First Line of a New Book

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I do not dispute that there are many other uses for commas, but what I stand is entirely true.

If you separate two clauses with a conjunction, you only use a comma if both clauses are independent.

S1. Correct - This clause is independent, and this clause is independent.
S2. Correct - This clause is independent but not this one.
S3. Incorrect - This clause is independent, but not this one.

I see a tonal difference between S2 and S3. To me, the S3 is more urgent than S2, but I wouldn't consider it wrong. I know it wouldn't bother me if I saw S3 while reading. That comma, to me, implies a pause, but I'm not sure what's "incorrect" about it. Does it make the sentence harder to understand? Is it confusing? Will a majority of readers stumble over it or be bothered by it? If not, then I'm not sure what the problem is with using it.

Actually, now S2 bothers me, because:

S4: This clause is independent but not purple.
S2: This clause is independent but not this one.

S4 makes sense, but replace "purple" with "this one" and now it reads weird to me.

Also, if you're going to state flat-out that something is incorrect in a language that has no central defining authority, it would probably help if you cited which particular grammatical authority you're using the rules from.

 

[Steerpike]

In general, I believe one should adhere to accepted rules of usage. I do believe, however, that in creative writing one should feel free to depart from the rules regarding commas to affect pacing or achieve some other desired effect.

 

[BWFoster78]

I see a tonal difference between S2 and S3. To me, the S3 is more urgent than S2, but I wouldn't consider it wrong. I know it wouldn't bother me if I saw S3 while reading. That comma, to me, implies a pause, but I'm not sure what's "incorrect" about it. Does it make the sentence harder to understand? Is it confusing? Will a majority of readers stumble over it or be bothered by it? If not, then I'm not sure what the problem is with using it.

Actually, now S2 bothers me, because:

S4: This clause is independent but not purple.
S2: This clause is independent but not this one.

S4 makes sense, but replace "purple" with "this one" and now it reads weird to me.

Also, if you're going to state flat-out that something is incorrect in a language that has no central defining authority, it would probably help if you cited which particular grammatical authority you're using the rules from.

Look in any grammar source that you like. They all state the following:

dependent clause - comma - independent clause
independent clause - no comma - dependent clause

Grammar isn't something you make up as you go along. There are definite rules. If you know what you're doing and know what rule you're breaking, it's sometimes okay to disregard one for effect, such as writing a sentence fragment to add emphasis. You have to understand, however, the impact on the reader when you do it. Adding a comma when one isn't needed in this instance, in my opinion, just makes the author look ignorant. If I read the first line of a novel and the punctuation isn't even correct, I'm much less inclined to go any further.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Look in any grammar source that you like. They all state the following:

dependent clause - comma - independent clause
independent clause - no comma - dependent clause

Dunno, seems like Chicago doesn't so much mind in certain cases.

Adding a comma when one isn't needed in this instance, in my opinion, just makes the author look ignorant.

So ignoring the rule is bad because it will look like you're ignoring the rule? That's kinda circular. What's the reason for the rule in the first place? Why does having that comma make it harder to read, especially since (as Chicago mentions) it can be used to indicate a pause?

 

[BWFoster78]

Dunno, seems like Chicago doesn't so much mind in certain cases.

Chicago still starts out with: it isn't needed. Chicago goes onto say that it could be okay if both the independent clause and the dependent clause are long. Again, it's the case of knowing the rule well enough to decide if it's okay to break it. In this case, no reasonable person can argue that the clauses are long enough to warrant a comma.

So ignoring the rule is bad because it will look like you're ignoring the rule? That's kinda circular. What's the reason for the rule in the first place? Why does having that comma make it harder to read, especially since (as Chicago mentions) it can be used to indicate a pause?

The rule is that you don't use a comma unless you have a reason to use it. You don't throw one in wherever you want. That's, just not, the way it, works, understand? Is my previous sentence okay? Would you want to read a whole paragraph like that?

My understanding was that this forum was for people who want to be writers. I was shocked, appalled, and dismayed to find this reaction to a simple grammatical correction. Wanting to be a writer and not embracing the rules of grammar seems to me equivalent to wanting to build a house but not wanting to bother with learning to use tools.

Again, if I read the first line of a book and it had such a simple punctuation mistake, I wouldn't be very likely to continue because I'd figure that the author probably doesn't know what they're doing. That's not circular at all, and I'm not sure how you're construing it as such. Ignoring a rule is bad because it will look like you don't have a clue about basic grammar, not because it will look like you're ignoring the rule.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

The rule is that you don't use a comma unless you have a reason to use it.

I understand the rules; I also understand that violating the rule for dramatic effect is entirely acceptable to most readers. Sure, maybe you'll throw the book out the window the first time you see a grammatical error, but most readers wouldn't even notice that comma. Tonally, it's better with the comma, because they're two distinct actions even if grammatically the second clause is dependent. Death deserves a pause.

 

[BWFoster78]

I understand the rules; I also understand that violating the rule for dramatic effect is entirely acceptable to most readers. Sure, maybe you'll throw the book out the window the first time you see a grammatical error, but most readers wouldn't even notice that comma. Tonally, it's better with the comma, because they're two distinct actions even if grammatically the second clause is dependent. Death deserves a pause.

I disagree. The comma is completely unnecessary. I see no need for it.

There's absolutely no rule saying you use a comma to separate "distinct actions." The use of a comma doesn't add to the drama; it just makes it look like the author doesn't know the rules of grammar.

 

[Mindfire]

b) As the Song ended, Astor began to die.

Personally, I like this one best. (Contrary to the opinions of others.) It has a natural flow and rhythm to it. The problem with the others is that because of where you have the comma placed it interrupts the flow of the sentence. Option B allows the sentence to flow smoothly. The only problem is that it's a tad bit passive. Find something that has a bit more punch, but still flows. How about

As the song ended, Astor died.

This has the natural flow, but saying he died rather than "began to die" has more force to it.

 

[Ireth]

Personally, I like this one best. (Contrary to the opinions of others.) It has a natural flow and rhythm to it. The problem with the others is that because of where you have the comma placed it interrupts the flow of the sentence. Option B allows the sentence to flow smoothly. The only problem is that it's a tad bit passive. Find something that has a bit more punch, but still flows. How about

As the song ended, Astor died.

This has the natural flow, but saying he died rather than "began to die" has more force to it.

It does have a lot of force to it, but the story goes on from that point: Astor doesn't die immediately, so it wouldn't really work in this case.

 

[Mindfire]

Wait so he lives? Well instead of "dying", which is kinda misleading, why not describe some kind of physical change that denotes weakness?

 

[Ireth]

I didn't say he doesn't die at all; I said he doesn't die *immediately*. I don't know how the rest of the story pans out, though.

 

[Phin Scardaw]

Wait so he lives? Well instead of "dying", which is kinda misleading, why not describe some kind of physical change that denotes weakness?

Hey thanks for the input. Astor sings a Song which triggers a curse someone put on him. So he sings, then begins to die, but does not. I was hoping it would make for a good opening hook, but I don't intend to mislead. The following paragraphs clarify what all is going on.

As for commas, that's an ongoing issue that will be resolved at the proper time.

I think what I don't like about option B is that it's not clear that Astor is the one singing the Song.

And I think that my writing is always going to implement the passive voice a good deal, especially when I feels it's necessary. I see why others advice against it, but personally I feel as if the passive voice is vital for good story-telling that is based not on sensationalism but sound principles of literary quality.

 

[Ireth]

I think what I don't like about option B is that it's not clear that Astor is the one singing the Song.

You could rectify that easily by changing the wording just a bit. "As the Song he sang ended, Astor began to die." Or something along those lines.

 

[Phin Scardaw]

As he ended the Song, Astor began dying.

???

This one resolves the comma issue as well, I believe

 

[Ireth]

That works well, though you could also change "dying" to "to die".

 

[Shockley]

As to commas (and even proper grammar), that really depends on the story. Some of the finest works in the English language throw all of the rules out the window (Finnegans Wake, anyone?). Maybe it just comes from writing westerns as my primary genre, but I find that being too obsessive about proper grammar can really interrupt the flow of a story and add a lot of unneeded weight. Nothing, in my mind, gives a frantic energy to a scene better than choppy sentences, fragments, etc. Back to Finnegan's Wake, there are a few points where Joyce (he was dictating) stopped mid-sentence, expressed another thought (often to someone else in the room, unrelated to the writing process) and then went back to the original sentence. When the story was read back, he liked the interruptions and kept them in. If we can forgive Joyce for that, we can forgive Phin Scardaw for a superflous comma.

Anyway, I think all of the proposed beginnings verge on the line of passivity (in spirit, if not in fact). I don't really have a proposed alternative, but that is my two cents.

 

[Steerpike]

@Shockley - I'm in agreement with what you are saying here. Writing fiction is an art form, and it seems to me somewhat silly to suggest that the author cannot deviate from certain technical rules in constructing sentences. She should feel free to do so whenever necessary or desired to achieve an artistic effect (whether to affect pacing, or what have you). The important thing, in my mind, is that the author understand what she is doing. There is a difference between a rule of grammar broken out of ignorance, and one broken deliberately to achieve an effect.

The focus on 'rules' of writing in an absolute sense really misses the mark. Whether it is an overly-zealous focus on grammar or punctuation, or on rules like 'show don't tell' or active v. passive voice, recitation of the rules without any context is of little value to anyone.

 

[Phin Scardaw]

Steerpike et al,

Thanks for backing up my liberal use of commas. I know that even throughout history languages change, and I believe modern writing uses far fewer commas in general. We can all expect English to continue to transmute and evolve in fascinating new ways.

The use of a comma in the sentence, "Astor finished singing, and began dying" was intended to balance the two distinct moments wherein something ends, and another thing begins. Both singing and dying are the major themes of the story, so to present them in such a way in the opening line is a literary device I'm attempting to implement effectively.

I suppose proper grammar would dictate a sentence more like "Astor finished the Song, and then he began to die" but I like it less wordy, lighter. I like the six-word version better as I find it drives home the key points: FINISH, BEGAN, SINGING, DYING. I like the cyclical nature of the sentence, and this reflects the mana which the Songs (spells) tap into, as it moves in wheels of energy.

So I fully agree that poetic licence should be allowed to all writers in all cases; but a writer who intends to follow proper grammar in his or her writing will show their mistakes. Whereas poetic effects will be evident because they will be more pronounced and universal.

Obviously, I want my writing to reach people. I think that the Passive Voice is overlooked. Modern fiction writing is very action-oriented and plot-driven. Publishers seem to assume that if something isn't happening in every sentence, then readers will get bored. The standards, due to film and television, have veered away from traditional types of story-telling to something that reads like it could appear onscreen.

To me, "It was a dark and stormy night" is still a very effective tool. I like describing my settings and even my characters using a passive voice, because it conveys the depths that sensitive readers can pick up on. Active Voice is great when there are actions to perform, but Passive Voice has its uses as well, and these sadly aren't valued much these days, or so it appears to me.

Having said all that, I encourage people posting in this thread to comment on the content of my writing more than the grammatical errors (unless they're glaring or really mess up the meaning I'm going for) as this is a first draft, and I think that I'd really like to see readers expressing interest in the characters, setting, etc, and suggesting better ways to convey these things to my audience.

merci beaucoup
Phin

 

[Ireth]

I agree with Phin on this. Breaking or bending the "rules" on occasion can have a lot of dramatic effect in a story -- using sentence fragments to emphasize something or make a point, for example. Like this one. But as with all things, it should be done with discretion and moderation.

 

[Rullenzar]

I guess the very first thing that jumps out is you've given the reader a phone without its battery. There isn't much a reader can do with this. You haven't given the reader a reason to have an emotional connection with this character, so they read it and say meh who's astor? I hope he dies quick so I can find out what's going on.

I prefer the first 1 or 2 paragraphs of a story to hook the reader. In fact there is a really helpful tidbit on the main page of this site where someone explains and gives an example of how to start your book off. I suggest you take a look over it and rework your idea.

I won't comment on which line would be best because in my opinion none of them are good enough and I wouldn't feel right giving you advice to use even one of them. Using one of them at the end of a paragraph would work best in my opinion but with a little more meat on its bones.

Reading some of the comments I noticed people too focused on your comma. There is nothing wrong with your lines aside from being the very first line. You said your next paragraphs would explain what's going on. In my opinion like I said above is you should work most likely A) into the end of one of your paragraphs.

Starting off by giving a very small description ( example: in the dingy hut ) somewhere throughout your paragraph so the setting can help the reader understand the mood. You can have the effect your going for come off better within a paragraph. That's my 2 cents you can take it or leave it.