Back to Houses Temporal
The Writing Life
First things first: I don't know it all. Nobody does. Isn't that a relief?
So what makes me think I can get off on having a space on my website for my hints, tips, suggestions, musings and general overall ramblings about the act of writing?
Well, I've been involved in writing, and in editing a variety of types of writing, for quite a few years now. I've worked with everything from professional non-fiction to semi-pro fiction, and have been reasonably successful at it. Through those years, I've amassed a collection of short writings geared toward specific problems that recur in writing at all levels. Some are grammatical errors that may seem unbelieveably small and picky; others are more philosophical issues.
Each of them is important in its own way for those of us who write.
The bottom line is that we writers want to tell our stories in the best possible way. We want people to read what we write and come away from it moved by the characters and the stories. Along the road to achieving that goal, we can't afford to lose those readers because of ... well, to be blunt... dumb mistakes that could have been avoided.
So I offer these mini-coaching sessions in a spirit of sharing, not claiming to know it all - only claiming to know maybe a bit more than the beginner.
Here's hoping you accept it in the spirit it's offered. If you find something here that helps your with your writing, I'd love to hear about it. You can always email me.
Thanks, and enjoy...
Names are important. How names are used in a story is even more important. To help wend your way through the maze of proper name use, here are a few guidelines:
* Don't give a full name to a throwaway character, unless it's for comic effect.
If a character in your story is only going to show up once or twice and plays no significant ongoing part in the story, it's best to either leave the character unnamed or give the character a generic name.
We give great significance to names, on an often unnoticed psychological level. To name a thing is to give it power. The moment you, as a writer, give a character a specific name, that character becomes significant to the reader. The reader will anticipate that that character will show up again later in the story. If that doesn't happen, the reader feels betrayed. Nobody wants to be a reader who feels betrayed by a writer... or a writer who betrays readers. Betrayed readers don't come back for more.
So if your character encounters a dirty, crippled flower girl in chapter one and buys a flower from her, unless she's going to show up significantly later on, don't give her a name.
* Decide what your character's name really is.
It helps keep your story clearer if you decide what you're going to call your character and then stick with it. Most people call themselves one name internally, although they might answer to several in differing situations.
For instance, if the character's name is Andreas Clifton Webster, he's probably going to think of himself as one particular name. Maybe Andy. Or Cliff. Or Webster. Whichever you pick, pick one and stick with it.
Don't write something like: "Andy's day couldn't possibly have been any worse. First he'd dropped his breakfast. Then he'd lost his carkeys. As if that weren't enough, on the way to work, somebody sideswiped Cliff's car. By the time the cops showed up, Webster was ready to explode."
With luck, nobody would write anything *that* wretched. But all too often, writers switch back and forth between versions of a character's name, and all that does is confuse the reader.
That may seem like a small thing, but when you're dealing with a project with a large cast of characters, anything you can do to help the reader avoid confusion is sure to be met with gratitude. Even if no one ever says so.
Most people, in real life, rarely use their whole names or the whole names of the person they're talking to except when angry or being official. So probably if Andy goes by Andy, that's all he'd ever have told anybody at work. He'd probably introduce himself as Andy Webster. Nobody else would have any real reason to know his whole name unless he just made a big deal out of it. Do you know the full names of your co-workers? I sure don't. (Sometimes I'm doing good to remember the names they *want* me to remember.)
* Don't overuse names in dialog.
A common element I've noted is a tendency to use characters' names too much in dialog. I don't mean in the attributions, where they're truly needed, but in the dialog itself.
Things like:
"John, I can't tell you how much I missed you."
"You know I go to work every day, Marsha."
"Yes, John, but any time you're away from me, all I can think about is you."
"Marsha, you're everything to me. You know that."
"Oh, John."
"Oh, Marsha."
Oh jeez. I can't believe I just wrote that. But I hope it makes my point.
Most of us, in real life, only use the name of the person we're talking to when we need to get their attention. (Or if we've been through a Dale Carnegie course, which tends to be obvious and might be a useful character trait in some cases.)
In fiction, sometimes you need to use a name to clarify who's talking and to whom, but it's more effective if kept to a minimum. And be careful with honorifics: Only a certain specific type of character uses them constantly.
In short, treat names as the powerful totems they are. Use them with care, and with deliberation. Your writing will be the stronger for it.
If I had a nickel for every misused apostrophe I've cleaned out of
manuscripts in the past twenty years, I'd be retired now and living a life of leisure. I've gotten sort of sensitive about them, especially since it isn't a difficult point of grammar if a writer will just *learn* the principle.
* When using an "s" to form a plural, you don't use an apostrophe. Ever. More than one photo, for instance, is photos. It is not photo's. More than one horse is horses, not horse's.
* The use of the apostrophe indicates possession. "Photo's" means belonging to the photo. Like maybe, "The photo's chemical coating failed and her image faded into the night."
* An apostrophe always indicates either possession or contraction - a letter (or letters) left out. (As in don't or isn't.)
* The Classic Mailbox Example: Suppose your last name is Smith. On your mailbox, you might put The Smiths, if you mean to announce that this is the
home and/or mailbox of the Smiths - more than one of them. Or, on your mailbox, you could put The Smiths', meaning it is the mailbox belonging to the Smiths - The Smiths' mailbox. If you put The Smith's, then you're saying there's only one Smith living here, and this mailbox belongs to that one Smith.
*** An apostrophe NEVER indicates a plural.***
THE EXCEPTION: (You knew there'd be one, didn't you?) It's its and it's.
* It's, with the apostrophe, is the contraction form. Use it's when you mean to say it is or it was or maybe (less commonly) it has. Always.
* Its is the possessive form. As far as I know, it's the only possessive formed without an apostrophe.
It's sometimes hard to tell which one to use. The making of exceptions always has its problems. The best hint I can give is to check every time you use it's and make sure the sentence still works if you substitute it is, it was or it has.
Keep possessives and plurals clear and distinct, and readers will love you for it.
What's going on here?
"Evening, John."
"Didn't expect to see you out tonight."
"Got off work early and figured, what the hell?"
"I hear that. Anything to stay away from home, right?"
"You got that right."
"Did you hear what Jacobson did about the report?"
"I heard he's gonna get fired for it."
"That's what I hear, too. I hear he called Simmons an idiot, flat out."
"You think anybody'll get the boot with him?"
"I think we'll all be lucky to survive."
So you've got a conversation. Two people - maybe more - are talking. But what you've also got is confusion.
Along with the riveting and exciting content of what your characters are saying, the reader needs one other vital piece of information from you the writer: Attribution.
Who said it?
Few things are more annoying than having an attribution after every sentence in an exchange, especially a two person exchange, such as:
"Evening, John," Bill said.
"Didn't expect to see you out tonight," John said.
"Got off work early and figured, what the hell?" Bill said.
"I hear that," John said. "Anything to stay away from home, right?"he asked.
"You got that right," Bill said.
On the other hand, few things are as frustrating as not having enough attribution in an exchange, a la...
"Did you hear what Jacobson did about the report?"
"I heard he's gonna get fired for it."
"That's what I hear, too. I hear he called Simmons an idiot, flat out."
"You think anybody'll get the boot with him?"
"I think we'll all be lucky to survive."
Help. We need to know who's talking, but not too much. We need to have some setting for the conversation, so it's not just talking heads floating in space.
So how much is enough?
The general rule of thumb is that in a conversation involving more than two people, each quote needs some sort of attribution. That's because it's particularly easy to confuse who's talking in a multi-person exchange. In a two-person dialog, attribution needs to be established early - generally within the first three to four quotes. After that, you can drop attributions for a bit. If an exchange lasts more than a dozen sentences, drop another attribution or two in there somewhere.
The bottom line is that it's not possible to be too clear. It is possible to be confusing.
It's also possible to be ham-handed with attributions. So how do you walk the line?
Consider the opening exchange again....
"Evening, John." Bill paused outside the door of Harrigan's and squinted into the setting sun toward John.
"Didn't expect to see you out tonight," John said, pulling open the door as they met outside it.
"Got off work early and figured, what the hell?"
"I hear that. Anything to stay away from home, right?"
"You got that right." Bill stepped from the blood-red sunlight of the sidewalk into the dim low rumble of Harrigan's.
"Did you hear what Jacobson did about the report?" John said, glancing back at the door as it failed to swing shut immediately.
"I heard he's gonna get fired for it."
"That's what I hear, too," chimed in Sam from outside the still-open door. "I hear he called Simmons an idiot, flat out."
"You think anybody'll get the boot with him?" Bill asked as he turned toward the lounge.
"I think we'll all be lucky to survive." John's voice was barely audible over the sounds of George Strait on the jukebox, complaining about jobs.
Enough of the quotes are attributed to keep it clear who's speaking at any moment. And the attributions, rather than being simple "he said, he saids, take the opportunity to add some setting and atmosphere to the scene.
Attributions, used with a light touch, can add both clarity and sensory appeal - two attributes good writers crave.
Now for the nitty-gritty part: How do you punctuate attributions correctly?
* The attribution goes after the sentence.
* If it's a multi-sentence quote, the attribution goes after the first sentence.
* The comma goes after the quote and before the attribution -- INSIDE the quotation marks.
* If you continue the multi-sentence quote after the attribution, the remainder can stand alone. Like this: "I'm feeling down on my luck today," Jeremy said. "I can't seem to shake these nightmares."
* The exception is when the attribution describes an action that is ongoing throughout a broken-apart quote. Like this: "Don't you ever," he slapped Suzanne again, "make me look like an idiot..." He yanked the long hair, jerking the head back, "...by stealing from me again!
But that sort of thing is best used sparingly, since it really stands out. Save it for times when it's unquestionably needed to add to the effect. Otherwise, go by the standard guidelines.
Try to work with these hints in mind, and you'll never have readers saying, "Huh? Who said that?" again. It's something to desire.
Happy writing.
As far as use of "that" is concerned, my personal rule of thumb is "If the sentence is clear and makes sense without it, leave it out."
It's one of those words we all tend to overuse. But you can't just arbitrarily go through and take it out (the "THAT Search and Destroy" mission!) in every case, because sometimes it's necessary to keep a sentence clear. What I do is read the sentence out loud without "that" and if it's clear and sounds right, I take it out. If you're not sure, the best bet is probably to leave it in.
I'm a big believer in reading my work aloud. To myself, generally. I find that reading it aloud and marking everything my reading voice either changes or feels uncomfortable with helps the story reads more smoothly. After all, most people, when they read, essentially read aloud to themselves inside their minds. So we writers are, on a deep level, storytellers in the oral tradition. We're just telling with words instead of voices. But people still "read" in voices, so the more comfortably "oral" writing is, the more likely people are to enjoy reading it.
Bottom line then is follow the rules of good grammar, but on the rare occasion that a question comes down to grammar vs. clarity, go with clarity.
