What Rules Do You Swear By as a Writer?

Greengrocers' apostrophe 2 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Writing, in common with most occupations, has rules. Society has rules. Games have rules. Do we always obey them? And does it matter whether we do or not?

Clearly, societal rules, often elevated to laws, are supposedly there to prevent chaos and injustice. The law that prevents the taking of life under most circumstances seems sensible for all concerned. The law that allows a company to take advantage of unsuspecting customers might appear a little less acceptable.

In games, rules stop the unscrupulous from overcoming opponents by cheating; or, at least, that’s the intention. Football (soccer, that is), of course, is the exception that proves the rule here.

With writing, however, the rules are made for a number of different purposes. Some are intended as general guidelines to enhance understanding.  Some exist in order to standardise certain aspects of the process. Some have been invented to ensure that all but the most persistent will give up the idea of ever becoming a writer. And some are there to influence that most indefinable quality known as style.

Can any, some, none or all of these rules be broken without causing the end of the world to descend and obliterate the written word from existence? Well, I suspect one or two are rules we can, perhaps, bend a little. A few we might test to the extreme. And a small number can be ignored with impunity by those wise enough to recognise them for what they are.

There is a boring, but factually accurate, saying that suggests that all writers should learn the rules before they attempt to break them. If you break a rule in ignorance, you’ll probably remain unaware of your sin until one of the grammar, syntax, spelling or style police hands you a ticket and demands restitution. This, of course, means you are in danger of committing multiple instances of the same rule breaking. You are destined for disgrace and ignominy.

If, however, you break a rule in the full knowledge of the consequences, understanding that you are rebelling and may cause a frown on the face of the purist, you may just get away with it.

We all have our favourite rules; those we would never fail to obey. Perhaps they hold some special significance for us. Perhaps they’re the foundations upon which our own confidence in our writing is based. Perhaps they illustrate our skill. Or, perhaps, they don’t actually mean what we think they mean. What? You mean we may be obeying rules we could possibly break? And get away with it?

Before I invite you to participate and state your own particular rules that you feel deserve your loyalty, let me start the ball rolling with a few of my own. After all, it’s my post.

There’s a rule that states that, in presenting speech, the author should use only ‘he/she said’. Contentious, especially amongst newbies, this one. But there’s a good reason for this simple rule. It is that the tag ‘he said’ becomes ‘invisible’ after a very short while. It retains its purpose, in identifying the speaker, but it doesn’t intrude upon or interrupt the story. Yes, I know: you use ‘he expostulated’, ‘she swore’, ‘he shouted’, ‘she cried’ etc, etc, etc. The problem with such dialogue tags is that they should be unnecessary. The words and context should indicate the way in which a response is made. In most, though not all, cases, the how of the delivery is, or should be, evident by what is said and the situation in which it is spoken. There are, of course, circumstances in which the words alone may be insufficient to prevent ambiguity. Usually, the context will help here. But there are circumstances when, for example, sarcasm may not be evident or grief may be hidden. In these cases, if a description of the speaker does not fit the situation, it may be necessary to fall back on the more expressive attribution and tag the speech with a, ‘she giggled,’ ‘he smirked’, ‘she threatened, or ‘he winced’.

Of course, anyone familiar with my writing will know I rarely use dialogue tags at all. I rely on the words themselves to identify the speaker. Occasionally, I’ll toss in a name to keep the reader on track. Or I might attach the speech to an action so that the speaker is thus identified.

Another rule, this time an absolute, is one I’d never dream of breaking. In fact, in common with ninety per cent of the educated masses, I wince every time I see an instance of this rule in ruins. I mean, of course, the apostrophe; that simple piece of punctuation that’s so easily misunderstood by those who sell by the roadside, allowing them to advertise, ‘Potato’s for sale’, or ‘Pick your own Tomato’s’. Such a simple rule: if it’s a plural, the apostrophe is incorrect, wrong, bad, wicked and a hanging offence! If it is possible to reconstruct the phrase in such a way that possession forms part of the syntax, then, of course, the apostrophe is there to express that fact. ‘George sells his potatoes to the grocers, who place them on their carts.’ No possessives, so no apostrophe. But ‘George sells potatoes and places them on the grocers’ carts.’ Here, George performs a service to multiple grocers, each of whom possesses a cart on which he places the items he sells. Okay?

There is, of course, the other apostrophe ruling that’s constantly under attack by the ignorant: I speak of the difference between the possessive and use of contraction. ‘It’s on the floor’, which translates as ‘It is on the floor’ and, as a contraction, requires an apostrophe to indicate there is a letter missing. But ‘That’s on its own floor’, contracts ‘that is’ to ‘that’s’ and leaves the possessive ‘its’ alone to show that the floor belongs to it.

So, a few of my ‘favourite’ rules. You have your own. So, let’s have them. Those rules that make steam emerge from your ears every time you hear them broken, bring bulges of rage to your eyes each time you see them abused. Please feel free to express your loves here. In a future post I’ll look at rules we hate and examine a few of those.

PS. You'll note that the 'tags' below include an instance where an apostrophe would be applicable, but it is absent. Thsi is because in 'tags' the convention is to exclude punctuation to prevent confusion, apparently!

Related articles

• Punctuation Pet Peeves
• Apostrophe ban council backs down and reinstates punctuation
• Apostrophe to Form Plural
• England's Battle Over The Apostrophe

Useful Tips on Writing Good English (Especially for Students)

Testtakingstudent (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I was doing some research for my daughter, who is at university, and, by pure chance, came across this website, which, although intended for university students, is open to the public. If you've ever had questions relating to correct English usage, this is a really useful tool, with easy to follow guides on a number of technical, grammatical and associated issues. Certain worth a visit.
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/student/studyadvice/studyskillsresources/studyguides.aspx

Good luck with your writing.

Related articles

• Who or Whom? Pearson's New GrammarPrep App Series Takes the Guesswork out of English Usage
• When to Use I.E. Versus E.G.
• Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?
• 10 Steps to Better Spelling

Does it Matter if the Words Are Not Right?

This might seem an odd question from a writer. I was prompted to ask by a fit of annoyance over poor language used by a journalist on television. She was reporting on a local news item and used the expression, ‘This problem is, of course, very unique to…’ and went on to ask her interviewee just ‘how unique’ he felt the issue was.

So what? Well, ‘unique’ is an absolute. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Something is either unique or not; it can’t be partially unique, very unique or, indeed, almost unique. We have other words to express such things. ‘Rare’, comes to mind, as do ‘uncommon’ and ‘scarce’. Because rarity is an elastic concept, we can use qualifiers with impunity. It’s fine to discuss degrees of scarcity, that degree dependent on the amount by which the object under discussion veers from the commonplace. 

If we begin to use absolutes in such a way, we diminish their real power in describing an event or quality. If I say that a woman conveys a ‘unique beauty’ I paint a picture of someone who is singular, incomparable. If, on the other hand, I describe her as a ‘rare beauty’, then I put her in a class along with others; the number contained in that class can be defined more or less by using qualifiers such as ‘very rare’, ‘unusually rare’, ‘moderately rare’, etc. So, in the ‘unique’ case, the reader is clear that the person described has no equal. In the ‘rare’ case, we know that there are others, though not a great number, who are comparable. It’s a fine distinction, but one worth retaining, I think.

In another example of poor journalism, one increasingly repeated these days, I heard a reporter talking about how ‘…there are less people involved in…’, when, of course, he should have said, ‘...there are fewer people involved in…’.  This is a slightly different matter, however. The use of less or fewer always provides the information that a smaller number is involved than the comparison. Whilst the use of the correct word is preferable, it doesn’t actually alter the basic idea being communicated. So, whilst I find the usage lazy and inaccurate, I can reluctantly accept its adoption because meaning isn’t changed when the error occurs.

This, then, is my question: If meaning is maintained, does it really matter if the wrong word is used to convey that meaning?

Are we concerned about correct usage simply for the sake of correct usage? Or is our concern, as writers, more to do with style, perhaps? Does wrong usage, whilst acceptable to many non-writers, merely illustrate a lack of care, education, or intelligence to those of us who write?

  

Language is primarily a means of communicating ideas. So, if those ideas are expressed without confusion in spite of wrong usage, does that incorrect usage really matter?

I pride myself on knowing correct usage, most of the time, but do my readers care, or even notice when such errors occur? As a writer, I feel duty bound to utilise the many fine shades of meaning possible within the English language. I feel that allowing such distinction to be eroded by ignorance, carelessness or expedience is a step along the road toward ultimate confusion and bedlam, as fine discriminations disappear under a carpet of banality. The poet in me abhors such laziness. But, apart from other poets and writers, do my readers care? That’s what I ask you. And I welcome your responses.

Related articles

• What's the difference between grammar, punctuation, and mechanics?
• Who Is in Charge of Language?
• Two Stuffed Shirts Walk into a Bar: Strunk and White Want to Tell You What to Do (and Why to Ignore Them)
• Grammar, orthography, word choice, and other esoteric things

Uninterested or disinterested?

Okay, so this is an old bugbear of mine. But usage seems to be a growing problem, even for supposed professionals, especially amongst those broadcasting on TV and radio, who should be ashamed of themselves!

It’s really quite straightforward, you know.

If you’re not interested, the term is uninterested, in line with most similar opposites. You’re either dressed or undressed, moved or unmoved, reasonable or unreasonable, so, similarly, you’re either interested or you’re uninterested.

If, however, you’re politically neutral, you are disinterested. If you’re making a judgement without bias, you need to be disinterested. Disinterested means without bias, impartial, neutral.

So:

‘Jennifer was uninterested in football, so didn’t care which side won.’

But:

‘The referee was disinterestedin the outcome of the match and remained neutral throughout.’

Does that help?

We have such a subtle and comprehensive vocabulary in English; it seems a shame not to use the right word, when perfectly good examples are available, don’t you think?

The Writing Week

Weary. Been a long week. But, then, it probably has been for you, too.
So, what have I been doing?
A new blog post - 7 common grammatical errors - scheduled for 15th March.
The first of a proposed series of debates, with an invitation to join the discussion. and taking the form of a chat between two invented characters. This week was on the subject of honesty and is posted below, if you'd like to join in.
8000 words of a short story written. Short story? Well, that's how it started out. I reckon there's another 1500 to go before it's finished.
But, to my regret, only 2 chapters of the NaNoWriMo novel edited this week.
There have been mitigating circumstances, with which I will not bore you.
Oh, and I updated the Writing Contests page, see the tab above if interested. That's actually quite a time consuming process, due to the research involved.
So, now, at just after 9.0 o'clock on Sunday evening, I think I'm ready for a rest.

Whether and When to Use The Definite Article?

The problem of 'the' is ever with us. The definite article, as opposed to the indefinite 'a' and 'an', tends to place a claim of specificity on the attached noun, rendering it a special item. So, 'an oak tree' is an entirely different proposition from 'the oak tree'. The former is just one member of the forest, without distinction and lacking the importance of that definite article. The latter, of course, is elevated into a position of superiority by its adjective, which identifies it as not just one of the crowd, but a particular tree. It may be that this specimen has some dubious history, perhaps once employed to suspend the bodies, if not the disbelief, of those who were hanged from one of its lower boughs. Or, it may bear the initials of passion-consumed lovers now long dead but in their time renowned for their displays of alfresco affection. Maybe it was the location chosen by furtive agents who secreted their folded and encrypted messages within that famous knot hole only five feet from the ground and thus almost brought the State to a state of collapse.

You get the drift.

The 'the' can, and often does, convey an idea of importance on the subject it describes.

But, what of those occasions when writers use it to describe the ordinary? 'Jonathan walked the length of the lake shore, skimming the flat stones over its surface.' Here we have a sentence with three instances of 'the' in just 15 words: 20% of the sentence consists of the definite article! Can we improve it without altering the sense?

'Jonathan walked the length of the lake shore, skimming flat stones over its surface.' Because, in this case, the 'the' is immaterial with regard to the stones, we can exclude it without detriment to the sentence and, thereby, improve pace. The other two 'the's, however, are necessary to the sentence in its current construction, as, without them, it wouldn't make sense.

'Jonathan skimmed stones over the lake surface, as he walked its (entire) shore.' Reduced wordage, cutting the definite article to one example, but saying the same thing. Whether it's a better sentence, I leave to your judgement.

Let's try another:

'The weary traveller wandered lost in the forest, surrounded by the trees; the leaves cutting out the light of the sun and making the experience frightening.'

This is a terrible sentence. Oh, it says everything the writer intended. But the pace is poor and there are far too many words, especially definite articles. Let's try to improve it.

'The weary traveller wandered lost in the forest, surrounded by trees; leaves cutting out sunlight and making the experience frightening.'

Better: the pace is better after removal of the unnecessary definite articles, but the sentence still lacks sparkle. It tells the reader what is happening, but fails to show it.

'Lost amongst endless trees, Aglydron trembled and longed for rest and an end to his difficult journey.'

I'm not suggesting this is by any means perfect. But, I think you'll agree it's an improvement. We've lost the subject's anonymity by naming him (he's a character from the epic fantasyI'm writing at present) and, in so doing, removed another 'the'. We've shown the reader how he feels, instead of telling him, giving the whole a greater emotional depth. And we've reduced the original 26 word sentence to 17 words, thereby increasing pace. The final sentence retains not a single definite article, but the original contained no fewer than seven 'the's.

Okay, you're turn next. Here's an excruciating sentence for you to work on and improve. Let me have your suggestions, if you wish, along with your comments.

'The sexy woman walked across the sand of the beach, conscious of the eyes of the men following the progress she made, as the bikini barely concealed the parts of the lovely body she moved quickly toward the sea, so the waves would hide the shyness she felt.'

Another silly question for you to ponder: Why, oh why, do we always press harder and harder on a remote control when we know the batteries are dying?

The Editing Process and Why I Enjoy It.

Unlike many writers, I enjoy the editing process that follows the white hot period of creation. This is the time when you find the right words to replace those that flew off the end of your fingers in the rush to get the ideas down before they escaped into the ether. This is your opportunity to turn a banal phrase into something poetic and memorable. It's the time to hone, sharpen, tighten and close up the text to build in the pace that carries the story forward. It's the chance to spend some prime time with your characters and understand them better than was possible at the beginning of the story, since even the most well-drawn characters have a tendency to diverge from the author's view of them as they grow during the story. It's the place to do that hardest of all things every writer must do in order to succeed; to murder your darlings. Most writers will understand this expression. For those who don't, it simply means that you have to examine your writing critically and decide whether that exquisite phrase you used to describe the heroine, the scenery, the hero, is actually necessary to the story. If it isn't, you cut it out and toss it away. Your darling infants consigned to the bonfire of vanities.

I've always held to a short but, for me, true mantra on writing: write from the heart, but edit from the head.

I've also always placed a distance between the writing of a piece and the editing. If you can come to your work with a fresh mind, following a break without reading or thinking about it, you're far more likely to spot problems within it. So, after the creative phase, I always lock away the piece for a period, the length of which is more dependent on circumstances than any formal programme. But when I return to it, I work methodically. Whether my method will work for you, however, depends on the type of writer you are.

I do a first read through, quickly and without stopping for changes I see as necessary - merely marking these points as prompts for the next read through. This first read I do more or less as a reader, rather than a writer. It re-acquaints me with the work, allows me to see whether the ideas have translated into something that will interest readers, and highlights any glaring inconsistencies in plot, character or setting.

Next, I read through and look at those marked places, making whatever alterations seem necessary. As I do this, I also make any changes that might affect pace by removing redundancies and repetitions.

I then subject each chapter, or section, to the http://www.wordle.net/check. This wonderful and simple program provides a graphic (see the illustration for this post) that highlights words used according to frequency and is an invaluable tool for identifying overused words. I thoroughly recommend this free editing helper.

The next stage is the crucial one, which I advise every writer to do, regardless of genre, habit, type or experience. I read the entire work aloud, from a typed script, marking it as I go along to indicate any areas of error, confusion, repetition, clumsy construction etc. Reading aloud makes errors far more evident, and reading from a printed source, rather than the screen, makes mistakes and inconsistencies far more obvious. I can't emphasise too strongly how important this step is. If you do nothing else in editing, at least do this.

Once I've been through and made the changes indicated by the read-through above, I subject the piece to the mechanical spell and grammar check. This highlights a number of issues and, in spite of its shortcomings and inadequacies, often reveals odd things missed during the manual process.

A final read through allows me to ensure consistency in plotting, characterisation, timeline, setting and theme. I keep a spreadsheet for the timeline, so that I know where each character is at any given time. This includes a hyperlink to each character's sketch, so I can ensure I haven't inadvertently changed hair or eye colour or suddenly made an atheist into a godbotherer, or aged a youngster, etc. I also include phases of the moon and sunrise/sunset times on the timeline, so I can keep track of such items when I'm describing activity or scenes.

You will no doubt note that I haven't described a session where I make changes to improve the language of the piece. That's because I do this as I go along, as part of all the other checks and alterations.

That's it. I know I could go through the piece again and again, and find other faults or places where improvements could be made, but I write to be read and there comes a time when the piece must be revealed to readers. Some writers find this final phase the most difficult and I suspect their reluctance to get their piece out in front of an audience is due to either misplaced lack of confidence or an unwillingness to let go of their child and send it out into the world.

There are writers, particularly amongst the indie writer category, who don't bother with even the most basic editing. Their work is readily identifiable by its numerous spelling errors, lack of grammaticalaccuracy, inconsistencies in expression and poor story planning. It puzzles and distresses me that readers give such writers the time of day, but perhaps I consider such things as correct language use, basic spelling and grammar, as tools of the trade and see their lack as insults to the readers; insults that, perhaps, certain readers don't perceive as such.

So, there you have it: the process of refining the initial piece of created fiction into a story worthy of exhibition before my readers. Yes, it's a lot of work, time and effort. But nothing worthwhile was ever created in ease. I can only hope that my efforts produce stories that readers find entertaining, illuminating and enjoyable.

An unrelated question for you to ponder: Why do doctors leave the room while you undress, since they're going to see you naked anyway?

Stuart's Daily Word Spot (Antonyms): Gaiety/Sadness

Image via Wikipedia

Gaiety/Sadness

Gaiety: noun - cheerfulness, mirth, frivolity, merrymaking.

Sadness: noun - the condition of being sad. Sad: adjective - sorrowful, mournful.

'Between evocative crashing of breakers on the sand, the hungry cries of the seagulls, and the light soughing of the onshore breeze, Jake could hear the gaiety of the beach party he approached, as they played, laughed, danced and ate around their driftwood bonfire.'

Personal note: I think it's rather sad that, as writers, we've lost the use of the word 'gay', which was such an evocative adjective for which there is no real synonym. Nothing against the gay community; just a tinge of regret that they chose that particular word as a label.

'Walking the shore, just out of reach of crashing breakers, feeling the lonely cries of gulls and allowing the offshore breeze to tangle her blonde tresses, Faith felt the deep sadness of her separation from all that she knew and loved in the world.'

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Abandon/retain

I thought I might try a few antonyms for a bit of variety, as synonyms are well catered for in the many thesauruses available, but antonyms are often difficult to track down.

Abandon/retain:

Abandon: verb - Give up control to, surrender to; cease to hold, use, or practise; give up, renounce; desert, leave behind; banish or expel

'In the sweltering heat, Anna felt compelled to abandon her clothes.'

'Seeing her as if for the first time, Ronald felt he could do nothing better than abandon Polly and leave her to the vagaries of the job market.'

Retain: verb - keep attached to yourself or engaged in your service; keep hold or possession of; continue to have, keep, or possess; continue to use, practise, or recognize; allow to remain or prevail; preserve.

'Despite the overbearing heat, Anna felt it was sensible to retain her clothes, as public nudity might expose her to more than mere ridicule.'

'Really seeing Polly for the first time, Ronald felt compelled to retain her as his personal assistant.'

Pic: Venetian Fort in Crete. 

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Habitué

Habitué: noun - someone who can usually be found in or at a specific place or kind of place; a devotee.

'You can always find Gina down at the seafront café; she's an habitué of the tawdry and superficially glamorous.


Pic: A leaf from a water lily in the pond in my garden. Included simply because I like the picture, and Zemanta failed to come up with a suitable illustration. 

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Need or want?

Image via Wikipedia

Need or want?

Need: noun - necessity for a person or thing; a condition or time of difficulty, distress, or trouble, lacking or requiring some necessary thing; exigency, emergency, crisis; destitution, lack of the means of subsistence or of necessaries, poverty; requiring or being motivated to do, a necessity to do; something requiring action; a particular point or respect in which some necessity or want is present or is felt; a piece of necessary business; something wanted, a requirement.

Want: noun - lacking something desirable or necessary; deficiency or shortage; lacking the necessities of life; penury; poverty, famine, starvation; hardship or suffering; a condition marked by the lack of some necessity; need; something needed or desired; a requirement, a request; a defect, fault or shortcoming.

When I decided to compare these two words, in common with many older folk, I assumed their dictionary definitions would support my preconceptions. However, the good old SOED has educated me once again. On the face of it, the two words can be interchanged more or less unconditionally.

BUT, when it comes to that oft heard phrase, 'I need…' usually uttered by an offspring, there is a distinction that should be made, I think.

Children of all ages, and I include those adults who refuse to mature, often state that they need something when they simply desire it. Usage suggests that, in most cases, they 'want' what they call a 'need'. I think I can best express this by explaining that in this particular case, 'want' indicates desire and 'need' indicates necessity.

So:

'I need a new dress, skirt, etc.' should properly be expressed as 'I want a new…' since the item in question is not a necessity but something desired.

'I need a text book, set of pens, breakfast, etc.' is fine, as these are necessities for either life or schooling.

The dividing line is fine and, probably, subjective, but I think all parents will know where it should be drawn.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: The comma, and how to use it.

Cover via Amazon

The comma, and how to use it.

Perhaps I should start this piece by determining what a comma actually is: a comma is defined as a punctuation mark that indicates a pause between parts of a sentence, or which separates items in a list or groups of figures, etc. In speech, we pause when there's a natural break in what we're saying, or when we need to isolate the next words from those preceding them in order to make our message clear.

There's a movement toward open punctuation at present, promoting the omission of commas in cases in which they're considered optional. Whilst such an idea may have some merit, writers and editors need to retain commas, and sometimes even insert additional ones, in order to clarify meaning.

Let me give some examples of how important the humble comma can be.

There is, of course, the famous example shown by Lynne Truss in the title of her excellent book, 'Eats shoots and leaves.' and its alternative version, 'Eats, shoots and leaves.'  The two sentences have exactly the same words but the meanings are poles apart. In the first, we have a bald statement that the subject (unstated in this case) lives on a diet of shoots and leaves; a vegetarian, of course. In the second, we have an altogether more dangerous individual who has a meal, then produces and uses a firearm before moving away.

'She sees all the advantages and wonders about how they might make more of these qualities.'

 In this example, the pairing of 'advantages' with 'wonders', which can act as both verb and noun, makes the first part of the sentence sound as though the subject, she, observes all the advantages and wonders. In fact, of course, the writer does not intend the reader to make this connection and the sentence would be much clearer if written thus: 'She sees all the advantages, and wonders about how they might make more of these qualities.'  We now know, with certainty, that 'she' is both observing and speculating.

It is this ability of the comma to remove ambiguity that makes it an essential tool in the writer's armoury.

'You should be grateful for the money and rest.'

Does the writer want his subject to show gratitude for cash and repose? Or does he actually expect gratitude for the money alone and then suggest that his subject take a rest? The sentence can be read to mean either. A comma would clarify the latter: 'You should be grateful for the money, and rest.' This is now clear. As for the former case, a slight restructuring of the sentence will again make the meaning clear: 'You should be grateful for rest and the money.' Again, the meaning is now clear.

'The world contains far too many people using artificial means to produce children and far too many orphans.'

Here we have the slightly sinister suggestion that people are using artificial means to create orphans. Does this mean some people are actively killing parents so that some children will be orphaned? I think the writer means something entirely different: 'The world contains far too many people using artificial means to create children, and far too many orphans.'  Again, this sentence would make more sense and be unambiguous if structured in a better way: 'The world contains far too many orphans, and too many people who use artificial means to create children.' You may, or may not, agree with the sentiment, but I hope you agree with the clarity of the alternative structures.

'Marilyn opened the door in her nightdress and shrieked as the chill air blew it up her legs.'

It's unlikely Marilyn's nightdress had a door, of course. But the writer has described the garment as having one. Also, was the door or the nightdress blown up her legs? Not at all clear, is it? Perhaps a better understanding of what actually happened would be derived from: 'Marilyn, in her nightdress, opened the door and shrieked as the chill air blew it up her legs.' Even here, though it's now clear that the nightdress and the door are two separate items, it remains ambiguous whether the chill air blew the garment or the portal up her legs. It isn't always a lack of commas that renders a sentence unclear. Perhaps it might be better stated as: 'Marilyn opened the door and shrieked as the chill air blew her nightdress up her legs.' Here the comma has been ditched but the structure of the sentence makes everything clear.

'Another politician named Nick Clegg broke his word and allowed his partners to introduce tuition fees against all the pre-election promises he had made.'

How many politicians named 'Nick Clegg' are there? And, in what way can you introduce tuition fees for pre-election promises? The sentence is poor and lacks clarity. Let's try: 'Nick Clegg, another politician, broke his word and allowed his partners to introduce tuition fees, against all the pre-election promises he had made.' We now understand that the writer is lumping Nick Clegg with other politicians and pointing the finger of blame at him, regarding tuition fees, because he had previously promised not to permit such a thing to happen.

 I could go on with examples, and I could talk about the 'Oxford' comma, but I think you've probably got the general idea by now. I don't want to bore you.

23 October 2001 The first iPod was released by Apple. Can it really only be ten years ago?

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Sympathy or Empathy?

Sympathy or Empathy?

Sympathy: noun - harmony of disposition or temperament, making people compatible; common feeling; sharing or being in agreement with the feelings or condition of another or others; feelings of pity and sorrow for the suffering of another; a feeling or expression of compassion or condolence.

Empathy: noun - the ability to mentally identify with and fully comprehend a person or object of contemplation.

Sympathy is relatively common, especially for someone in distress of some sort. But it involves no more than sharing feelings with the victim.

Empathy, on the other hand, requires a deep and comprehensive understanding of the full implications of the emotions felt by a victim; it is, in a sense, 'becoming' that person in the way that a fine actor will 'be' the character rather than simply portray the person.

By all means portray a character sympathetically, if that suits the story. But, as a writer, you need to be empathetic and get into the skin of the character you're depicting.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Transcript or transcription?

Image via Wikipedia

Transcript or transcription?

Transcript: noun -  something that has been transcribed; a written or printed copy; in law - a copy of a legal record; a copy, imitation, or reproduction; a representation or interpretation.

Transcription: noun - the act or process of transcribing something; also, an example of this; the result of transcribing something; a transcript or copy; in Roman Law - a transfer or assignment of debt or obligation.  

Although it is possible to use 'transcription' as a synonym for 'transcript', it is best avoided, as it can cause confusion.

So:

'When the comedy writer made a transcript of the scene, it was both accurate and highly decorated with rude depictions of the action suggested in the text.'

'Hilary was engaged in the transcription of the conversation she'd had with her ex-boyfriend, ensuring she wrote it word for word, so she'd have the evidence to condemn him out of his own mouth when he next tried to seduce her.'

A transcript is a thing; a transcription is the process of creating it.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Tortuous or torturous?

Image via Wikipedia

Tortuous or torturous?

Tortuous: adjective - full of twists or turns; twisted, sinuous or winding; not direct or straightforward; devious, circuitous.

Torturous: adjective - characterized by or involving torture; tormenting, excruciating; figuratively - violently twisted or distorted; perverted.

The use of 'torturous' in place of 'tortuous', although more common these days, is the result of a misunderstanding of the real meanings of these two words and should be avoided.

'The delta of the Mississippi is full of tortuous distributaries, carrying the waters over the flat land to the sea.'

'The tattoo on Jodisa's leg led a tortuous path from her ankle to the place all men desired to enter.' (That's a reference to the epic fantasy I'm writing.)

'For Sandra, being with Michael was a torturous experience, making her wince with his every advance and clumsy fumble.'

'The inmates of the foreign prison were subject to torturous treatment, which left many of them unable to stand unaided.'

A tortuous experience winds around; a torturous one causes pain.

4 October 1911 If you use the London Underground and travel via Earls Court, you might like to know the first escalator opened there and is now 100 years old. I suspect they’ve updated it since it was first installed, though.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: There, they’re or their?

There, they’re or their?

More homonyms that constantly cause confusion. Hopefully these suggestions will help keep you on the right track with them.

'There' is about the location of something, as in 'It's over there.'  One way to remember this is as follows:

't(Here) for coffee, there for t(ea).'

'They're' is a contraction of 'they are'. 

'Beware if they're too pleasant; they're probably after your money.'

If you can use the full phrase, 'they are' in the sentence, then 'they're ' is the suitable word.

'Their' is the plural pronoun that equates with 'mine' – both have an 'i', which will hopefully act as a reminder.

'Their dresses are too short, but mine is just the right length.'

Pic: Looking toward Huggate, East Yorkshire.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Habitual

Habitual: adjective - inherent or latent in the mental constitution; of the nature of or fixed by a habit; constantly repeated or continued; customary; given to a specific habit; usual, constant, continual.

'Jennifer wore her habitual gown of gossamer over skin that was tanned by habitual worship of the sun.'

'Long custom, combined with ignorance, intolerance and prejudicial fear made the torture and demonization of pagan women habitual at the hands of the religious authorities.'

30 September 1861 William Wrigley, who founded Wrigley’s Chewing Gum Company, was born. Those who blame the producer for the sins of the users might wish to curse him for the sticky mess his products leave on our streets and elsewhere.

Pic: The beck at Staithes, North Yorkshire.

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Then or than?

Then or than?

Although it's quite common for these two to be confused, it's one of those that is simple to resolve.

'Then' has to do with the passage of time, or with a sequence of events.

'Than' is a comparative conjunction, allowing one thing to be compared with another.

So:

'Sarah went to see her mother, then travelled the short distance to see her brother, and then she went to the supermarket and met the man of her dreams over the cheese counter.'

'Sarah has more than one sister; in fact, she has three.'

'If you don't stop that, Bernard, then I'll slap your face.' (though, in fact, the 'then' in this sentence is redundant – try it without and you'll see there's no loss of meaning. But it illustrates the point, I think.)

'I'd rather you kissed me than slapped my face.'

Pic: Suspension bridge over the Humber Estuary.