Ireth is correct.
The clause in your last example isn't an independent clause.
The clause in your last example isn't an independent clause.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Punctuation - flow vs grammar
- Thread starter Svrtnsse
- Start date
^ I came back to suggest that grammar rules are easier to break in sections which dive heavily into the character's POV, such as this one above. Reading this makes me feel like I'm reading something closer to dialogue even before you've broken the comma rules. I'm hearing the character's rambling and imperfect voice as I read it, so I'm not noticing the punctuation as much as I normally would.
- Thread starter
- #43
It does look weird though, but perhaps I'm just overthinking things now? I've spent most of the day and quite a bit of yesterday looking for punctuation issues. It might be getting to my head.
Aurora
Sage
I think it works as is, too.
Svrtnsse, since you're asking...I think yes, you might be overthinking it some.
- Thread starter
- #45
I hear you, loud and clear.
I'm guessing it's the fear of letting the story go that's kicking in. This is the last pass I'll be making on the story before passing it on for a last spelling and grammar check, and then it's done.
As I'm going, I keep finding new and interesting ideas for additions to the story, and it's sometimes a struggle letting them go.
At the risk of being pelted with virtual rotten tomatoes, I like the original version.
The original version of which example?
I want to make sure I'm throwing tomatoes for the right reason.
Aurora
Sage
I read a blog post by Dean Wesley Smith yesterday on how perfection stops a lot of writers dead in their tracks. I have found great freedom in writing when I've just said, "To hell with it!" and written what's flowed naturally.
Speaking of getting pelted with tomatoes (by the way, my most favorite part of going to the Renaissance Fair is the tomato show where you can buy soft tomatoes for a $1 and throw them at the bad performers on stage), books are about story not prose. Learning mechanics and paying attention to grammar is important. That's one aspect of it. The second being that writing is still an art and looks like art. Story comes first. Then grammar.
Malik
Auror
Or look things up online one by one as you come across them, and then ask questions.
This counts.
Sorry, I got behind while following the thread on my phone and missed a lot of replies that were before mine. Looks like agreement in large part on the last example
If I could like this x10 I would.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
I hear you loud and clear. --That needed fixing
Well, I read through all of this to come to, its hard to beat what Aurora has said. You can go mad trying to fix all those errors in a story, but you must leave room for art. Stories are not technical writing and sometimes get their own rules. If its clear, and it gets the idea across, and it fits in with the rest of the prose...move on.
Sorry, coming to this a bit late. I don't know if this is the issue, but to me, this has two things that I'm kind of squinting at. First is the dependant clause/second part is almost redundant. When you say someone beamed, they're smiling radiantly or happily, it implies that their eyes are lit up. I mean imagine a person smiling, but they have dead eyes. It's creepy. So that second part, to me, is almost an over emphasis on things that may not be necessary.
Second, though the sentence is technically correct, depending on what POV you're using and style, it maybe breaking that POV. Is this told from Torkel's POV? How close a POV are you going for? When a person smiles they know they're smiling. When their eyes are sparkling, the only way person knows that is if someone else tells them, or they're looking in a mirror.
As for comma or no comma before a conjunction, I put in the comma probably 99.9% of the time. I must have a very specific reason not to. Flow maybe one of them, but I find that more often than not, for me, if something reads stilted, commas are probably the least of the problems. To me that's like removing a dam to help the flow of a river when there's a drought and river is bone dry.
Flow, to me, is about representing the cadence of the narrator/POV character's voice, and to me, that's more about getting into the narrator/POV character's head and filtering the world through their eyes than grammatical construction.
Now, this isn't to say that grammatical construction isn't important or doesn't play an important part, because it is and it does, and knowing the rules of grammar will allow you to control how things sound when read and helps to capture that cadence. But I find that if you focus more on getting into the narrator/character's head things tend to just naturally flow regardless of grammar.
In one of my writing groups a woman brought a piece that broke every grammar rule you could think of, tense changes, comma splices, etc. Technically, it was a mess. But it flowed, and it was engaging. The reason for that, which we found out later, was because it wasn't fiction. It was a memoir.
One of the things I think this illustrates is if you tap in to the truth of things, fiction or not, and let that truth come out on to the page, it just tends to work.
I don't know. I'm talking out of my bum a little here, but it's my 2 cents.
Similar threads
