The Toolbox

[The Judge]

The rule of never splitting an infinitive may well have arrived via a mistaken - or indeed, snobbish - premise. But it was a rule for a considerable period of time, even if it is now more honoured in the breach than the observance. As a result, to refuse resolutely to split an infinitive gives one's writing at least the illusion of grammatical correctness, which can be invaluable. Of course, it can also make you sound like a pompous old **** which is less appealing.

The answer is - know the rule and know when you are obeying it and why, and when you are disobeying it and why. Don't obey rules blindly, but don't ignore them either. Think about what you are writing.

J

[Michael01]

Originally Posted by The Judge

The answer is - know the rule and know when you are obeying it and why, and when you are disobeying it and why. Don't obey rules blindly, but don't ignore them either. Think about what you are writing.

J

Absolutely. An occasional split infinitive, like many other artistic "breaches," isn't really something to fuss over. It only looks sloppy when it's done often.

I had to weed out many of them from my manuscript because I'd used them way too often and without thinking about how I'd used them. Also, I just read a self-published book recently, which I actually enjoyed anyway (enough that I ordered the sequel), where the writer did it far too often and maybe should have cleaned it up a little before publishing. Having said that, I really have no room to talk!

My example of "to just be" may have been more clear had I used it in a complete sentence, though. "To be just" could be interpreted exactly as Peter said, depending on the context of the sentence. I was trying to keep the example simple. I hope it was helpful and didn't actually make things more confusing!

Now that I think about it, however, I don't I'd ever say something like "to be just alone" (haha!).

[Peter Graham]

Passive Voice


To identify the passive voice, the first trick is to look at the verb in the sentence. If the object of the sentence is having the verb done to it, you are in the active:-

"The policeman waved his truncheon".

The policeman is the subject of this sentence - it is about him and what he is up to. "Waved" is your verb. The truncheon is the object. The truncheon is being waved, so this sentence is in the active.

If, however, what would be the subject of the sentence in the active (the policeman) ends up having the verb done to it, you are in the passive.

"The truncheon was waved by the policeman".

See how this sentence has become about the truncheon, rather than the policeman. What was the subject in the active (the policeman) has now become the object in the passive.

A slightly more complex (but slightly more accurate) explanation is to say that a sentence will only be in the passive voice if the main verb in that sentence is expressed as a past participle and if your subject is linked to the main verb by an auxiliary verb (basically, some manifestation of "to be").

This works with our passive policeman above. By way of a further example:-

"Beer is drunk by Peter."

Beer = subject, is = our auxiliary verb and drunk = past participle of "drink".

To make this sentence active, we would write:-

"Peter drinks beer."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using the passive voice. It actually has a big part to play - especially when the object in any givenn sentence needs to be given prominence. But like so many of the other "avoids" (head-hopping, p.ov. shifts and so on) it is all too often done badly, or done inadvertently as a side effect of poor sentence structure.

Regards,

Peter

[Interference]

Originally Posted by Michael01

The is such an informative thread. Thank you all for contributing! I wonder if I might add a little something here? I'd like to talk about:

Split Inifinitives

I see this often, even in published works, and I've had to take somes pains editing them out of my own work. When it's in dialogue it's perfectly acceptable, because people often speak this way (which may be what leads them to believe they can write this way too).

The "inifinitive" of the verb form apears like this: to be. It is grammatically incorrect to "split" the infinitive of the verb like this: "to just be." The correct way to write this would be either "just to be" or "to be just."

I think I said this somewhere before, but it looks as if the ST mission statement has actually liberated the infinitive such that splittage is now pretty much acceptable.

However (having just actually read what people have already said on the subject) Peter once more puts his finger squarely on the pulse and hits the nail on the thumb.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Interference

I think I said this somewhere before, but it looks as if the ST mission statement has actually liberated the infinitive such that splittage is now pretty much acceptable.

It might have become very common - but acceptable is another matter...

J

[Interference]

Well, you accepted "splittage". I guess once you accept that you can accept pretty much anything

I shall now butt out until I have something more to wisely and illuminatingly say.

[Granfalloon]

Originally Posted by Interference

Peter once more puts his finger squarely on the pulse and hits the nail on the thumb.

"Ouch", He said.

[Interference]

Active voice - and loud at that

[Peter Graham]

Peter's Guide to the Humble Comma

Part the First

A natural break

The comma is perhaps the most mangled and misused of our punctuation marks. It has a number of uses, one of the most common of which is to denote those little pauses and breaks which are such a characteristic of the spoken word. Grammar lovers talk of clauses and subclauses and all manner of other jolly things, but for those of us who would rather eat our own ears than listen to such gibberish, I have a little shortcut which might help.

"Peter is an odd fellow isn't he? All those commas exclamation marks apostrophes and whatnot. Is he just a boring numpty or a god who walks amongst Men? His examples whilst being properly written are not always easy to follow."

Anyone will be able to see that there are missing commas in the above piece. One very good trick to try and work out where they might be placed is to imagine that this piece is being spoken aloud. Don't rush through it - just try and imagine yourself saying the words in real time. Then mark everywhere where you would pause, either to take a breath or to allow a little emphasis. Chances are that those breaks should (or could) be marked in written text with a comma.

"Peter is an odd fellow, isn't he? All those commas, exclamation marks, apostrophes and whatnot. Is he just a boring numpty, or a god who walks amongst Men? His examples, whilst being properly written, are not always easy to follow."

Semi colons and dashes can be used to exaggerate this effect, but you can probably get away with not using them at all if you are on top of commas.

Regards,

Peter

Next time: Flagging up subclauses. See ya then, commabuffs!

[Peter Graham]

The Colon

An underused and badly misunderstood friend.

The colon has three major functions. All of these can be achieved in other ways, which is perhaps why no-one really bothers with the colon any more.

Firstly, you can use a colon to denote an imminent list:-

"Peter went to the shops to get a few odds and ends: milk, teabags, pipe cleaners, some baling twine and a 5 kilo tub of salt lick."

Secondly, you can use it instead of a full stop when the second sentence amplifies or expands upon the first:-

"Peter was a pig fancier: Old Spots were his favourite."

Thirdly, you can use it to introduce a quote:-

"As Tess of the D'Ubervilles always said: 'Oo-aar, I be a praaper whiny faaaaarm girrrl, so I be. Oi is aaalways whingein' aaan and aaan loike a baaadly stuck recorrrd. Oi is loike a wet weekend in Budmaaaath, moi lover."

Regards,

Peter

[The Judge]

I'm going to have to get someone to re-read Tess for me. I certainly don't ever remember laughing at anything Hardy wrote. Nor any of his characters having a Cumbrian accent.

Anyway, we're sitting here breathlessly waiting for 'The Humble Comma - Part the Second', which we were (impliedly) promised. And while you're punctuating, how about a treatise on the frequently mangled semi-colon and your thoughts on its recurrent use in one sentence.

J

[Peter Graham]

Peter's Guide to the Humble Comma

Part the Second

The subclause strikes back

Another use for the comma is to denote subclauses. Writers with a flair for language and a love of imagery and description should be using subclauses like they are going out of fashion which, ironically enough, they appear to be.

The subclause is any bit of a sentence which adds to the subject matter of that sentence but is not actually a key part of it. It frequently stands as an observation or an aside and is often there so as to impart a bit of detail or colour.

A subclause may be wrapped with commas - one at the start, one at the end. The idea is that if the subclause was removed entirely - in other words, if everything between the commas is taken out - the sentence should still make sense.


"Peter depowered the forward shield and flipped the hyperdrive switch."


If we add a subclause, we can have:-


"Peter depowered the forward shield, adjusted his cravat so that it was at a suitably rakish angle, and flipped the hyperdrive switch."


The cravat reference is not necessary to the main action (which is Peter doing two things - depowering the shield and then flicking a switch), but gives a bit of colour. The commas show that the cravat reference is a standalone bit of the sentence which can be removed without confusing the reader or taking away from the central action.

I have seen some extracts in Crits which would render this sentence:-


"Peter depowered the shield, adjusted his cravat, so that it was at a suitably rakish angle and flipped the hyperdrive switch."


This has to be wrong, because if you apply the "removal test" and take out everything between the commas, what is left makes no sense or, worse still (as with this example), may actually imply a different meaning entirely:-


"Peter depowered the shield so that it was at a suitably rakish angle and flipped the hyperdrive switch."


Regards,

Peter


Next time: the comma realises that it is the sundered son of the full stop. The comma refuses to turn to the Dark Side and escapes to Endor, where it encourages a troop of saccharine-sweet Stone Age teddy bears to destroy the Empire's military machine. The comma also realises that his potential squeeze is, in fact, his sister, who mercifully has just run off with a Corellian pirate.

[The Judge]

Originally Posted by Peter Graham

I have seen some extracts in Crits which would render this sentence:-


"Peter depowered the shield, adjusted his cravat, so that it was at a suitably rakish angle and flipped the hyperdrive switch."


This has to be wrong, because if you apply the "removal test" and take out everything between the commas, what is left makes no sense or, worse still (as with this example), may actually imply a different meaning entirely:-


"Peter depowered the shield so that it was at a suitably rakish angle and flipped the hyperdrive switch."

But presumably the sense of the sentence could be resurrected if a futher comma were to be inserted?

"Peter depowered the shield, adjusted his cravat, so that it was at a suitably rakish angle, and flipped the hyperdrive switch."

Or do you feel this still falls foul of sub-clause laws as it requires removing two sections?

I think perhaps the reason people may fall into this trap (and I wouldn't pretend to be immune from it**) is from a belief that it is not necessary -- or is even wrong -- to put a comma before an 'and', the so-called Oxford comma. I was taught never to comma before 'and' eg in a list, since when one sees the word one tends to pause before it anyway, without punctuation. So it is: 'The shop sold parrots, lilies, chairs and other paraphernalia' not '... chairs, and other...' I'm not dogmatic about it, feeling the comma should be there to serve the sentence and its meaning, but there may still lurk those who are under the spell of the prohibition.

J

** think I've just mixed my metaphors there

[ctg]

What is a synopsis?

For a start, it is not a blurb.

• A blurb is that teaser piece of writing that appears on the back of books to entice readers to want to read them. This is a piece of marketing writing aimed at readers.
• A synopsis is also a piece of marketing writing, but it is one aimed at introducing your novel to agents and editors. We don’t want to be “teased”. We want the facts.

A synopsis must:

• be no longer than a page, about 500 words
• include the main plot turning points
• introduce the main character(s), their goals and their “problem” (which the story will “solve”)
• include how the story is resolved i.e. how it ends

A great synopsis will:

• read like a story in its own right
• give a flavour of the style and pace of the story
• show the main character(s) growth arc / emotional development
• leave out the names of the secondary characters
• leave out the secondary plots (unless they are essential to mention to explain the main plot)

[crystal haven]

Thank you, ctg.

I hadn't realised I should have posted about Kate Nash here, and not the critique forum. Sorry.