Page 18
Fig. 1.
The ABC'S of Writing & The Art of Appropriate Prose
A Brief Overview on the Basics of Writing Better Fiction
Part 2
Conjunctions Etcetera
And, But, For, Nor, Or, Yet, Then, When, During, Once, Again, While,
As, Who, What, Where, When, How, Why, That, Which, There, It
Prepositions and prepositional phrases: With, In, Into, At, To,
Toward, Towards, Out, Of, Away, From, Around, About
As, Who, What, Where, When, How, Why, That, Which, There, It
Prepositions and prepositional phrases: With, In, Into, At, To,
Toward, Towards, Out, Of, Away, From, Around, About
The more common conjunctions are: and, but, for, nor, or, yet, and then. These little words join together clauses and other parts of long sentences. They often need commas, but not always. In a short sentence with a simple thought, see if you can delete the comma and retain the meaning. I don't like vegetables, especially when they're cooked. I don't like vegetables especially when they're cooked. (better) But and then almost always need a comma. John looked for Linda, but never found her. Linda waited for John to see her, then waved to him. This last sentence is a good example of how a lot of grammar is logical. Since her is both a personal pronoun as in, He liked her, and a possessive pronoun as in, She liked her new purse, we can see why the comma is needed between her and then. Otherwise the sentence could read as if then belonged to her and she wanted John to see it.
Less common conjunctions (some of which have other functions also) are: when, during, once, again, while, and as. In general, these words are interchangeable with each other. Varying their use allows an author to avoid repetitive usage of the same terms over and over again. When Jon arrived, everyone cheered. As Jon arrived, everyone cheered. Once Jon arrived, everyone cheered.
Who, what, where, when, how, why? (in no particular order). As soon as possible, in almost every chapter, for every scene change, and for almost every character, inform the reader with the answers to these questions: Who is doing what? (to whom) Where and when are they doing it? How are they doing it, and why. Be brief and to the point. Which is to say, be creatively succinct. Find new and different ways to introduce new chapters, new events and characters, or remind readers of what went before. A little repetition is not only helpful, but necessary if too much time (or too many pages) has elapsed since we last saw so and so, or did such and such. John burst through the office door, interrupted the noontime meeting, and pulled Tom aside. "Why is it," he angrily asked, "I wasn't invited to your little luncheon party?" Notice how you don't need a question mark until the very end, but we know for sure it's a question because of the dependent narrative descriptor, "he angrily asked".
That, which, how, who (mix and match and don’t overuse) In general, that is used when added information is important or necessary. Use which when added information is provided for fun or clarity. John used a knife that bore a dull edge. Jon swam in the pool, which felt colder than he expected. The comma is critical when using which or who. In the above sentence, we know that John had a reaction to the pool water. John swam in the pool which felt colder than he expected. Without the comma, it sounds like John had a choice among different pools. He chose the one that felt colder. The same sometimes applies to the use of who. John liked to watch the squirrels who collected acorns for the approaching winter season. Without the comma, John watches only those squirrels which are collecting acorns. John liked to watch the squirrels, who collected acorns for the approaching winter season. With a comma, there is no doubt whatsoever that all of the squirrels John was able to see, were collecting acorns.
Did you catch how the discussion has come full circle with respect to the comma itself? Here again are some sentences where the comma made a huge difference in terms of our understanding of the author's intent. This is a good way to learn this stuff by coming to things, in this case commas, via different rules of general usage for punctuation other than commas.
Use how as an occasional substitute for that. We are sometimes forced to use that over and over again. By using how, we can avoid monotonous repetition. John noted that the knife bore a dull edge. John noted how the knife bore a dull edge.
Don’t use that, which, or how, if the meaning is clear without it. "You know that I love you." "You know I love you." (better, but only as a general rule)
Do use that or how to avoid confusion, or to make the intent clearer. It's obvious I love you. (awkward) It's obvious that I love you. (better, but only as a general rule)
Always use who and never that when referring to people. "I love the people that love me." (wrong) "I love the people who love me." Technically speaking, who is not supposed to be used with animals. Cats are the animals that people love most. Cats are the animals who people love most. This rule is loose at best and unless your novel is a serious, no nonsense story, I prefer using who with animals. The one caveat is that you consistently refer to animals in the same way throughout your entire story. Don't use who sometimes, and that at other times.
In longer sentences, it bears repeating how the comma can be extremely important. John liked the people who liked him in return. Without the comma, John likes only the people who like him. John liked the people, who liked him in return. With the comma, Jon likes them, they like him.
The possessive form of whose can be used (sparingly) in reference to inanimate objects. The fancy porcelain dishes, whose fragile nature made them especially vulnerable, shattered as they hit the floor. Note the precise placement of commas, especially the one between dishes and whose. Depending on the context of the story, this specific comma might be intentionally omitted. Using whose with inanimate objects is a little like using who with animals. It's not really correct, but there's a certain intimacy about it that feels warm and fuzzy. The prim and proper alternative choice is: The fancy porcelain dishes, the fragile nature of which made them especially vulnerable, shattered as they hit the floor. Depending on the story, this latter version seems too formal for frequent usage.
Prepositions: with, in, into, at, to, toward, towards, out, of, away, from, around, about, by. Prepositional phrases. He ran into the bedroom and looked out the (or out of the) window. One sentence comprised of two clauses and two prepositional phrases. Note that instead of "out of the window", I used "out the window." While both are basically correct, I try to leave out words which I know are not needed. Just because it's the right thing to do. Out and of are both prepositions, and you simply don't need both. When the meaning is not clear, however, or I want to really drive home the action, I'll leave that extra word in. It's important to pay particular attention to not overusing the same prepositions or prepositional phrases. Another case of mix and match, rotate them around, wait until you've used all the ones at your disposal before using the same ones over again. He fell out the moving car. (It's not always the right thing to do) He fell out of the moving car. Better yet, He fell from the moving car. But not, He fell away from the moving car.
Using and by can often be substituted for with. He picked it up with his hand. He picked it up using his hand. With his strength of will alone, he lifted it. By his strength of will alone, he lifted it. Since we know that using is a participle, which is an active/action word, you might avoid the use of using in the case of where you're already using lots of action words and one more just dilutes the soup, so to speak.
Toward and towards are interchangeable with no preferred usage of one over the other. I always use towards. Decide which one you like and don't ever use the other (not in the same story). Avoid using the redundant forms of away from and out of (which I covered earlier). He ran out the door. (not out of) She ran from him. (not away from) She pulled away and ran from him. Not a hard and fast rule (so what else is new?).
Avoid using there and it to begin sentences. Their judicious, frugal use applies, in any case, only to independent and dependent narratives. Otherwise remember that pretty much anything goes when it comes to dialogue -- depending on who (or what) the character is. There were many reasons for him to like her. (wordy, passive form) He saw many reasons to like her. (nice, active version) It was apparent that a ghost had appeared. (wordy) Apparently a ghost had appeared. (sweet) As always, exceptions apply, but in general these are good suggestions to keep in mind. Consider the best choices possible, then choose the form that your own reasoning favors as the right one for your story's particular tone and tenor.
Always try to have a reason for why you choose one approach over another. Authors too often write the narrative voices in a manner similar to common dialogue. Don't! Not unless the independent narrative is a character's actual narration of events. You want dialogue to be as far removed, in style and substance, from other narratives as much as possible. Why? Remember what I just said about always having a reason? In this instance, stories read faster and smoother if readers can easily distinguish between dialogue and narratives. If what's written with quotation marks reads the same as without them, well, you get the idea. The sharper the differentiation, the better. He couldn't wait because he wanted her in the worst possible way. "I can't live without you," he said. To me, this all just runs too closely together. Maybe it's just me.
Contractions in the narrative and dialogue voices: Speaking of choices, this is a good time to mention something you can easily check into, think about, then decide what's best for your own writing style. Open a few novels, three or four, maybe more, and pay particular attention to the how the narrative is written compared to the dialogue. You'll notice that all authors use contractions, slang, poor grammar, and so forth when writing what their characters say. Bill said, "Put the booze down, John, and let's hit the damn road!" A question arises, however, as to how a writer should handle the straight narrative of their story. John didn't wait for Bill to ask him again, and it wasn't long before the two were back on the highway. Compare this narrative that contains two contractions, to the same narrative without any: John did not wait for Bill to ask him again, and it was not long before the two were back on the highway. It sounds better with the contractions because the sentence was originally written with the contractions intended. If you decide to write without contractions in the narrative voices, they need to be constructed somewhat differently to avoid sounding awkward, as if they needed contractions. John knew they had to leave and that Bill was growing impatient. After a quick pit-stop in the restroom, the two were soon back on the highway.
The choice is yours as to which style you prefer. I don't like contractions in the narrative because, as I've said, it sounds too much like dialogue. You'll also notice that by not using contractions, the writer is often forced to cough up more detail or provide additional descriptions (that's a good thing). In this instance, After a quick pit-stop in the restroom, wasn't in the original version that contained contractions. I shouldn't have to say it by now, but no matter which style you decide to use, you'll need to use that same style from first page to last. Choose well, young Skywalker!
Less common conjunctions (some of which have other functions also) are: when, during, once, again, while, and as. In general, these words are interchangeable with each other. Varying their use allows an author to avoid repetitive usage of the same terms over and over again. When Jon arrived, everyone cheered. As Jon arrived, everyone cheered. Once Jon arrived, everyone cheered.
Who, what, where, when, how, why? (in no particular order). As soon as possible, in almost every chapter, for every scene change, and for almost every character, inform the reader with the answers to these questions: Who is doing what? (to whom) Where and when are they doing it? How are they doing it, and why. Be brief and to the point. Which is to say, be creatively succinct. Find new and different ways to introduce new chapters, new events and characters, or remind readers of what went before. A little repetition is not only helpful, but necessary if too much time (or too many pages) has elapsed since we last saw so and so, or did such and such. John burst through the office door, interrupted the noontime meeting, and pulled Tom aside. "Why is it," he angrily asked, "I wasn't invited to your little luncheon party?" Notice how you don't need a question mark until the very end, but we know for sure it's a question because of the dependent narrative descriptor, "he angrily asked".
That, which, how, who (mix and match and don’t overuse) In general, that is used when added information is important or necessary. Use which when added information is provided for fun or clarity. John used a knife that bore a dull edge. Jon swam in the pool, which felt colder than he expected. The comma is critical when using which or who. In the above sentence, we know that John had a reaction to the pool water. John swam in the pool which felt colder than he expected. Without the comma, it sounds like John had a choice among different pools. He chose the one that felt colder. The same sometimes applies to the use of who. John liked to watch the squirrels who collected acorns for the approaching winter season. Without the comma, John watches only those squirrels which are collecting acorns. John liked to watch the squirrels, who collected acorns for the approaching winter season. With a comma, there is no doubt whatsoever that all of the squirrels John was able to see, were collecting acorns.
Did you catch how the discussion has come full circle with respect to the comma itself? Here again are some sentences where the comma made a huge difference in terms of our understanding of the author's intent. This is a good way to learn this stuff by coming to things, in this case commas, via different rules of general usage for punctuation other than commas.
Use how as an occasional substitute for that. We are sometimes forced to use that over and over again. By using how, we can avoid monotonous repetition. John noted that the knife bore a dull edge. John noted how the knife bore a dull edge.
Don’t use that, which, or how, if the meaning is clear without it. "You know that I love you." "You know I love you." (better, but only as a general rule)
Do use that or how to avoid confusion, or to make the intent clearer. It's obvious I love you. (awkward) It's obvious that I love you. (better, but only as a general rule)
Always use who and never that when referring to people. "I love the people that love me." (wrong) "I love the people who love me." Technically speaking, who is not supposed to be used with animals. Cats are the animals that people love most. Cats are the animals who people love most. This rule is loose at best and unless your novel is a serious, no nonsense story, I prefer using who with animals. The one caveat is that you consistently refer to animals in the same way throughout your entire story. Don't use who sometimes, and that at other times.
In longer sentences, it bears repeating how the comma can be extremely important. John liked the people who liked him in return. Without the comma, John likes only the people who like him. John liked the people, who liked him in return. With the comma, Jon likes them, they like him.
The possessive form of whose can be used (sparingly) in reference to inanimate objects. The fancy porcelain dishes, whose fragile nature made them especially vulnerable, shattered as they hit the floor. Note the precise placement of commas, especially the one between dishes and whose. Depending on the context of the story, this specific comma might be intentionally omitted. Using whose with inanimate objects is a little like using who with animals. It's not really correct, but there's a certain intimacy about it that feels warm and fuzzy. The prim and proper alternative choice is: The fancy porcelain dishes, the fragile nature of which made them especially vulnerable, shattered as they hit the floor. Depending on the story, this latter version seems too formal for frequent usage.
Prepositions: with, in, into, at, to, toward, towards, out, of, away, from, around, about, by. Prepositional phrases. He ran into the bedroom and looked out the (or out of the) window. One sentence comprised of two clauses and two prepositional phrases. Note that instead of "out of the window", I used "out the window." While both are basically correct, I try to leave out words which I know are not needed. Just because it's the right thing to do. Out and of are both prepositions, and you simply don't need both. When the meaning is not clear, however, or I want to really drive home the action, I'll leave that extra word in. It's important to pay particular attention to not overusing the same prepositions or prepositional phrases. Another case of mix and match, rotate them around, wait until you've used all the ones at your disposal before using the same ones over again. He fell out the moving car. (It's not always the right thing to do) He fell out of the moving car. Better yet, He fell from the moving car. But not, He fell away from the moving car.
Using and by can often be substituted for with. He picked it up with his hand. He picked it up using his hand. With his strength of will alone, he lifted it. By his strength of will alone, he lifted it. Since we know that using is a participle, which is an active/action word, you might avoid the use of using in the case of where you're already using lots of action words and one more just dilutes the soup, so to speak.
Toward and towards are interchangeable with no preferred usage of one over the other. I always use towards. Decide which one you like and don't ever use the other (not in the same story). Avoid using the redundant forms of away from and out of (which I covered earlier). He ran out the door. (not out of) She ran from him. (not away from) She pulled away and ran from him. Not a hard and fast rule (so what else is new?).
Avoid using there and it to begin sentences. Their judicious, frugal use applies, in any case, only to independent and dependent narratives. Otherwise remember that pretty much anything goes when it comes to dialogue -- depending on who (or what) the character is. There were many reasons for him to like her. (wordy, passive form) He saw many reasons to like her. (nice, active version) It was apparent that a ghost had appeared. (wordy) Apparently a ghost had appeared. (sweet) As always, exceptions apply, but in general these are good suggestions to keep in mind. Consider the best choices possible, then choose the form that your own reasoning favors as the right one for your story's particular tone and tenor.
Always try to have a reason for why you choose one approach over another. Authors too often write the narrative voices in a manner similar to common dialogue. Don't! Not unless the independent narrative is a character's actual narration of events. You want dialogue to be as far removed, in style and substance, from other narratives as much as possible. Why? Remember what I just said about always having a reason? In this instance, stories read faster and smoother if readers can easily distinguish between dialogue and narratives. If what's written with quotation marks reads the same as without them, well, you get the idea. The sharper the differentiation, the better. He couldn't wait because he wanted her in the worst possible way. "I can't live without you," he said. To me, this all just runs too closely together. Maybe it's just me.
Contractions in the narrative and dialogue voices: Speaking of choices, this is a good time to mention something you can easily check into, think about, then decide what's best for your own writing style. Open a few novels, three or four, maybe more, and pay particular attention to the how the narrative is written compared to the dialogue. You'll notice that all authors use contractions, slang, poor grammar, and so forth when writing what their characters say. Bill said, "Put the booze down, John, and let's hit the damn road!" A question arises, however, as to how a writer should handle the straight narrative of their story. John didn't wait for Bill to ask him again, and it wasn't long before the two were back on the highway. Compare this narrative that contains two contractions, to the same narrative without any: John did not wait for Bill to ask him again, and it was not long before the two were back on the highway. It sounds better with the contractions because the sentence was originally written with the contractions intended. If you decide to write without contractions in the narrative voices, they need to be constructed somewhat differently to avoid sounding awkward, as if they needed contractions. John knew they had to leave and that Bill was growing impatient. After a quick pit-stop in the restroom, the two were soon back on the highway.
The choice is yours as to which style you prefer. I don't like contractions in the narrative because, as I've said, it sounds too much like dialogue. You'll also notice that by not using contractions, the writer is often forced to cough up more detail or provide additional descriptions (that's a good thing). In this instance, After a quick pit-stop in the restroom, wasn't in the original version that contained contractions. I shouldn't have to say it by now, but no matter which style you decide to use, you'll need to use that same style from first page to last. Choose well, young Skywalker!
More of the Bear Necessities
Names / Pronouns / Synonyms / Hyphens / Quotes
Redundancy / Monotony / Repetition / Big words versus the Right Words
Redundancy / Monotony / Repetition / Big words versus the Right Words
When using character names, including the names of particular things or places, the propitious substitution of pronouns and synonyms is invaluable to a well written story. We want to avoid overusing our characters' given names (or any other name) because doing so quickly becomes tedious if not annoying.
Whenever possible, and whenever it is clear who is speaking or acting, use personal pronouns like he, his, him, she, her, hers, it, its. Keep in mind, however, that pronouns can be overcooked as much as character names, and sound just as dull and monotonous. Where suitable, substitute descriptive identities for characters. Examples: the grandfather, the mother, the child, the woman, the man, the doctor, etcetera. Once any of the following have been originally introduced as being one thing or another, use synonyms for objects, things, people, animals, and so forth -- when they are subsequently mentioned (referred to). John grabbed the box. Once he opened it, the man found that the container held several bundles of money. If this narrative continued, I would then repeat the word, box, after having first replaced the word with it and then container.
This again is very much like a dance where you jockey back and forth between or among whatever number of synonyms or pronouns you have at your disposal. Sometimes you only have one or two. Other times there's a bunch of them to choose from. Some words like, tree, have none -- which can be very frustrating. If you have a lot of synonyms available, don't use too many of them, or all of them. In other words, don't go hog-wild with them. In the foregoing example where I used box, then it, then container, I would have returned again to box rather than inject yet another synonym. If you overdo it, a reader might well lose track of what the original item was. Or if there were more than one. Okay? Okay.
Allow me to backtrack a moment and mention (repeat) a bit more about dialogue versus the narrative voices. The concepts involved are so important, it's hard for me to be sure I've covered them sufficiently. It's better, I think, to come at this stuff from a bunch of different directions (and repeat myself) than it is to cover the subject too quickly, especially given the limitations of this guide itself.
Recall how there are relatively few rules in dialogue. Characters speak according to their own individual and distinct personalities. Some use slang, all of them use contractions, and often -- if not always -- they break the normal rules of grammar. Remember that each character must talk the same way, each and every time. Which means when you vary the specific speech mannerisms of different characters, such as someone who says, you know, all the time, or another who stutters or stammers a lot, make sure they speak the same way throughout the story. Even then, don't bend over backwards trying to make every character sound differently. Just the few main characters might have their own idiosyncrasies. And maybe a couple with some habitual pattern to the way they talk. But that's it.
On the other hand, the narrative voices have a few, more important rules. Like I said, try not to use contractions in the narrative. The narrative (narrator) voice rightfully tends to be formal, stiff, and subject to many of the rules of grammar (if not all of them). Exceptions can be found in use of the dependent narrative voice, which is always character-centered. And examples of which are the expression of obvious, unspoken “thoughts” that read like dialogue. He knew he shouldn't have done it, and now suffered a shitload of guilt as a result. This is the character thinking to him or herself. Here's the same thing written as straight narrative: The man realized he had made a terrible mistake, and guilt smothered his every thought; he felt like a truckload of manure had been dumped all over him.
Hyphens are generally a real bugaboo. When in doubt (which is most of the time), always check that dictionary you keep with you like it was your best friend -- which it is. If you don't find what you're looking for, here's a general guide as to usage: hyphenated words are often phrase fragments used as direct adjectives, meaning the adjective comes before the noun. Check out the following examples: The turtle was upside down. The upside-down turtle had obviously been flipped over. See the difference? Both are correct, but if the adjective comes first, hyphenate (as a general rule of finger). Upside down appears in a dictionary without a hyphen. Same as side by side and many others. When using these kind of mini-phrases as direct modifiers (a matter of style or intended emphasis), the chances are good that they'll need a hyphen. The installation sat above ground, but was highly camouflaged. The above-ground installation was highly camouflaged. You get the idea, right?
Ah, the art of using quotation marks. Not always as easy as they seem, but they usually are. We express dialogue in three basic ways; mix and match them up, shake them all around, from one paragraph to another.
John said, “I love you, Mom.”
“I love you, Mom,” John said.
“Mom,” John said, “I love you.”
Notice how I snuck in some ellipses below, just to mess with you. All other forms of dialogue are simply variations on one of these three constructions. The speaker comes first. The speaker comes after. The speaker is in the middle. It is often the case where we don't need to mention the speaker at all because it's understood who's talking. If you delete the speaker in each of the foregoing examples, however, you still see at least three different ways of saying the same thing, depending on what's happening. And who's talking.
"I don't know what to say . . . ." she said, her voice trailing to just a whisper.
"I don't know what to say . . . ." Her voice went silent as she turned and walked away.
John said, "I don't know what to -- " Note the use of the dash.
"Say?!" she exclaimed.
John said, "I don't know what to . . . "
"Say?!" she interjected. Note how the ellipsis substitutes for the dash when using a descriptor such as interjected.
John said, "I don't know what to . . . ." He left his thought unfinished as he turned and walked away. Note the differences between three ellipsis periods, and four of them. Four periods always indicate that the speaker's dialogue has ended, one way or another. Three, however, are often used to show that the speaker's words are interrupted. The dash is used in place of ellipsis points when the speaker is interrupted without a subsequent descriptor such as, She said, interrupting him.
Proper use of ellipses can be a bit tricky. The idea is to use them sparingly and even then, experiment with all the possible variations to give your dialogue an authentic texture that reflects the way people really talk to one another.
Redundancy, monotony, repetition (you know, just like me). Avoid repeating, over and over again, the same words, phrases, sentence styles and lengths, thoughts, ideas, punctuation, anything else and everything else. I still do it, but it's always accidental and never because I was just being lazy. I'm lazy when it comes to chopping wood, not writing. I don't think you really need to see any examples, right? I didn't think so.
Good writing combines and mixes a wide variety (mix) of words, punctuation, and information into both narrative and dialogue. If it needs to be said more than once, it either wasn’t clear enough the first time, or it's important enough to deserve repeating. Always be inventive, imaginative, and inventive. John went shopping because he wanted to buy stuff. (duhh, no kidding; we know what shopping means) John went shopping because spending money was in his blood.
Big words versus the right words: so-called "big" words are useful when little or simple ones are inadequate, don’t quite say what we want, or we've already used our other choices "to death". Time to bring in a few big guns, so to speak. But never too big. Or mostly never. Simple words like small are frequently used over and over again, and we run the risk of repeating ourselves too much, thus boring the reader to death. Use both a thesaurus and a dictionary. For a word such as small, substitute tiny, minuscule, teeny, little, itsy-bitsy, minute, or some other synonym whenever possible. Don't use sub-atomic as a synonym for small, however, which is a good example of crossing the line.
Be certain of a word’s exact meaning. Any and all words. When in doubt, look in your handy dandy dictionary. Match the right word to the precise intention you wish to convey to the reader. A word that's only close to being the right one, is often not good enough. If this sounds like a pain, it often is, but the more of it you do, the less you'll need to do it. If you catch my drift. The reader, who interprets everything literally, is easily misled by a poorly chosen word. Don’t cheat by using a big word that sounds good, but nobody’s ever heard of it before. Or a word that looks good, but isn’t really what you had in mind. Notice how the comma after reader (above) is one of those really important ones. Do you remember why? Read the sentence without the comma and see what it says.
Beware of giant words which can easily make the author sound arrogant, snooty, or full of him or herself. One guideline for using big words is to choose those that have a familiar ring to them, even though their meaning was previously unknown or unclear to you. Avoid using huge words altogether, except on very rare occasions, if ever. Here's some more of what I'm talking about: harmful or dangerous (little words) threatening (a big word that means about the same) Apocryphal (a giant word with a related meaning). The general rule is: don't say purchase if you can buy it.
So how will you know a giant word from a big one? Two ways to tell: either you never heard of it before, or it sounds really big. When in doubt, go small. Be careful, though. There's a big difference between small and miniscule. Your pricy synonym still has to mean relatively the same as its chintzy counterpart. When using a thesaurus, don’t be sold on a word that looks too expensive. It usually is. Especially if you've never heard of it before, or it sounds too good to be true.
Whenever possible, and whenever it is clear who is speaking or acting, use personal pronouns like he, his, him, she, her, hers, it, its. Keep in mind, however, that pronouns can be overcooked as much as character names, and sound just as dull and monotonous. Where suitable, substitute descriptive identities for characters. Examples: the grandfather, the mother, the child, the woman, the man, the doctor, etcetera. Once any of the following have been originally introduced as being one thing or another, use synonyms for objects, things, people, animals, and so forth -- when they are subsequently mentioned (referred to). John grabbed the box. Once he opened it, the man found that the container held several bundles of money. If this narrative continued, I would then repeat the word, box, after having first replaced the word with it and then container.
This again is very much like a dance where you jockey back and forth between or among whatever number of synonyms or pronouns you have at your disposal. Sometimes you only have one or two. Other times there's a bunch of them to choose from. Some words like, tree, have none -- which can be very frustrating. If you have a lot of synonyms available, don't use too many of them, or all of them. In other words, don't go hog-wild with them. In the foregoing example where I used box, then it, then container, I would have returned again to box rather than inject yet another synonym. If you overdo it, a reader might well lose track of what the original item was. Or if there were more than one. Okay? Okay.
Allow me to backtrack a moment and mention (repeat) a bit more about dialogue versus the narrative voices. The concepts involved are so important, it's hard for me to be sure I've covered them sufficiently. It's better, I think, to come at this stuff from a bunch of different directions (and repeat myself) than it is to cover the subject too quickly, especially given the limitations of this guide itself.
Recall how there are relatively few rules in dialogue. Characters speak according to their own individual and distinct personalities. Some use slang, all of them use contractions, and often -- if not always -- they break the normal rules of grammar. Remember that each character must talk the same way, each and every time. Which means when you vary the specific speech mannerisms of different characters, such as someone who says, you know, all the time, or another who stutters or stammers a lot, make sure they speak the same way throughout the story. Even then, don't bend over backwards trying to make every character sound differently. Just the few main characters might have their own idiosyncrasies. And maybe a couple with some habitual pattern to the way they talk. But that's it.
On the other hand, the narrative voices have a few, more important rules. Like I said, try not to use contractions in the narrative. The narrative (narrator) voice rightfully tends to be formal, stiff, and subject to many of the rules of grammar (if not all of them). Exceptions can be found in use of the dependent narrative voice, which is always character-centered. And examples of which are the expression of obvious, unspoken “thoughts” that read like dialogue. He knew he shouldn't have done it, and now suffered a shitload of guilt as a result. This is the character thinking to him or herself. Here's the same thing written as straight narrative: The man realized he had made a terrible mistake, and guilt smothered his every thought; he felt like a truckload of manure had been dumped all over him.
Hyphens are generally a real bugaboo. When in doubt (which is most of the time), always check that dictionary you keep with you like it was your best friend -- which it is. If you don't find what you're looking for, here's a general guide as to usage: hyphenated words are often phrase fragments used as direct adjectives, meaning the adjective comes before the noun. Check out the following examples: The turtle was upside down. The upside-down turtle had obviously been flipped over. See the difference? Both are correct, but if the adjective comes first, hyphenate (as a general rule of finger). Upside down appears in a dictionary without a hyphen. Same as side by side and many others. When using these kind of mini-phrases as direct modifiers (a matter of style or intended emphasis), the chances are good that they'll need a hyphen. The installation sat above ground, but was highly camouflaged. The above-ground installation was highly camouflaged. You get the idea, right?
Ah, the art of using quotation marks. Not always as easy as they seem, but they usually are. We express dialogue in three basic ways; mix and match them up, shake them all around, from one paragraph to another.
John said, “I love you, Mom.”
“I love you, Mom,” John said.
“Mom,” John said, “I love you.”
Notice how I snuck in some ellipses below, just to mess with you. All other forms of dialogue are simply variations on one of these three constructions. The speaker comes first. The speaker comes after. The speaker is in the middle. It is often the case where we don't need to mention the speaker at all because it's understood who's talking. If you delete the speaker in each of the foregoing examples, however, you still see at least three different ways of saying the same thing, depending on what's happening. And who's talking.
"I don't know what to say . . . ." she said, her voice trailing to just a whisper.
"I don't know what to say . . . ." Her voice went silent as she turned and walked away.
John said, "I don't know what to -- " Note the use of the dash.
"Say?!" she exclaimed.
John said, "I don't know what to . . . "
"Say?!" she interjected. Note how the ellipsis substitutes for the dash when using a descriptor such as interjected.
John said, "I don't know what to . . . ." He left his thought unfinished as he turned and walked away. Note the differences between three ellipsis periods, and four of them. Four periods always indicate that the speaker's dialogue has ended, one way or another. Three, however, are often used to show that the speaker's words are interrupted. The dash is used in place of ellipsis points when the speaker is interrupted without a subsequent descriptor such as, She said, interrupting him.
Proper use of ellipses can be a bit tricky. The idea is to use them sparingly and even then, experiment with all the possible variations to give your dialogue an authentic texture that reflects the way people really talk to one another.
Redundancy, monotony, repetition (you know, just like me). Avoid repeating, over and over again, the same words, phrases, sentence styles and lengths, thoughts, ideas, punctuation, anything else and everything else. I still do it, but it's always accidental and never because I was just being lazy. I'm lazy when it comes to chopping wood, not writing. I don't think you really need to see any examples, right? I didn't think so.
Good writing combines and mixes a wide variety (mix) of words, punctuation, and information into both narrative and dialogue. If it needs to be said more than once, it either wasn’t clear enough the first time, or it's important enough to deserve repeating. Always be inventive, imaginative, and inventive. John went shopping because he wanted to buy stuff. (duhh, no kidding; we know what shopping means) John went shopping because spending money was in his blood.
Big words versus the right words: so-called "big" words are useful when little or simple ones are inadequate, don’t quite say what we want, or we've already used our other choices "to death". Time to bring in a few big guns, so to speak. But never too big. Or mostly never. Simple words like small are frequently used over and over again, and we run the risk of repeating ourselves too much, thus boring the reader to death. Use both a thesaurus and a dictionary. For a word such as small, substitute tiny, minuscule, teeny, little, itsy-bitsy, minute, or some other synonym whenever possible. Don't use sub-atomic as a synonym for small, however, which is a good example of crossing the line.
Be certain of a word’s exact meaning. Any and all words. When in doubt, look in your handy dandy dictionary. Match the right word to the precise intention you wish to convey to the reader. A word that's only close to being the right one, is often not good enough. If this sounds like a pain, it often is, but the more of it you do, the less you'll need to do it. If you catch my drift. The reader, who interprets everything literally, is easily misled by a poorly chosen word. Don’t cheat by using a big word that sounds good, but nobody’s ever heard of it before. Or a word that looks good, but isn’t really what you had in mind. Notice how the comma after reader (above) is one of those really important ones. Do you remember why? Read the sentence without the comma and see what it says.
Beware of giant words which can easily make the author sound arrogant, snooty, or full of him or herself. One guideline for using big words is to choose those that have a familiar ring to them, even though their meaning was previously unknown or unclear to you. Avoid using huge words altogether, except on very rare occasions, if ever. Here's some more of what I'm talking about: harmful or dangerous (little words) threatening (a big word that means about the same) Apocryphal (a giant word with a related meaning). The general rule is: don't say purchase if you can buy it.
So how will you know a giant word from a big one? Two ways to tell: either you never heard of it before, or it sounds really big. When in doubt, go small. Be careful, though. There's a big difference between small and miniscule. Your pricy synonym still has to mean relatively the same as its chintzy counterpart. When using a thesaurus, don’t be sold on a word that looks too expensive. It usually is. Especially if you've never heard of it before, or it sounds too good to be true.
Similes & Metaphors
Simile looks like the word, smile. And maybe for good reason.
As if, like, resembles, similar to, as though, seem, seemingly, akin to, not unlike / look, appear / had, was, were
The most common similes and metaphors are as if, like, resembles, similar to, as though, seem, seemingly, akin to, and not unlike. A simile is a comparison where two or more things are like one another. He ran like a deer. A metaphor is a comparison where one or more things substitute for one or more others. His argumentative opinion made a mountain out of a mole hill. Similes and metaphors represent literary doorways to wonder and exaltation. Aside from adjectives, they are an author's greatest resource of descriptive tools. They can mean the difference between a dull manuscript and a magnificent one. They are the ultimate camera and movie-screen of the mind. Use them frequently, without boundaries or mercy. But by all means, use them, period.
Mix and match the variety of ways similes and metaphors can be used. He ran like a deer. (internal to a sentence) Similar to a deer, he bounded away. (precedes an independent clause) He ran away as if he were himself a frightened deer. (trails independent clause) Avoid sticking like at the end of a word. Birdlike, cloudlike, demonlike, etcetera. If it’s so much like something, phrase it as a full statement. If the writing is informal fiction, check a dictionary first to see if a term like birdlike is an acceptable form (for example). Some are, some aren't. You can always cheat if you want; I do. Especially in fantasy fiction. Just don't get too fond of words like birdlike.
Take a look at these two words which appear to be the same: look and appear. They serve as a good example of word relationships to which all writers should pay close attention. Look literally means “to see”. She looked beautiful. (informal, technically wrong, okay in dialogue) These observations apply only to the narrative voices, by the way; remember that dialogue thumbs its nose as these kind of things. The writer surely doesn't mean the woman's eyes saw things in a beautiful way. Rather the writer obviously means the woman was physically pretty. She appeared beautiful is what the author really means to say. So why is this important? The reason is because the two words, in the narrative, are not necessarily interchangeable, one with the other. If we don't care which one we use, or when, then narrative descriptions will be all over the map where the writer uses look and appear in different ways at different times.
In my opinion, this sort of writing is sloppy and lazy, which is easy to avoid. He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she was (bad form). He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she looked (using the same word, look, in two different ways). He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she appeared (perfect). Notice how in the first instance, how pretty she was, the literal meaning indicates her beauty is in the past tense. She used to be pretty, but no longer is. In the past, she was pretty, but presently she just appears other than pretty. This is what the sentence really says when the writer says, He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she used to be? Personally, I prefer, Her face shone with a loveliness beyond measure. But that's just me.
Be wary of pseudo-synonyms like look and appear, and especially the passive was. This is why, if I haven't stressed it before, be keenly aware of when, where, and how you use was in your sentences. It is the most passive verb (to be) in English. I am, you are, he, she, or it, is. I was, you were, he, she, or it was. Keep in mind that was implies past tense. Something that's already happened. He was running fast when he stumbled and fell. This form is used so much in dialogue that putting it in the narrative, too, just makes things mushy. While running fast, he stumbled and fell. (nice active voice format) He was on his way, but decided to turn around and go back. (acceptable usage) Though already on his way, he decided to turn around and go back. (better).
A quick word or two about too, also, however, although, and though. Although means even though, while though means the same as however. They are often interchangeable, but not always. Also is formal, too is more informal. Use also in the narrative, too in dialogue (typically).
In English, had and was are strange, annoying little words. Had performs two distinct but separate functions, which are often confused and misused by writers. John had money in his wallet. (The possessive form of “to have or to possess”) John spent all his money. (Implied “present tense” meaning. John is in the act of spending his money right then) John had spent all his money. (The verb form, that puts an action into the past tense. Sometime in the past, John spent all his money on something). Again, we should draw a distinction between how we want to write more formally in the narrative, and less so, of course, in dialogue.
Normally had, in the possessive form, and was or were, in any form, should be reserved for use only in dialogue. “I had money,” John said, “but it’s gone.” The same sentence in the narrative might read, Though wealthy earlier in his life, the man's wallet was empty, the same as the rest of his life. “I was happy before you came along!” Ever since he came into her life, the woman felt unhappy. (active voice) Ever since he came into her life, the woman was unhappy (weaker, passive voice).
Use had in the narrative to describe something which happened before, a short or long while ago, but is not happening at the current moment. He had two brothers. (Wrong. Unless the brothers are dead) He had loved his brothers. (Correct usage, provided he no longer loves them)
Before moving on, let's do a quick review. Was is literally the past tense of the verb is, or to be (a state of being). Think of it as meaning used-to-be or used-to-exist, but no longer is, or does. Given this, let's translate the following sentence: Though elderly, the woman was pretty. In this sentence, the author does not really intend to say that the woman used to be pretty, but is presently ugly. The writer wants us to think the woman is pretty despite her age. The misuse of was is awkward, distracting, and contradictory. It is precisely for these reasons that we distinguish between narrative and dialogue. We allow for normal speech mannerisms in one, but expose ourselves to potential confusion in the other.
Think of using was in the same way we treat the word, had. In dialogue, we don’t care as long as the meaning is clear, and the character speaks the same way all the time. In narrative, however, everything changes. The reader tends to interpret all words literally, and therefore the author must pay close attention to precise meanings and intent. Though spoiled, she was a well behaved girl. (Wrong. Unless she has gone away or is dead) Though spoiled, she proved to be a well behaved girl. (Correct active voice for a character actively alive in the story)
Note how the usage of was and were is often implied (understood) and can often be deleted altogether from both independent and dependent sentence clauses.
Though she was spoiled, she was a well behaved girl. Though spoiled, she proved to be a well behaved girl. He was kind, considerate, and much loved by everyone. Kind and considerate, he enjoyed the love of everyone.
Just as with adverbs, there are no passive uses of was or were that cannot be converted to the active voice. The key is to use the passive form only when it's appropriate, and convert most others to the active voice. Which is how this guide begins, if you recall. It requires hard work and thought sometimes, to rephrase a sentence and eliminate the passive voice altogether. The process becomes easier with time and it's only the more active portions of a story where the active voice takes on a more vital role.
It makes good writing sense to distinguish (for both the reader’s and author's benefit) between narrative and dialogue in the clearest possible terms. The words flow smoother, sweeter, and faster, if the reader can readily identify -- at any time -- whether they're reading independent narrative, dependent narrative (thoughts) or dialogue. If all narrative reads the same as all dialogue or vice versa, than why care about the rules of grammar at all? Let the reader simply try to figure out what is what. And good luck with getting people to read your book.
Mix and match the variety of ways similes and metaphors can be used. He ran like a deer. (internal to a sentence) Similar to a deer, he bounded away. (precedes an independent clause) He ran away as if he were himself a frightened deer. (trails independent clause) Avoid sticking like at the end of a word. Birdlike, cloudlike, demonlike, etcetera. If it’s so much like something, phrase it as a full statement. If the writing is informal fiction, check a dictionary first to see if a term like birdlike is an acceptable form (for example). Some are, some aren't. You can always cheat if you want; I do. Especially in fantasy fiction. Just don't get too fond of words like birdlike.
Take a look at these two words which appear to be the same: look and appear. They serve as a good example of word relationships to which all writers should pay close attention. Look literally means “to see”. She looked beautiful. (informal, technically wrong, okay in dialogue) These observations apply only to the narrative voices, by the way; remember that dialogue thumbs its nose as these kind of things. The writer surely doesn't mean the woman's eyes saw things in a beautiful way. Rather the writer obviously means the woman was physically pretty. She appeared beautiful is what the author really means to say. So why is this important? The reason is because the two words, in the narrative, are not necessarily interchangeable, one with the other. If we don't care which one we use, or when, then narrative descriptions will be all over the map where the writer uses look and appear in different ways at different times.
In my opinion, this sort of writing is sloppy and lazy, which is easy to avoid. He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she was (bad form). He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she looked (using the same word, look, in two different ways). He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she appeared (perfect). Notice how in the first instance, how pretty she was, the literal meaning indicates her beauty is in the past tense. She used to be pretty, but no longer is. In the past, she was pretty, but presently she just appears other than pretty. This is what the sentence really says when the writer says, He looked at her and couldn't help but notice how pretty she used to be? Personally, I prefer, Her face shone with a loveliness beyond measure. But that's just me.
Be wary of pseudo-synonyms like look and appear, and especially the passive was. This is why, if I haven't stressed it before, be keenly aware of when, where, and how you use was in your sentences. It is the most passive verb (to be) in English. I am, you are, he, she, or it, is. I was, you were, he, she, or it was. Keep in mind that was implies past tense. Something that's already happened. He was running fast when he stumbled and fell. This form is used so much in dialogue that putting it in the narrative, too, just makes things mushy. While running fast, he stumbled and fell. (nice active voice format) He was on his way, but decided to turn around and go back. (acceptable usage) Though already on his way, he decided to turn around and go back. (better).
A quick word or two about too, also, however, although, and though. Although means even though, while though means the same as however. They are often interchangeable, but not always. Also is formal, too is more informal. Use also in the narrative, too in dialogue (typically).
In English, had and was are strange, annoying little words. Had performs two distinct but separate functions, which are often confused and misused by writers. John had money in his wallet. (The possessive form of “to have or to possess”) John spent all his money. (Implied “present tense” meaning. John is in the act of spending his money right then) John had spent all his money. (The verb form, that puts an action into the past tense. Sometime in the past, John spent all his money on something). Again, we should draw a distinction between how we want to write more formally in the narrative, and less so, of course, in dialogue.
Normally had, in the possessive form, and was or were, in any form, should be reserved for use only in dialogue. “I had money,” John said, “but it’s gone.” The same sentence in the narrative might read, Though wealthy earlier in his life, the man's wallet was empty, the same as the rest of his life. “I was happy before you came along!” Ever since he came into her life, the woman felt unhappy. (active voice) Ever since he came into her life, the woman was unhappy (weaker, passive voice).
Use had in the narrative to describe something which happened before, a short or long while ago, but is not happening at the current moment. He had two brothers. (Wrong. Unless the brothers are dead) He had loved his brothers. (Correct usage, provided he no longer loves them)
Before moving on, let's do a quick review. Was is literally the past tense of the verb is, or to be (a state of being). Think of it as meaning used-to-be or used-to-exist, but no longer is, or does. Given this, let's translate the following sentence: Though elderly, the woman was pretty. In this sentence, the author does not really intend to say that the woman used to be pretty, but is presently ugly. The writer wants us to think the woman is pretty despite her age. The misuse of was is awkward, distracting, and contradictory. It is precisely for these reasons that we distinguish between narrative and dialogue. We allow for normal speech mannerisms in one, but expose ourselves to potential confusion in the other.
Think of using was in the same way we treat the word, had. In dialogue, we don’t care as long as the meaning is clear, and the character speaks the same way all the time. In narrative, however, everything changes. The reader tends to interpret all words literally, and therefore the author must pay close attention to precise meanings and intent. Though spoiled, she was a well behaved girl. (Wrong. Unless she has gone away or is dead) Though spoiled, she proved to be a well behaved girl. (Correct active voice for a character actively alive in the story)
Note how the usage of was and were is often implied (understood) and can often be deleted altogether from both independent and dependent sentence clauses.
Though she was spoiled, she was a well behaved girl. Though spoiled, she proved to be a well behaved girl. He was kind, considerate, and much loved by everyone. Kind and considerate, he enjoyed the love of everyone.
Just as with adverbs, there are no passive uses of was or were that cannot be converted to the active voice. The key is to use the passive form only when it's appropriate, and convert most others to the active voice. Which is how this guide begins, if you recall. It requires hard work and thought sometimes, to rephrase a sentence and eliminate the passive voice altogether. The process becomes easier with time and it's only the more active portions of a story where the active voice takes on a more vital role.
It makes good writing sense to distinguish (for both the reader’s and author's benefit) between narrative and dialogue in the clearest possible terms. The words flow smoother, sweeter, and faster, if the reader can readily identify -- at any time -- whether they're reading independent narrative, dependent narrative (thoughts) or dialogue. If all narrative reads the same as all dialogue or vice versa, than why care about the rules of grammar at all? Let the reader simply try to figure out what is what. And good luck with getting people to read your book.
More Miscellaneous Stuff
Would / Might / Should / Could / Likely / Periods / Apostrophes / Will, shall
He would do it first thing in the morning. He might do it first thing in the morning. He should do it first thing in the morning. He could do it first thing in the morning. In the foregoing examples, each sentence essentially makes the same point. The italicized words are almost (but not quite) interchangeable with each other. The differences are subtle and contingent on the context of the story. They demonstrate the importance of saying what we mean, and meaning what we say.
Should has three connotations in English. Each can be used both in narrative and dialogue. He should go with her. (An imperative, must-do action) Should John go with her, she should enjoy his company. (meanings are similar to might and would, plus serve as alternatives to using might or would) John might go with her. If he did, she would enjoy his company. (Note how the use of might and would conveys a similar meaning, but is slightly different. With might and would, a conditionality is established (John might). Provided the condition is satisfied, an absolute result (she would) is asserted by the author or the speaker. This differs from the question (Should John) which asks, “if John went with her....”
The (she would) statement suggests a likely occurrence, but not a foregone conclusion. In dialogue, could and might may be substituted for would. In the narrative, meanings are typically more critical. While at first glance, these differences might appear confusing or difficult to grasp, learning how to mix and match these words will add color, clarity, and variety to your writing. Likely is often an acceptable replacement for should, when the intent is vague or uncertain. Should also means will in the future tense. I should be happy to meet her. (Context is everything) I should (must or am expected to) be happy to meet her. This is the correct form provided the literal meaning represents the author’s true intent. I should (will) be happy to meet her. I should (at some future moment) be happy to meet her. In terms of may versus might, they are not readily interchangeable. May refers to permission being granted. Might means could, but is more conditional (iffy) than may. You may go with me if you like. You might go with me if you like. Subtle and dependent on context.
As regards will and shall, the former is normal, the latter formal. You'd expect to see shall far more often in dialogue, where it' appropriate to a given character's normal (and somewhat formal) manner of speech, than in any narrative voice -- if ever. Apostrophes are fun little guys whose only real rules involve singular and plural nouns, and showing the possessive form. It used to be that the plural form of named objects like a DVD needed an apostrophe when there was more than one, as in, He had a handful of DVD's. Nowadays the apostrophe is often dropped altogether. He had a handful of DVDs. He saw many UFOs. This applies to both narrative and dialogue. Similar, I suppose, to how we now say cactuses and not cacti, fishes and not fish, and vertebras instead of vertebrae.
The possessive form, however, remains intact and important: The crowd's mood grew increasingly violent. Or, if more than one crowd (a political rally?) The crowds' moods grew increasingly violent. A better alternate is often as follows: The mood of the crowds grew increasingly violent. The moods of the different crowds grew increasingly violent. In general, reserve the possessive forms for individual people and animals, and sometimes (but only sometimes) an object. The airplane's fuel supply ran dangerously low. The fuel tanks of the airplane ran dangerously low. The sunset's colors were beautiful. (awkward) The many colors of the sunset were beautiful. (much better)
Use the apostrophe correctly when something is jointly owned or experienced by two or more individuals. Put another way, if two people or things are jointly (personally) involved, only the second person or thing requires an apostrophe. John and Joyce's sale of their house took longer than expected. Or, if the people or things are independent of one another (regardless of what else is shared between or among them) we add apostrophes to everyone involved: John's and Joyce's sales of their homes took longer than expected. Between versus among? Use among for three or more, between only for two. I just thought I'd throw that in as an added bonus.
This now concludes Part 2 of my guide to better writing. Hooray! The whole guide is little more than a brief introduction to writing basics, but with practice, comes learning. Especially when you're willing to dogear the pages of the grammar book, thesaurus, and dictionary that are never out of your sight. By studying the concepts outlined here, your skills should improve dramatically. Many rules (hints and suggestions), however, have not been mentioned or discussed. But while the entire list of grammatical bits is almost endless, the bigger, more generalized ideas covered here are what I consider the foundations upon which all the rest is constructed. Over time, the numerous elements I've not included, either intentionally or by oversight, should fit smoothly into place with all that I have chosen to include in this skimpy (but hopefully informative) overview. Feel free to ask me a question or point out where I got something wrong; I'm always happy to make excuses for my misbehavior.
A final note: Don’t get bogged down with rules. General theory should always be your primary focus. Rules vary and have many exceptions. Different authorities often disagree about proper usage and application. Better, more accurate examples exist than those provided here. Instead of memorizing the information on these pages and trying to follow them exactly, you will be better served by getting a feel for the ideas being discussed. Remember the two big "C's": Clarity and Consistency. Don't hesitate to explore complexity or make your story complicated; the more the better can be great fun. But proceed with extreme caution; the road is slippery ahead and filled with potholes. Be clear and consistent. Or did I mention that already? If so, I should say it again, but I won't.
Remember that while the exact (and exacting) use of periods, commas, apostrophe’s and the rest of it can always be refined later, during final drafts and self-editing, the drama and power (and clarity) of your story is paramount. All the great grammar in the world cannot make a dreary story an exciting one.
A final, final note: This guide can be easily copied and pasted into a Word document. If you know of another way to do it, go for it. Highlight blocks of text on these pages, right click, and select "copy". When pasting, click on the Edit menu option. Choose "Paste Special" from the drop-down list and select "Unformatted Text". I suggest pasting only portions at a time until the whole document is completely transferred. You'll likely have to do some minor editing of your own, just to make your Word (or other) document look (appear) nicely formatted. Then print a dozen copies and scatter them all around the house, especially the bathroom. Okay, maybe just one copy will do. But put it in the bathroom.
Should has three connotations in English. Each can be used both in narrative and dialogue. He should go with her. (An imperative, must-do action) Should John go with her, she should enjoy his company. (meanings are similar to might and would, plus serve as alternatives to using might or would) John might go with her. If he did, she would enjoy his company. (Note how the use of might and would conveys a similar meaning, but is slightly different. With might and would, a conditionality is established (John might). Provided the condition is satisfied, an absolute result (she would) is asserted by the author or the speaker. This differs from the question (Should John) which asks, “if John went with her....”
The (she would) statement suggests a likely occurrence, but not a foregone conclusion. In dialogue, could and might may be substituted for would. In the narrative, meanings are typically more critical. While at first glance, these differences might appear confusing or difficult to grasp, learning how to mix and match these words will add color, clarity, and variety to your writing. Likely is often an acceptable replacement for should, when the intent is vague or uncertain. Should also means will in the future tense. I should be happy to meet her. (Context is everything) I should (must or am expected to) be happy to meet her. This is the correct form provided the literal meaning represents the author’s true intent. I should (will) be happy to meet her. I should (at some future moment) be happy to meet her. In terms of may versus might, they are not readily interchangeable. May refers to permission being granted. Might means could, but is more conditional (iffy) than may. You may go with me if you like. You might go with me if you like. Subtle and dependent on context.
As regards will and shall, the former is normal, the latter formal. You'd expect to see shall far more often in dialogue, where it' appropriate to a given character's normal (and somewhat formal) manner of speech, than in any narrative voice -- if ever. Apostrophes are fun little guys whose only real rules involve singular and plural nouns, and showing the possessive form. It used to be that the plural form of named objects like a DVD needed an apostrophe when there was more than one, as in, He had a handful of DVD's. Nowadays the apostrophe is often dropped altogether. He had a handful of DVDs. He saw many UFOs. This applies to both narrative and dialogue. Similar, I suppose, to how we now say cactuses and not cacti, fishes and not fish, and vertebras instead of vertebrae.
The possessive form, however, remains intact and important: The crowd's mood grew increasingly violent. Or, if more than one crowd (a political rally?) The crowds' moods grew increasingly violent. A better alternate is often as follows: The mood of the crowds grew increasingly violent. The moods of the different crowds grew increasingly violent. In general, reserve the possessive forms for individual people and animals, and sometimes (but only sometimes) an object. The airplane's fuel supply ran dangerously low. The fuel tanks of the airplane ran dangerously low. The sunset's colors were beautiful. (awkward) The many colors of the sunset were beautiful. (much better)
Use the apostrophe correctly when something is jointly owned or experienced by two or more individuals. Put another way, if two people or things are jointly (personally) involved, only the second person or thing requires an apostrophe. John and Joyce's sale of their house took longer than expected. Or, if the people or things are independent of one another (regardless of what else is shared between or among them) we add apostrophes to everyone involved: John's and Joyce's sales of their homes took longer than expected. Between versus among? Use among for three or more, between only for two. I just thought I'd throw that in as an added bonus.
This now concludes Part 2 of my guide to better writing. Hooray! The whole guide is little more than a brief introduction to writing basics, but with practice, comes learning. Especially when you're willing to dogear the pages of the grammar book, thesaurus, and dictionary that are never out of your sight. By studying the concepts outlined here, your skills should improve dramatically. Many rules (hints and suggestions), however, have not been mentioned or discussed. But while the entire list of grammatical bits is almost endless, the bigger, more generalized ideas covered here are what I consider the foundations upon which all the rest is constructed. Over time, the numerous elements I've not included, either intentionally or by oversight, should fit smoothly into place with all that I have chosen to include in this skimpy (but hopefully informative) overview. Feel free to ask me a question or point out where I got something wrong; I'm always happy to make excuses for my misbehavior.
A final note: Don’t get bogged down with rules. General theory should always be your primary focus. Rules vary and have many exceptions. Different authorities often disagree about proper usage and application. Better, more accurate examples exist than those provided here. Instead of memorizing the information on these pages and trying to follow them exactly, you will be better served by getting a feel for the ideas being discussed. Remember the two big "C's": Clarity and Consistency. Don't hesitate to explore complexity or make your story complicated; the more the better can be great fun. But proceed with extreme caution; the road is slippery ahead and filled with potholes. Be clear and consistent. Or did I mention that already? If so, I should say it again, but I won't.
Remember that while the exact (and exacting) use of periods, commas, apostrophe’s and the rest of it can always be refined later, during final drafts and self-editing, the drama and power (and clarity) of your story is paramount. All the great grammar in the world cannot make a dreary story an exciting one.
A final, final note: This guide can be easily copied and pasted into a Word document. If you know of another way to do it, go for it. Highlight blocks of text on these pages, right click, and select "copy". When pasting, click on the Edit menu option. Choose "Paste Special" from the drop-down list and select "Unformatted Text". I suggest pasting only portions at a time until the whole document is completely transferred. You'll likely have to do some minor editing of your own, just to make your Word (or other) document look (appear) nicely formatted. Then print a dozen copies and scatter them all around the house, especially the bathroom. Okay, maybe just one copy will do. But put it in the bathroom.
* * * *
You're currently on page NOU18
listed under NOUMENOMICON.
