Water for Elephants

I began reading a popular bestseller--that is, I think it's a bestseller. Inside the cover are two pages with nothing but accolades from the leading newspapers and authors of our time, including Stephen King, one of my personal favorites, for better or worse.

I was impressed by the intricate care that went into the storytelling. No one could dispute that the author labored over every word, scene, and setting. It is poetry, and I immersed myself and read more than I usually do and plan to read the rest today.

The only thing I found jarring was that the style was in contradiction to many of the "Writing Commandments" that I learned long ago, such as avoiding the use of cliches and avoiding sentence fragments. I suppose that is one reason Stephen King liked the work, because he violates the same rules with impunity. I suppose they are not rules anymore, not really. I think there is something cheap about using cliches on every page, though, and I don't think it's snobbery to think so.

However, the author obeyed the Commandment that I violate, which is to show, not tell, which requires more effort on the part of the writer, but is more effective at engaging the reader's imagination.

The author's style reminds me so much of Stephen King's that I sometimes feel like I am reading Stephen King. The American vernacular, as he likes to describe it.

I forget the title of the book. Water for Elephants, I think. It was given to me as a birthday or Christmas present a year ago, and I have finally gotten around to reading it.

If I had known that cliches were OK, then heavens to Betsy, I'd have been using them left and right, all the time. As it is, a few pass by my guard, but I throttle most of them before they get on the page.

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Picking Apart the GPL License

Using an author's essay or for that matter a programmer's code when he has asked you not to do so is uncool. Whether one has the legal right to do so is beside the point. The ethics of the matter are clear. The harm would be compounded by squandering his time on technical consultation without paying for that either and compounded beyond belief by engaging in a lengthy legal battle in order to defend the deed.

I find it difficult to comprehend someone paying his lawyer in order to avoid paying a programmer for his work, but that's apparently what happened in the case of JinChess versus IChessU.

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

There is a Publisher

Some writers are told "No" so often that they give up writing and are effectively silenced forever. I am here to spread the light of hope and joy. Yes, there is a publisher that seeks good writers. This publisher is rather unusual in that it does not trot out imitations of bestsellers, but looks for original content. To submit your manuscript, build a spaceship and travel millions of light-years. I'm not sure which direction to go or how far to go. It may be necessary to hire a translator. But the odds are in favor of the determined writer.

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

Show, Don't Tell

One of the problems with the old adage, "Show, Don't Tell," which is recited to writers, is that for most of us, telling is all we know. In school, every lecture is a tell. Technical books, magazines, and newspapers all tell. Almost all friends and acquaintances tell. Seldom is there any showing, except on television in drama. Therefore, a writer is best served by absorbing large amounts of drama written by other writers. Those writers that neglect to absorb the output of their peers would seem to be at a disadvantage.

by igor 04:20 4 replies by igor 09:32 0 comments

The Logical Error

Pop quiz!

Can you identify the logical error in the following sentence?

He stood stock still, arched his back in order to appear taller, puffed out his chest, pointed a finger at me, and with a tone of command, shouted, “Shut-up! Be still!”

Logical errors are more subtle than spelling or grammatical errors and cannot be detected by any word processor on the market today, because they require a higher level of reasoning.

If you believe that the logical error involves the subject standing stock still, then you are correct. Once the subject has been committed to standing stock still, he may think, but should remain otherwise motionless until the next sentence or better yet, the next paragraph. Arching his back after a comma is too soon. Why have the subject stand stock still in the first place? It stands out as a contradictory detail. I made that mistake in this story, slept on it, but then had an uneasy feeling that something was wrong and woke up this morning determined to fix it.

Additional problems in the story involve the matter-of-fact descriptions of the characters, such as "young black female," or "middle-aged man," descriptions that sound like they were made by an observant but unimaginative detective. I haven't gotten around to correcting those problems yet. The goal was to record an idea. Refinement can wait for later. I don't feel enough motivation to bother with much refinement, since I'm tossing these things onto the Net for nothing. But a logical error is a different matter. It sinks the ship. I want my vessels to float. They don't need to be pretty, but they should float. I can apply a paint job later.

Avoid Stating the Obvious

A good rule of thumb for writers is to avoid stating the obvious. This is sometimes easier said than done, because what is obvious to one person may not be quite so obvious to another.

Yesterday, I wrote an article extolling the virtues of Wikipedia. I thought it was pretty good, explaining the advantages that Wikipedia has over Google and other search engines. Satisfied, I saved the piece, and then went to watch the July 14th, 2009 episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

In his monologue, Jon dropped a reference to Wikipedia. That's when it hit me like a cast-iron safe dropped from a fifth-floor window. Wikipedia is old news. Might as well gush over how great motorized transportation is. Duh! Everybody already knows. So, I ruthlessly deleted the piece, which had taken about an hour to write. Oh well. Good writing practice, if nothing else.

Here's a little something that people might not know about Wikipedia, though. If you're interested in exploring new career options, you can input a job title in Wikipedia, and it usually provides a detailed description along with external links that provide further information.

I Like Big Words and I Cannot Lie

(Sung to the tune of "I Like Big Butts," by Sir Mix-a-Lot)

I like big words and I cannot lie
You other writers can't deny
That when a sentence flows past with an itty bitty base
And a long word in your face
You get sprung
Wanna pull up tough
Cuz you notice that word was stuffed
Deep in the letters she's wearing
I'm hooked and I can't stop staring
Oh, baby I wanna get with ya
And use your literature
My editors tried to warn me
But that word you got
Make Me so verbey
Ooh, word of lengthy definition
You say you wanna get in my blogs
Well use me use me cuz you aint an adverb

I'm tired of magazines
Saying small words are the thing
Take this writer and ask him that
She gotta pack much back

I like 'em multi-syllabic and big
And when I'm writin' a blog
I just can't help myself
I'm actin like an animal
Now here's my scandal

Yeah baby
When it comes to words
Cosmo ain't got nothin to do with my selection
Ten or fewer letters?
Only if I can't come up with a fifty-dollar word like amelioration.

Adverbs! Who Needs 'Em?

The orthodox position among writers is that adverbs should seldom be used, because they are superfluous. Adjectives are more acceptable, although they tend to be overused as well. Recognizing an adverb is part of the writer's job. In this paragraph, I believe there are two adverbs, seldom and more. To my understanding, these are insignificant and not as annoying as an adverb such as "tenuously," or for that matter, any adverb with an "-ly" serving as a suffix.

One of my favorite writers, Paul Bowles, holds a contrary opinion. He's got an enormous vocabulary and likes to flaunt it, an impulse I recognize. Bowles is what I term an adverb advocate. I disapprove, however.

Today, I was reading his novel, Let It Come Down, set in Tangiers, Morocco, during the 1950s, when I was struck by a series of adverbs that jarred me from my reading. I quote from page 456 of a 2002 volume compiled by Daniel Halpern for the Library of America:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed violently and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room suddenly seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand tentatively over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. Quickly she jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

The trouble is, each of the "-ly" words stand out like third thumbs. Imagine this paragraph without the irksome "-ly" adverbs. Would any meaning be lost? To my mind, the paragraph works better without them, like so:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. She jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

This revision sounds better, although I concede it needs further revision, not just a reduction of adverbs. Here's another passage that disturbs me:

The thought filled him with ineffable happiness. "Ah, God," he murmured aloud, not knowing that he did so.

First of all, ineffable is not a good word to ever use. If something is ineffable, it is because the writer has not taken pains to analyze and describe it. Second, it appears that Bowles adds a supplication to the deity as a clarification for readers who do not know the definition of "ineffable."

Another habit of Bowles that irks me are the frequent digressions into philosophy. Even when hot, sexy action is going on, a Bowles character is liable to escape into an inner world of intellectual contemplation. I receive the impression the writer is bored with his own characters, with the story itself, and prefers these excursions to the action in the story. Prompted by the writer himself, the reader is prone to concur and put the book down.

These are some of the reasons it has taken me weeks to plod through Let It Come Down. Every time it looks like I'm on the verge of finishing the book, Paul drops a bucket of adverbs on my head, ejecting me from Morocco and placing me back in writing class, where I was taught what not to do.

Ten Common Traps for Writers

Beginners making their first stab at a serious project like a short story or novel succumb to a variety of traps, ten of which are enumerated here.

1. Exclamation points. Avoid. Your reader is calm, whether you are or not. Stir their pulse with words, not punctuation.


2. The idea that grammar, capitalization, or punctuation does not matter. These building blocks matter even more than your content. When I encounter a story where the writer has neglected these attributes, I skip the story, even if it was written by one of my favorite writers, such as Paul Bowles, who was unduly influenced by the Beat Poets.


3. Hubris. Writers slip into this fault unawares for the most part. Sometimes I will sculpt what seems the perfect image, only to realize it smacks of hubris and must be discarded. A recent example: "I have many more ideas waiting to be born like Athena from the skull of Zeus. You see the exposed spear-tip only." At first blush, this imagery pleased me, because I love mythology and will go to some length in order to make a mythological reference, but it is far too egotistical. Any comparison of a mere mortal with a god, whether mythological or not, is inappropriate, unless that mortal has accomplished a truly Herculean task, and even then, the comparison must never be made in the first person. In a similar vein, refrain from self-praise or self-congratulatory statements that are too obvious. Everyone likes to pat themselves on the back and it is natural to do so, but try to be subtle about it.


4. By the same token, avoid excessive self-deprecatory humor or criticism. Don't run yourself down too much or people will take your negative self-appraisal at face value and wonder why the hell they are reading you.


5. Stating the obvious. If a sentence is unnecessary, omit. If a word is unnecessary, omit. This policy will dispense with most adverbs, as well. If you waste your reader's time with fluff, you will lose your reader.


6. Strive for decorum. This is difficult when discussing politics and other controversial issues. But if you can manage it, try to discuss issues from a higher, intellectual level than the lowbrows on FOX news. This means making an attempt to be articulate and trying to avoid ad hominem attacks. However, when it comes to a central leader, such as George W. Bush, I have abandoned this stricture, because the man is relevant to the discussion.


7. Avoid gobbledygook. College students and other learned souls succumb to the temptation to use big words. If you can at any time replace a big word with a smaller word, without losing meaning, do so. I hate writers that use "utilize" instead of "use." "Utilize" is a word that should be shot at dawn. Also, avoid jargon unless it is necessary.


8. Profanity is not a forbidden zone anymore, but use it in a calculated manner, mindful of how it may affect your readers.


9. When writing fiction, it must at all times be clear who is acting or speaking. Be careful with your use of pronouns. Do not use creative tags for indicating speech, such as "interjected," "exclaimed," or "added." Just say, "So-and-so said." The numerous repetitions of the word "said" are all right, because the reader's mind will interpret "said" as a tag for speech, rendering the actual word invisible. By getting creative with the tag, you render it visible and annoying. If the tag can be omitted without obscuring the speaker, do so.


10. Avoid excessive use of the word "very." Everything is "very," isn't it? Avoid the word "somewhat". If you feel the need to use "somewhat," it is because you chose the wrong adjective. Choose an adjective indicating a milder intensity. In the game Dungeon Crawl, the program tells a player that invokes a power, "You feel somewhat more hungry." A suggested replacement for this is, "You feel hungrier."

For the Love of Editing

Most of my blogging gets done in the early morning. For me, clicking "Post" is not the end, but the beginning. Hours after I've posted my latest blog, I may be in the kitchen drinking tea before I realize that my writing contains a grammatical error. Horror of horrors! I fly to the computer to make a correction before anyone detects my mistake. If I find one problem, I'm likely to find others strewn throughout. Sometimes the tea turns cold awaiting my return, but no matter. I like cold tea, and I love good writing.

Grammar is the least of my worries. In the case of grammar, one betrays only carelessness, unless the mistakes are numerous and form a pattern, in which case ignorance would be the culprit. An even worse scenario involves a logical error, which endangers one's entire argument. A reader that refutes one logical fallacy will conclude, fairly or not, that the entire piece is false.

Bad grammar is so common on the Internet that spambots use bad grammar to mimic human beings. Sometimes, the grammar is so bad as to arouse suspicion. Most humans, even if they are bad at grammar, get the rule about using an apostrophe to form a contraction like "don't." I hope I never see a real person write "dont", particularly in two messages in a row, as a spambot named Kaylee did on my blog.

I find errors even in mainstream media articles. A headline may read, "Vitamin E a Cure for Cancer?" when the research proves nothing of the sort. Adding a question mark to the end of the headline to imply uncertainty does not excuse the exaggeration. As I noted in a previous post, the media is awful when it comes to science. Exaggeration for dramatic effect is common. This leads to skepticism among the public to all scientific claims, such as the one for global warming.

To minimize errors, I believe I am going to start using Microsoft Word to write my blog rather than the web interface. Word has the ability to post directly to a blog, a feature I haven't tried yet. There are key advantages to using a word processor, such as the grammar and style checkers. If you use Microsoft Word 2007, click on the Office button, go to Word options and select Proofing. Under Writing Style, have the program check "Grammar & Style" rather than just Grammar, which is the default.

The Style checker is none other than the distilled wisdom of your stuffy old English professor, who was right about a great many things, as it turns out. Such as the need to avoid sentence fragments. Or not to begin sentences with a conjunction. And remember, avoiding clichés will keep you on the sunny side of life. You can take that to the bank.

Stephen King violates many style precepts in his use of the American vernacular. Sometimes breaking the rules seems to work better, but be careful. King is royalty. As such, he gets away with misdemeanors that would send commoners like us to the Dungeon of the Unread Writer. I may be there already.

To Enumerate or Not to Enumerate

Any writer soon faces a decision on how to represent numbers. Will you use Arabic numerals or the English text equivalent?

Many beginner and even intermediate-level writers opt to employ Arabic numerals. A number reduces the amount of typing, conserves space on the page, and therefore seems more efficient, at least on the surface.

What’s wrong with Arabic numerals? Nothing, if you base your writing style upon the news media. Take this recent group of headlines found on Yahoo News:

Gunman kills 3 officers, wounds 4th in Oakland (AP)

Treasury's toxic asset plan could cost $1 trillion (AP)

Pope decries African wars at Mass for 1 million (AP)

Tibetans attack police station, 93 monks arrested (AP)

When reading these headlines, the mind requires a few extra milliseconds to decode the numerals into their English equivalents. This is because we associate numbers with a different set of skills such as counting, adding, and subtracting. Numbers are used in math classes, not reading classes. Words are more strongly tied to images in the mind.

Unconvinced? Pick up a book by any best-selling author. Open it up to random pages and search for Arabic numerals. The page numbers don't count. My wager is that the author spells out the vast majority of numbers, with a few exceptions here and there for large numbers—anything over a hundred, say, or in cases where there are many numbers joined together by conjunctions, commas, or in a list. Or, in the case of Stephen King's short story, "1408", the author wishes to draw the reader's attention to the number because it is an integral part of the plot.

The reason that pro writers do this is because the human eye scans words faster than numbers. Most writers, and all of the popular ones, have a powerful motive to render their work as easy to scan as possible. For the same reason, a popular author uses correct punctuation and grammar, avoids fifty dollar words, and employs the popular American vernacular.

Why does the news media represent a glaring exception to this rule? First of all, because their headlines have limited space and a journalist can fit more Arabic numerals than words into a line. Also, numbers catch the reader’s attention, which is the primary function of headlines. “$1 trillion” seems more dramatic than “one trillion.” As a writer, you don’t want to draw the reader’s attention to mere numbers, and you’re not limited to the confines of a headline.

I’ve argued this point with enough writers (two in recent memory) to blog about it. This advice is not original from me, but derives from criticism that a smart college grad gave me a couple of years ago when reviewing my writing. My stories had numerals strewn throughout. What compounded the problem was that in many cases I was employing either a numeral or the written word. If you insist upon using numerals, at least be consistent. Employ one technique or the other throughout your work.

I didn’t buy his manifesto against numerals at first. But sometimes I let new ideas ferment in the attic upstairs until they taste better. Breaking the lifelong habit of using Arabic numerals requires a good deal of effort. Some writers either won’t see the point or won’t want to bother. Better for you, then, to stand out as a better writer by adopting the technique used by the pros.