I don't know - I think people were originally questioning the fragments notion and whether that can be part of good English.

Dialogue is surely always a special case, and not bound by the rules of English but by the need to represent reality.

I agree up to a point, Deb. I doubt if anyone would contend that dialogue must invariably be structured in complete, formal sentences. I think the issue is whether the same can also apply to narrative when you are using either first person or very close-in third person - i.e. not using a formal, authorial narrative voice but adopting your character's own thought patterns and voice rhythms, as you would in dialogue. It's a commonly used device in large swathes of contemporary fiction, both literary and commercial, as poeple's cited examples illustrate. (Ali Smith's fabulous 'Girl Meets Boy' also springs to mind.)

The question seems to be whether - or how far - it is legitimate to bed normal grammatical rules when employing this stylistic approach.

Rosy

<Added>

Sorry, I feel like this thread is going round in circles, and I'm not helping by repeating myself!

<Added>

'Bed'?? That was meant to be 'bend'!

Well the concensus seems to be, if you use very short sentences in prose, use it for effect, and sparingly.
But that does not apply to dialogue, since dialogue is far more flexable and there are far more ways of getting the message across.

- NaomiM

<Added>

us it for effect - It does disrupt the flow of the prose, so if you use it, it's worth bearing that fact in mind - eg, use it as an exclamation mark.

I've been looking through one of Raymond Chandler's novels (Playback), since it seems a technique that might be more commonly used in such a genre, and he does use a lot of short, but complete sentences - often only 4 - 7 words long:
eg.
The road forked. One white line curved to the left. I kept straight on, for no particular reason.

and again:
I held it to her lips. She sucked some in and shuddered. I re-capped the pint and put it away.

And a smattering of very short sentences: eg:
She hung up. Silence. Complete silence.

I suspect that an officianado of the genre might try to emulate this style of writing but not understand that although Chandler is using short sentences, they are 'complete' ones.

"Silence" isn't. What they are, though, is very filmic.

I wonder what the editors would think about running sentences together with commas instead of separating them out with full stops. It's something I tend to do a lot, often to represent the flow of thoughts but I don't think it's very grammatically correct.

I think people were originally questioning

Yes, I know they were, Snowy. But I was specifically talking about dialogue, and the fact that several people brought dialogue into the discussion as if they thought the editors were suggesting we should write dialogue in structured formal sentences.

Rosy, I'm not sure why you say you 'agree up to a point', because you appear to completely agree with what I said, but you then make a different point - which btw I agree with.

(Hope I don't sound scratchy - I got very little sleep last night.)

Deb

I wonder what the editors would think about running sentences together with commas instead of separating them out with full stops.

They would probably correct your bad grammar with a semi colon; a comma isn't strong enough punctuation to separate two clauses.

This may be one of the things the editors were getting at: a lot of people who write don't know the basic rules of grammar. Every writer who is serious about the craft should invest in a few books just to check that they do know how to construct sentences correctly, and also be aware of common pitfalls and mistakes. Very easily done (sic).

Colin M

<Added>

or is it "every writer that..."

I have to say that, as a reader, I am irritated by most sentences which use commas when there should be full stops.

I suppose it depends if you (as reader or writer) think these things matter. If you do, then you're likely to do it right yourself (unless you have good reasons not to, for style) and are likely to be irritated when others don't do it right (ditto).

Deb

I wonder what the editors would think about running sentences together with commas instead of separating them out with full stops

I do this too, when I want to pick up the pace, but I could just as easily put in connecting words if on re-reading it I felt it was inappropriate for the scene.
Sometimes I have a problem with too many connecting words - searching for an easy, conversational style - and the prose starts to sound over written so end up replacing them with commas.
As ever, it's a balancing act between the two.


- NaomiM

As an ex English teacher I think it's a ticklish subject which brings back bad memories. Thank goodness they are just memories ...

Many of my students (secondary and FE) seemed to think grammar was either optional or a matter of personal taste. I think if you asked young people if they thought punctuation were important (note the endangered-species subjunctive) they'd say a resounding 'No!'(or Nah! depending on location and mood)

Yet many adults are either 'Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells'- type sticklers. Maybe people only really get interested when there's a reason, such as impressing employers - or publishers.I used to notice there was a big increase in interest from students on access-to-university courses.

I'd recommend Lynne Truss's 'Eats Shoots and Leaves' as a pleasant introduction. I've got a copy if anyone wants to borrow it.

Sheila







<Added>

I meant to say many adults are either ...sticklers or they try to avoid writing.

As someone who sub-edited technical articles professionally, I think one of the main benefits of correct punctuation and grammar is that it usually makes writing much easier to read and the meaning far clearer. That's primarily why I value it. When people get it wrong because of ignorance or sloppiness (rather than deliberately, for style) then it often becomes far harder to grasp the intended meaning.

Deb

They would probably correct your bad grammar with a semi colon; a comma isn't strong enough punctuation to separate two clauses.

- nah, you don't want to use too many of those. I used to use loads of colons and semi colons - looked like someone had shaken pepper all over the text.

Deb, I suspect you, like me, are overly sensitised to bad grammar. I can understand how technical writing needs clarification.I have a friend who edits financial texts which make me feel faint; when I taught comms. to vocational groups, engineers were the worst. Here,though, we're just talking minor mistakes. In some cases, like the serial commas, the meaning is clear, so Naomi's claim

I do this too, when I want to pick up the pace

sounds reasonable.

To the trained, or should I say the stickler, sensibility, it seems wrong, but not to everybody.

As a caveat, I'd say I've read that publishers' editors flinch at extra workload, so when they see mistakes bells start to ring. I recall the sinking feeling brought on by an error-riddled first page - or the tedium of correcting the same thing, over and over. Just reading mistakes, without having to do anything at all about them, is relatively soothing. One of the benefits of retirement you can look forward to.

Sheila

<Added>

I mean, of course: 'It's one of the benefits...'

Sheila - yes, I think I am overly sensitised. I shout at teletext because they use long dashes instead of hyphens. I pick holes in restaurant menus. It's what made me a good sub-editor. I get upset when people write 'chic lit' (when they mean chick lit) in discussions on WW (but I've never said anything - just cringe).

However, Naomi's example of running a sentence on and on, with commas, for a particular effect does not bother me at all. When it's done well that can be very effective.

As we've all been saying all along, done knowingly these devices can be effective, but done unwittingly, mistakes can really jar.

Deb

However, Naomi's example of running a sentence on and on, with commas, for a particular effect does not bother me at all. When it's done well that can be very effective.

You are talking about two different uses of commas. You can have a sentence, a fairly complicated sentence, even a very complicated, long, drawn out, annoying sentence, as this is turning out to be, which has four, five, six or more commas, and can adhere perfectly to the ordinary, boring, and often difficult to grasp, rules of grammar.

That last sentence has thirteen commas and is grammatically correct, this sentence has one and is incorrect.

We've talked before about the various functions of a comma. To the reader, it probably doesn't make a sod of a difference, but to an editor it's going to scream out WARNING!!! if you screw them up. I do agree that an overuse of colons and semi colons can look OTT; it's best to use them sparingly.

The thing is, if you want to be an electrician, you learn the rules of the trade. Likewise a plumber, a carpenter or a good old bricky. So why not a writer? Trying to argue your way out of it, or searching for examples to prove good advice wrong is time that could be better spent finding out why editors are giving out that advice in the first place.

Naomi called Terry a literary snob. I guess the opposite is someone who just can't be arsed. Editors can spot it. If a good script looks like too much work to edit, they know fine well that there'll be an equally good, but cleaner script somewhere else in the pile

Colin M