of ellipsis even if it is frequently left
out of the formal definition. Many beta reader adhere unswervingly to
the rule THREE AND ONLY THREE periods (...) are allowed. PERDIOD - END
OF SENTENCE - NO EXCEPTION UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.

Unfortunately, this is one case where the rule is inadequate. It
simply can't fill the needs of some writers. For many writers, need
has created application, and lacking any other effective method,
periods have come to mean the 'proportional passage of time'. In other
words, '. . .' is a short passage of time, and '. . . . . . .' is a
long passage of time. 

This is frequenly used by myself and other writers when we have a very
specific pace of dialog in mind. When the speaker's hesitance conveys
very specific things about his mood and state of mind. 

For a simple dialog pause, the standard three dots is fine, but for
more complex pacing, there is no standard method; therefore, writers
must invent one.

Despite being against the rules and routinely rejected by beta readers
without consideration to context or intent, it can be used
effectively. Although, I readily admit, in most cases, it is done with
pointless excess. I, on rare occassion, have used it so effectively
that my Beta Reader commented on it, noting that the pacing really
helped convey the speaker's mood. 

I also admit to have gotten a little carried away on occassion, and 
bow try to keep it to a minimum, but there are occassions when breaks,
pauses, and pacing in dialog are important to me, and the pauses must
be proportional, that is, I must be able to distinguish a slight pause
from a slightly longer pause and from a long pause. 

I also need to tie the pause to specific utterances in ways that are
non-standard relative to formal ellipsis rules. For example, a pause
may occur before and after an utterance, and is therefore tied to the
utterance. "...aahhh... What were you thinking?"

These non-standard methods are typically used for pauses that are
longer or more critical to pace than simple pauses, but are too short
to break the dialog with descriptive narative, or when breaking into
narative would disrupt the mood or flow. 

Because the 'dots' are being used in a non-standard way, they don't
comform to 'ellipsis' standard conventions, and that can drive a
purist beta readers nuts.

Script Format-

The problem here is that few stories lend themselves well to being
told in TRUE formal script format. Which, to anyone who has
investigated it, is a very formal, strict, and complex purpose
directed format. 

Consequently, I sometimes write in my own self-invented
Narrative/Dialog format. True, characters are named then what they say
is listed, but between named characters speaking are long detailed
STORY (not stage) based narratives. In other words, between actors
speaking, I tell the story rather than give stage directions.

Example: (Slightly Slashy)

Basic Format-

(Narrative)

ACTOR: (descriptors)
...actor's speech...

Actual Example-
(An angel, a skinny starving pale faced angel had come down from
heaven and landed in his bed. Percy watched Harry sleeping. It was
hard to believe that beneath that peaceful sleep and angelic face, a
nightmare was boiling. Percy hoped the comfort he had given Harry was
enough, enough to have held that nightmare at bay for at least this
one night. As he held Harry and nuzzled his face in Harry's neck,
instinctively, his hips began to rock slowly. His angel stirred,
reached back and touched his hip, caressed him, then spoke his name.)

HARRY:
Morning Percy. Do I get a kiss?

PERCY:
Morning sweetie, did you have nice dreams? And, yes, you can have a
thousand kisses if you want them.
. . . . . . . . . . 

When the narrative or the overal context don't convey the specifics of
the nature of what is said I add dialog descriptors.

Example-

Standard format-

"Get back!' Harry said furiously.

Narrative/Dialog Format-

HARRY: (furiously)
Get back!

My point here is that, it's wrong to force people who are writing in a
script-LIKE format into a rigid techincal TRUE-script format. In most
cases they are not writing scripts, but are telling a story in what I
call a dialog format. However, I will agree that ragardless of the
exact nature and style of the writer's format, it must be consistent
and functional.

In addition, any writer, especially an amateur, must find a Beta
Reader/Proofread. I find that I know what I intended to write so well
that my eyes and mind see what I intended rather than what is actually
there, no matter how closely I read it. 

Typically, if I convert what I wrote into another format which usually
means printing or publishing it, errors that my mind previously slid
right over are now glaringly obvious. That's why a Beta Reader is
important, they will see errors that just don't register with someone
as close to the story as the original author. 

In addition, a good Beta Reader will immensely improve your ability as
a writer. Despite the fact that I couldn't see much difference,
several readers commented on my improved writing once I started using
a Beta Reader. It was hardly noticable to me, but very obvious to them.

My Beta Reader and I have a great system of using different colored
fonts in the corrected versions. I send her a file in .DOC format, and
she adds corrections in RED, then adds comments and explanation
regarding corrections in another color(blue). Personal or broader
story related comments are in another color(green). In addition, she
rarely changes what I wrote, instead she will highlight the areas of
my writing she wants to change then add her change in red. That way, I
get to see the before and after, as well as, in her notes and personal
comments, see the reason why; very, very helpful.

You can usually find eager Bete Readers. There are a lot of people out
there who love to edit stories. They love editing and proofreading as
much as we love writing. To get my Beta Reader, I simple posted in
this group and asked, in no time I had several volunteers. 

I have read several good stories that were trashed by poor writing.
That is, the story was great, but it contained so many errors in
grammer, punctuation, and style that it was hopelessly tedious to
read. I want to read it, but I didn't want to have to struggle so hard
to do it. That's exactly what happens to good stories that are poorly
formated, they are so tedious to read that readers give up. The moral
here is, if you want your stories read, don't make the reader struggle.

Conclusion, I think, as long as a story is cleaned up enough that it's
not a struggle to read, that's good enough. It doesn't have to be
perfect, but it does have to be functional.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn (was bboy_mn)