[quote]It's perfectly obvious when a writer is changing the rules for effect and when they just don't know any better.]

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter.

Many thanks, Terry, for posting this useful information!

I'm always intrigued by these offerings from editors/agents etc and voraciously inhale any 'how to' books.
And yet...
It seems to me that they change their minds every two mins and that their books are full of authors who didn't comply with any of their 'tips'.
HB x

I agree, Helen. I always fall back on the thing I once read in one of those 'how to' books - I think it was said by Philip Pullman - 'Write the book that you want to write.'

I've been thinking about the use of fragments a lot, and studied several authors to see if, where and how they use them. From a selection of modern authors I admire, I discovered they were far less common than I'd imagined. What I'd read as fragments were very short sentences (not always but far more often than I'd anticipated.)

Because of this thread I've altered my attitude to them and will always think first before using them, as with adverbs and adjectives, instead of letting them in whenever they spontaneously occur. I still think they can be marvellously effective, but see them now more as seasoning than part of the bulk of the narrative.

It's important to allow debate of this nature and not all go stomping off into our corners, grinding our teeth, when others challenge or don't share our views.

Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious, but I'm saddened when interesting threads flare up and prevent genuine dialogue about craft.

Thanks Terry for starting this thread.

Cherys

Well said, Cherys. Sorry if I overreacted - and thanks for posting the info, Terry. It's funny, Cherys - I was also inspired by the discussion to go off and look along my bookshelves for authors who use or don't use incomplete sentences. My survey produced rather more than yours seems to have done. But it's an interesting exercise, looking at how they are used. What I found was very few contemporary authors who never use an incomplete sentence. But also very few who use them routinely throughout the text (except a couple of chick lit authors). It's mostly a case of saving it for special effect at key points, I think.

Rosy

I tend to write, "You think it'll work?" during first draft, and almost always correct it to either, "Do you think it'll work?" or "So, you think it'll work?" during edits. What feels correct when I'm writing often looks wrong when I'm reading - if that makes the pool any muddier.

I too have been back to my book shelves and discovered a lot of crime writers use fragments, particularly when racheting up the tension. It almost brings a breathless quality to, say, a chase scene.
HB x

I just picked on a likely suspect and found this almost right away:

'For a moment of dream time she turned into a thirteen-year- old baby, smiling, crooning, then once more became a woman without a face. Not even a baby face.'

From London Fields by Martin Amis.

But you can tell he's doing it for effect, not because he doesn't know better. He does it a lot.


Sheila

Samuel Beckett does it almost constantly, doesn't he?

It sounds like it, but it's harder to tell with the spoken word, and the rules are differnt anyway because people do speak in half sentences. I imagine that Beckett and Pinter and NJ Simpson were sticklers for punctuation.

Sheila

But you can tell he's doing it for effect, not because he doesn't know better. He does it a lot.

Perhaps that's the point. If you are using this as a tool in specific circumstances for a deliberate effect, then you can get away with it, but when it is uncontrolled and the writer thinks the sentences are fine, and part of his/her style, then it's annoying. Even in some published writers, it makes reading a pain. HP Lovecraft comes immediately to mind for his overuse... of... ellipsis... aaahhhhgghhh... unnamable!!!

Like most things, if done consciously and in moderation it can be effective. If done unconsciously and too much then it can really grate!

Deb

A good writer will always make an effort to use effective English. However, as readers, we have to have some idea of what we mean by, firstly, 'good' writers and secondly by 'effective' English.

In bringing this to the attention of WW members, Terry indicates that he is on the side of the Editors and their advice to master the craft of written English, learn the rules and avoid the type of errors and mistakes that are evidenced every day by Editors.

First-class and helpful advice from a body of people whose opinions should matter to all of us. However there will always be people who turn their backs on such advice and wonder why their manuscripts never 'made it'.

'...standard of grammar, punctuation and structure of author's work has declined dramatically in recent years...' This statement should be a lesson to all of us. We shouldn't wonder how or why this has happened. Anyone can sit at a word processor and produce a respectable-looking document or even a professional-looking manuscript. Writers are now a dime a dozen and many live up to this description.

Recently I had said to me, 'I got the ideas and I know what I want t'say but I just dunno how to put it into words'.

I support wholeheartedly the view that we should all constantly seek to improve our knowledge of English, its grammar, syntax, construction and all the other basic rules and regulations.

In writing, I like to use the word 'effective', and there can be no doubt that some of the most effective writing can be achieved with what looks like a deliberate attempt to flout the rules. However, often when one comes across such writing, it can leave a question mark as to the abilities of the writer with the English language.

As a glaring example one can look at the scripts of the 'soaps' where it becomes essential to write the most appalling English because it comes out of the mouths of characters whose standard of spoken English is supposed to represent 'English as she is spoke'... ironically this is true for the standards of spoken English are appallingly low.

This attempt to achieve 'realism' in writing can work - there is no doubt about that - but 'poor' English should not reflect the ignorance of the author but the skill and craft of that author in creating the most accurate 'pictures' in the minds of the readers.

However 'effective' English should not be confused with 'poor' English and anything that a body of Editors say should be taken on board by all of us.

Len

I agree with all of this - or most, anyway. I don't agree, however, that:

the standards of spoken English are appallingly low.

As a keen 'soap' fan I don't expect the characters to talk like toffs when they are supposed to be factory workers.

On the whole 'though, 'soap' speech is not realistic, because for one thing it's usually more expressive and more humorous, and for another it doesn't include all the 'effing and blinding' that's the backbone of examples I hear on public transport. In these aspects its 'superior' to ordinary speech, or, depending on your point of view, less realistic and therefore 'inferior'.

In my opinion, for writers who want to represent dialogue sa it's spoken, and which writer doesn't,the widespread use of mobile phones is a real boon. No longer do people sit in stony silence flipping pages - there's always someone within earshot having one half of a conversation.

'Phone-ins are another good source of 'real' language. My Chinese language exchange partner is a fan and turns up to our weekly meetings with a list of colloquialisms.I don't see how she could learn them if they conformed to Radio 4 standards.

I also watch a lot of old b/w British movies, and note how ridiculous the characters can sound when they are supposed to be playing cheerful cockneys or gormless northerners. For every reasonably credible actor - John Mills or Stanley Holloway, for instnace - there's a Celia Johnson in an overall making a laughable attempt. ( She was better cast as as Noel Coward's wife giving orders to the maid in In Which we Serve the other night)

Sheila

Sheila, I wasn't clear what you were disagreeing with. You seem to be agreeing with Len: that yer average factory worker does not speak perfect English all the time. Most/all of us don't, but some are more RP than others.

I don't think Len was saying that soaps shouldn't represent the way language is really spoken, but that the writer himself should have good English skills, and use those to accurately represent appropriate speech for the characters.

Some people in this thread appear to be confusing the issue of a writer having poor English, which is surely a problem, and whether a writer should write dialogue which reflects reality. Dialogue is surely always a special case, and not bound by the rules of English but by the need to represent reality.

Deb