| Author | Message | ||
     Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
A problem that's always foxed me. In the following sentence: "Kevin thought the thing breathed fire, that its eyes were as green as the many scales on its flesh, and that it was hungry – oh, ever so hungry." ...should there be an extra "that" at the beginning? "Kevin thought that the thing breathed fire, that its eyes were as green as the many scales on its flesh, and that it was hungry – oh, ever so hungry." ...or would it be superfluous? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.217.61 |
I think maybe *all* the thats in that sentence are strictly superfluous. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Maybe that's what's troubling me with the line... The kid's thinking about a creature he's dreamed about - would that make a difference? My head's really gone on this one... | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.217.61 |
"Kevin thought the thing breathed fire, its eyes were as green as the many scales on its flesh and it was hungry – oh, ever so hungry." Without the thats (and with removeal of 'oxford comma'(?)), I think that makes pefect sense, dream or not. | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.169.217.61 |
Or "Kevin thought the thing breathed fire, its eyes as green as the many scales on its flesh and hungry – oh, ever so hungry." ?? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Gary - I think the "that" at the start of the sentence is traditionally grammitacaly correct, but in modern writing it's OK to leave it out. I always struggle with this one, too. I'm sure Simon will be along soon to give us the correct answer. :-) | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
grammitacaly???? Jesus, these fat fingers have a life of their own... | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
"Kevin thought the thing breathed fire, its eyes as green as the many scales on its flesh and hungry – oh, ever so hungry." Des, that makes it sound like the dragon has hungry eyes. Personally, I'd go with Gary's first stab at the sentence. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.21.23.52 |
I can see no difference, semantically speaking. It's largely a matter of taste. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
It is superfluous and a matter of taste. In Defining Relative Clauses, for example: The man that lives across the street...' (that) is integral to the sentence. That, as Zed rightly points out can be omitted nowdays due to it commonly being accepted as grammtically correct. Seventy odd years ago it prevailed, but now it seems to be perfectly acceptable to drop. The sentence does seem slightly at odds with itself though. BUT in a non-defining relative clause that as a pronoun must be dropped. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Personally I always rewrite 'that' out of my stories whenever possible. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Fuck it, I'm just going to write: "Kevin thought the thing was one ugly motherfucker." | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
:-) GF, there are brief moments when I adore you. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Me, too. Once each morning and on the occasional evening. I sleep better without bodily tension. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Prof - your sentence carries an inner beauty. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Me, too. It's just the outside that looks like what the sentence alludes to. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
I'm with Billy Connolly on the beauty of such words as fuck. We don't use it enough. It's a crying fucking shame. | ||
| Frank (Frank) Username: Frank Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 79.187.206.46 |
Prof - your beauty transcends your craggy faced arsedness. Arsedness - Defintion - Oxford Classification - Inscrutable wreckage of facial awfulness commonly refered to as Prof Fry. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.32.47 |
Really, Frank, do you have to be so vulgar? fucking wanker! | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
Well, I'd say you certainly can't omit the first "that" and then keep the second and third, but I also think the second and third are necessary. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
Ramsey's right. Even taking into account Frank's comments, as a matter of style, you've a list there Mr Fry, and your list must be consistent. That... that... that... and since the latter two are necessary, the former is necessary. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Too late. I've already kicked Kevin out of my story. Friggin trouble-causer.  OK, folks, thanks. Three "that"s it is! | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
"Kevin thought that the thing breathed fire, that its eyes were as green as the many scales on its flesh, and that it was hungry – oh, ever so hungry." That's one version that makes the most sense to me. I'm a purely instinctive writer, and the correct grammatical definitions eluse me, but my gut tells me this would be the one to go with. To my eyes, the 2nd and 3rd "thats"s are lovely - they provide the beat of the sentence. The poetry. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.21.23.52 |
"To my eyes, the 2nd and 3rd "thats"s are lovely -they provide the beat of the sentence. The poetry." They do conjure up a sense of urgency, plus there's the affirmation that the viewer (dreamer?) is, after all, a child. Repetition has a childlike quality to it. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
This is the stuff you can't learn. The beat. the poetry. The music in and between the words. You either have it or you don't. You can teach someone the rules of grammar, but IMHO you can't teach them to write. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 61.216.32.47 |
Well said, Zed. (Hear the poetry there?) ;-) You either have a feel for language, or you don't. I've said it before, but at the risk of being repetitive, I'll say it again: there is way too much being published (admittedly, a lot of it is self-published, or 'semi' self-published, through acquaintances) that displays none of the real rhythm and flow of language that, I feel, is the hallmark of a genuine writer. Time and again I see material that simply lacks this essential ingredient, not to mention such basic things as correct grammar and spelling. Rambling, confusing sentences given no sense of structure or flow due to the utter lack of any punctuation, or, perhaps even worse, punctuation in the wrong place; simple words consistently misspelled; all telling, and precious little showing... and so on. It's so disheartening. Then again, this makes it even more special when a truly talented new writer appears. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
You can't teach the "poetry" of writing, true ... to a certain degree. You can make a good writer pretty good, but you can't make a pretty good writer great. Nor can you make a bad writer good. But everyone (underscore) needs to understand grammar. If you can't be poetic with a working knowledge of proper grammar, you can't be poetic at all. (which isn't to say all poetry must be grammatically correct, only that one must understand the rules before breaking them). | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.4.122 |
Now I take this from the content angle - since I think either one is correct (along Ramsey's breakdown). But the whole sentence reads - totally out of context I understand, but - it reads like a detached boyish reflection; sorry for the stereotype, but it reeks of "Britishness" with that final "oh, ever so hungry": the classic English understatment. So, taking this into account, I'd keep it as your first sentence, since the "that"s reflect a curious reflection upon the viewer, Kevin. He thinks "the thing breathed fire," which not seeing it (or he wouldn't have to imagine it), means he's sort of lazily reflecting upon the dragon; so does ranging around it and deciding its eyes match its scales. And then it's ever so hungry! "That," repeated, is child-like, and we clearly have a child-like perspective here. Keep the "that"s. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Kevin just stuck his head in the thing's gob. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.177.83 |
I think you've nailed it this time, GF. Sheer poetry! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Kevin thanks you from the bottom of, well, the thing. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
(Btw, Huw, have you seen a film call Mirrors?) | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.177.83 |
Nope, but I've seen the Korean film it's based on (I think), Into the Mirror - decent film. Is Mirrors the one with Kiefer Sutherland in it? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.4.122 |
Does his name have to be Kevin?  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
I was going to call him Craig, but kept throwing up. Huw, that's the one. Just, ahem, acquired it. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.4.122 |
"Craig" does has a certain ring of genius to it, I will admit. I know it's* difficult to get used to, Gary; but I'm sure you'll be able to keep it* down, if you keep working with it*.... *deliberately ambiguous | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I've just been talking about Mirrors - apparently its not a bad effort. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.177.83 |
I'm trying to picture it, but all I'm getting is Jack Bauer running around shooting mirrors... Seriously though, I'm looking forward to this one. Into the Mirror was a decent supernatural thriller. Have any of you seen it? When I saw it at the cinema, they had a huge promotional display with a life-size mirror that you could look into and see images of other people trapped inside. The posters were all in Korean/Chinese with just the line: "Me in the mirror will kill me!" in English. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
My brother's called Craig, and he's a complete spanner. Maybe the mothers just know... Hahahahahahahaha. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.225.207 |
"Spanner": never heard of the term. Must mean something like "bit of brilliance," or "-ly glorious individual" or "artist of incalculable worth towards which I'm aspiring," in the context you're using. I can only surmise.... Here's something weird: I have a brother named Kevin.  | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Spanner means what it says: likes getting to grips with nuts. Hence your conversation with me. Does your brother know anything about big green monsters with fiery breath and scaly flesh and which are a tad peckish? No? Then I ain't interested. Speak to the hand , bubba, cos the face ain't listening. Skidaddle, buster. Yahoo! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Sorry, just came over all cod American... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.87.193 |
"Craig thought Gary breathed ire, that his eyes were as cloudy as his views, that he was colicky - oh, ever so colicky!" | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.16.87.193 |
Btw - earlier, on another thread, you were asking about my helmet, and now you're garbling something out about me and the enjoyment of gripping nuts... again, Gary, is there something you're trying to tell me?... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Too much Ben Elton, I think. Interesting that you remember all these things, however... Hey, tell me about your mother... | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
She's not that great, 5 out of 10 at best. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Some guys are worth only half the effort. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I liked Into the Mirror even more on a second viewing, but Mirrors is dire, if occasionally hilarious. It's as unrecogniseable a travesty as the remake of The Haunting was, and just as far beneath contempt. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Shit. It's true. I know nowt about films. [shoots self (again) ] | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.194.155 |
Gary, see the Korean original if you can. I believe it was released in the UK a couple of years ago by Tartan, so you should be able to find it. It's well worth seeing. What puzzles me is how people can feed themselves a diet of this cinematic crap while avoiding the originals because they can't be bothered to read subtitles, or don't feel comfortable with something from a foreign country. I've met folk who lap up stuff like Pulse but won't give the infinitely more impressive Kairo (the Japanese film open which Pulse was based) the time of day. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Too late. I've already made a fool of myself on another thread. The pistol is loaded and cocked. There's only one decent thing left to do... Goodbye, all. It's been f-fun. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.194.155 |
'Tis a cruel, cold world, GF. Good luck with your basket-weaving, should your aim be off. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
This is detective inspector Harris of the Whitby police force; I'm using the log-in details kindly left beside the deceased's PC. Yes, regrettably Mr Fry has made good his promise, so that's more paperwork for us. A curse on him. | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.194.155 |
And a curse upon the makers of bad remakes. See you in the afterlife, GF. ;-) Oh dear - after seeing the last line of my previous post ("open" which?!?), I'm seriously thinking of joining you now ... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Detective Inspector Harris here again: under new internationally enforced legislation, message-board typos are now a criminal offence. Wait for that knock at the door, Mr L... | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
Can I say that I liked Pulse but wasn't overenamoured by Kairo without being laughed off the board? | ||
| Richard_gavin (Richard_gavin) Username: Richard_gavin Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 65.110.174.71 |
Simon wrote: "But everyone (underscore) needs to understand grammar. If you can't be poetic with a working knowledge of proper grammar, you can't be poetic at all. (which isn't to say all poetry must be grammatically correct, only that one must understand the rules before breaking them)." Hear, hear. I would also add that while prose writing can be spiced with poetic touches, it is constructed with a much larger and more demanding rulebook than poetry is. Some people do not like it, but, to phrase it properly, "Dems is da rules. Like it or lump it." While I admit to not being an expert in grammar and punctuation, I do struggle to follow the established rules as much as possible. There is a common misconception that following the constructs of the English language somehow restricts or smothers the author, bleeds him of his originality. I do not buy this at all. Simon and I have talked before about how words mean what they mean, and that sentences need to be at least somewhat clear to a reader. This way a reader can fall into the world an author has created, rather than trip over the cluttered and confusing prose they've spilled onto the page. Huw wrote: "The posters were all in Korean/Chinese with just the line: "Me in the mirror will kill me!" in English." That tagline, my friends, that's some tasty grammar right there! | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.231.85 |
Detective Inspector Harris? If you're still there? This Mr. Fry was unduly aroused by my posts, if you catch my subtle double-meaning there... I think my spurning his advances drove him finally to commit suicide... I have that affect... is it "affect," or "effect," actually?... well, you wouldn't know that, Detective Inspector Harris... or - gulp! - would you?... | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
In Mr Fry's suicide note, he claimed that a certain "Craig" had become the bane of his life; he mentioned something about a "maddening number of misplaced ellipses". We're currently investigating a number of potentially culpable Craigs, including the deceased's brother. But we're pretty certain, on the basis of new evidence that has come to light above, that the guilty party may well exist further afield. Yours, D.I. Harris (licenced to talk bollocks) | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 38.113.181.169 |
Oy! Don't get me started on my "words are a contract with the reader" rant. I won't shut up for hours! | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Simon, you once said you were going to tell me about 'words are a contract with the reader' - do come ahead. I'm not doing much for Xmas. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.251.116 |
"words are a contract with the reader" This sounds suspiciously like it would compliment nicely my "template" theory of art... I too now would like to hear this.... D.I. Harris? You should check out the "Weber" angle: I hear he's a perverted serial killer, who pun-nels his victims to death. He and dead Gary had something going on... I don't want to spread rumors, but - well, I'll just say it - they were inserting their sexual organs into various light-sockets. If there's not a law against that, there should be. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
It's hardly worth the paperwork. It carries only a light sentence. A bit like Simon. | ||
| Mick Curtis (Mick) Username: Mick Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 86.159.141.80 |
Ooh, get back in the knife drawer! | ||
| Detective Inspector Harris (Harris) Username: Harris Registered: 10-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
Now see here, we'll have less, okay? Less of it, I say. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
The difference Craig is that your "templates" aren't quite as concrete and as agreed upon as the definitions in the OED. There's no second-guessing what words mean in most cases. It's like arguing that 4 is not four of something. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.3.13 |
You're an arresting fellow, Detective Inspector Harris.... | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.77.38.6 |
Help out a poor editor, trying to write a novel in his evenings. I've been staring at this until my eyes are sore. Is the following okay? "Delicate looking spires tapered to vicious points, some linked by barnacle-encrusted arches, while sturdier cylinders of brightly marbled rock marched away from them in regularly spaced columns." | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Here's the way I'd go: "Delicate looking spires tapered to vicious points, some linked by barnacle-encrusted arches while sturdier cylinders of brightly marbled rock marched away from them." Leaving out the comma after "arches". Also, I reckon the "columns" bit is redundant, as you've already said they're cylinders. I'm probably wrong, though.  | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Or: "Delicate looking spires tapered to vicious points, some linked by barnacle-encrusted arches while sturdier cylinders of brightly marbled rock marched away from them in regularly spaced rows." | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
"There were lots of fucking spires with fancy bits on them." | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.157.114.136 |
Jon - for me just miss out the word 'looking'. The rest flows fine. Now; can anyone teach me where apostrophes go...? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.242.126 |
Yeah, leave out "looking". | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.157.114.136 |
I found the perfect slot for the Haunting remake; Halloween night, fleece blanket hugged round me and the kid's necks. Great fun. Bad, of course, but if you can separate it from the original (which I can), not at all unpleasurable. And Jon - just get rid of 'looking' and it's fine to me. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.157.114.136 |
What - those last two posts didn't show for me just then! Excusey. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
Out of context, I don't feel the comma between "points" and "some" is strong enough. I'd put a semi-colon there. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
Also, I think you've gone adjective happy. DELICATE ... VICIOUS ... BARNACLE-ENCRUSTED ... STURDIER ... BRIGHTLY MARBLED ... REGULARLY SPACED. That many so close together is overkill, and they give the sentence a disagreeable rhythm. I'd cut about half of them. And, now that I'm thinking about it, how can columns of rock "march"? | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 67.116.103.241 |
It's the "tapered" that throws the balance off: it is both active ("he tapered the potato") and descriptive ("it was a tapered potato"), and both meanings are getting tangled up together there. There's also some lack of clarity in what follows the comma: do both "march away," the (better) barnacle-crusted arches and the "cylindars of brightly marbled (?) rock"? | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.69.80.212 |
Brain hurts. Thanks for advice. Looking at it again this morning, | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
King uses the phrase "marches away" when describing equidistantly spaced columns or whatever. I understand what he means. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
So do I. It's a nice image. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
That's image, Simon. You know, IMAGERY:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagery  | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
Can't say I'm familiar with the concept. And I don't find the argument "King uses the phrase" sufficiently convincing. To each his own, I suppose, but to this eye "marches" implies movement of some sort and I've seen nothing elsewhere that proves otherwise. I don't even understand how this "image" is supposed to work. Are we supposed to imagine these columns are moving in some way? Just because they're fading into the distance, it doesn't follow that they are /moving/ into the distance. No, I don't agree with its use here at all. I think its peculiarity is a stumbling point for readers, and I think it's another example of my pet peeve about "words being a contract with the reader". I could, but I won't go on. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Suspensiuon of disbelief: it's the illusion of marching. You could say the same thig of this: "The car was running smoothly". Cars don't run, they move via the complexities of the internal combustion engine, but that would make for a clumsy sentence. Imagery makes the prose come alive. There's another one...prose can't be alive. It's just ink on pulped wood matter. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
>>>Just because they're fading into the distance, it doesn't follow that No, it doesn't follow at all. The notion has no means of motion, after all. No legs. Why, it can't even march. >>>I think its peculiarity is a stumbling point for readers Are these readers marching before they stumble? | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.69.80.212 |
I've just had a look at it again. With the benefit of coffee and not being utterly exhausted it's working quite a lot better. I'm enjoying writing this novel but having to do it in the evenings after work can sometimes be a bit of a trial. Now, even though I'm typing in the morning I do have the added distraction of a beautiful new cat who is constantly vying for my attention. PS: I'm probably going to keep the marching bit in. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.69.80.212 |
For any of you that are interested, here's how I restructured it and, yes, I did loose the 'marching'. By the way, the Llothriall is the name of the ship that my main character is on: The structure that they had run into was just the tip of a petrified forest, emerging from the waves. Gulls called to each other as they swooped around delicate spires, some linked by barnacle-encrusted arches, while others of their kind nested on sturdier columns of brightly marbled stone standing in regularly spaced rows. None of these rose any taller than the spire that had stopped the Llothriall, though some were certainly grander in design. Intricate carvings had been wrought into several of them. From where he stood at the prow of the ship it was difficult to make out many details, but on one of them Silus thought that he could see the design of a figure riding a whale, surrounded by smaller creatures that may have been mermaids. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Nice. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 79.69.80.212 |
My cat now appears to want to type this novel for me, so when it's published expect entire pages of llllllllllllllllldsdslllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll l It's post modern and ironic innit? | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
I look forward to some purring prose. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
And the odd Pinteresque paws. And the odd subordinate claws. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.111.224 |
Suspensiuon of disbelief: it's the illusion of marching. You could say the same thig of this: "The car was running smoothly". Cars don't run, they move via the complexities of the internal combustion engine, but that would make for a clumsy sentence. It's not an issue of suspending disbelief at all, chum. Your example uses "running", which suggests movement. An engine does move, all it's parts working together, so the verb is appropriate. Would it be appropriate to say "the bed was running smoothly" ? No because (barring the series of mildly amusing jokes sure to follow this post) a bed doesn't move. Likewise, a stone column. I'm all for imagery, but it has to make sense, and in this case it doesn't. Not to me, and if not to me then possibly not to others, and the last thing one wants to do in his or her writing is shape a sentences that makes the reader stop reading and say, "Wha?" Even if the reader then says a second later "Oh, I get what he means" the damage is done. The dream the fiction weaves has been broken, and the dream is perhaps the most important part of what makes fiction worth reading. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Would it be appropriate to say "the bed was running smoothly" Yes, if the bed were magic. Like the one in Bedknobs and Broomsticks. Chum.  I see what you're saying, but the image works for me. What can I say? Quite a lot, judging by the above. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
The old lady downstairs where I live has some of those wheels on her bed that facilitate movement for the elderly while cleaning. They were rather useful after we'd flooded her bedroom. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.3.65.135 |
I still think columns or whatever marching away is a striking - and reasonably common - description. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 83.98.9.4 |
The comparison is as much comparing to a still photo of an army marching away from you, every soldier a uniform distance apart. It works for me |