Sunday, July 05, 2015
Mind Workings
I got a paper cut a few days ago. Ouch. Bled like a fury. I bandaged my wound and jokingly told my husband it would probably work its way off in the night and I'd bleed to death.
He said, "How's that going to look when the cops come and I'm all covered in your blood?" [Some couples talk dirty; we talk morbid.]
I told him it happens all the time in movies and television -- someone wakes up blood-splattered next to a dead body, and has no memory of how it happened. "You'd get off," I said. "Think of the great movie potential. I want Clooney to play your part. Or Johnny Depp."
I'm still mulling over actresses to play me. Have to have an Oscar winner, of course, as this movie has Academy Award written all over it. In fact, I'll write the screenplay myself, and the follow up novel. The action figures alone would net us a fortune!
Then my husband, practical guy that he is, brought my fantasy to a fall-in-the-muck end. "How are you going to do all that when you're dead?"
Hmmph.
Well, you have to laugh about some things, otherwise we'd all be crying.
~~~
Speaking of writing about murder and death... I began a novel of romantic suspense a few years ago because I had a great opening premise and some interesting characters. Haven't gone back to it in years. But the other day I read the first part and mysteriously [magically?] the rest of the story fell into place. I have the ending, a nifty one if I say so myself, and most of the middle which just needs to be padded a bit.
This will be waiting for me when I get done Fortune. [As will oh, five or six others.]
Cat
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Orwell's advice to writers
George Orwell - real name Eric Arthur Blair
June 25, 1903 - 1950
I came across an essay written by Orwell and was struck by how relevant these words are today. The essay is too long to post here, but here are a few paragraphs:
Politics and the English Language, 1946
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
~
... one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
~
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.
~~
Orwell was very pro-English--this was written one year after the end of WWII, and his prejudices are often apparent. I agree with much of what he states; his rules apply to writers of prose as well as political writers/journalists.
I admit I often use long words where short ones will do, because the long one seems so right. Perhaps that makes me pretentious. I can argue that it's my characters being pretentious.What would Orwell think if he knew that computer chat rooms and cell phone text messaging have created a new version of "English" shorthand? I cringe when I see phrases like c u l8ter. Maybe I'm just too old to appreciate the beauty of words that have been condensed to their simplest forms. Or I've been programmed by years of reading to want a word to be written as a word.
~
– Cat
June 25, 1903 - 1950
I came across an essay written by Orwell and was struck by how relevant these words are today. The essay is too long to post here, but here are a few paragraphs:
Politics and the English Language, 1946
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.
~
... one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never us a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
~
I have not here been considering the literary use of language, but merely language as an instrument for expressing and not for concealing or preventing thought. Stuart Chase and others have come near to claiming that all abstract words are meaningless, and have used this as a pretext for advocating a kind of political quietism. Since you don't know what Fascism is, how can you struggle against Fascism? One need not swallow such absurdities as this, but one ought to recognize that the present political chaos is connected with the decay of language, and that one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end. If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn-out and useless phrase -- some jackboot, Achilles' heel, hotbed, melting pot, acid test, veritable inferno, or other lump of verbal refuse -- into the dustbin, where it belongs.
~~
Orwell was very pro-English--this was written one year after the end of WWII, and his prejudices are often apparent. I agree with much of what he states; his rules apply to writers of prose as well as political writers/journalists.
I admit I often use long words where short ones will do, because the long one seems so right. Perhaps that makes me pretentious. I can argue that it's my characters being pretentious.What would Orwell think if he knew that computer chat rooms and cell phone text messaging have created a new version of "English" shorthand? I cringe when I see phrases like c u l8ter. Maybe I'm just too old to appreciate the beauty of words that have been condensed to their simplest forms. Or I've been programmed by years of reading to want a word to be written as a word.
~
– Cat
Saturday, May 30, 2015
I thought it meant a male pig...
Interesting research tidbit:
I have a character in Fortune who is a veteran of the Crimean War, or the Russian War as it was called in those days. He isn't an old vet, for the story takes place in 1868, twelve years after the Peace was signed. He's a young vet of about 36 who plays an important role in the book, and whose life was forever changed by the War.
Although I plan to make only brief references to the battles that involved him, I needed to learn facts about the war, what caused it, who was involved, etc. I've been researching on the internet. And one word kept coming up to describe attitudes in Russia and England at the time -- chauvinism.
It had a preconceived notion about the word and thought it had more recent origins. Here's what I found:
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05.
chauvinism -- word derived from the name of Nicolas Chauvin, a soldier of the First French Empire. Used first for a passionate admiration of Napoleon, it now expresses exaggerated and aggressive nationalism. As a social phenomenon, chauvinism is essentially modern, becoming marked in the era of acute national rivalries and imperialism beginning in the 19th cent. It has been encouraged by mass communication, originally by the cheap newspaper. Chauvinism exalts consciousness of nationality, spreads hatred of minorities and other nations, and is associated with militarism, imperialism, and racism. In the 1960s, the term “male chauvinist” appeared in the women’s liberation movement; it is applied to males who refuse to regard females as equals.
So there you go -- the word chauvinism was coined as a term for excessive nationalistic fervor. (Not unlike global attitudes nowadays, hm?)
Well, as the 19th century wars, like the wars of today, were decided upon, planned and executed by men, I see chauvinism as a man thing.
Would it be different if women were in charge? That's a whole other story, something in the realm of Mythology. Or Science Fiction/Fantasy. To some, probably, Horror.
Cat
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Repeated words and phrases
Shakespeare's pithy phrases find their way into movie and television dialogue, often to great effect.
For example:
"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. " Macbeth (Act V, Sc. I)
A while back, reruns of the original CSI TV series played each evening. I caught a bit of an episode in which Grissom, the head of the team, used the above quote in reference to a dead woman's hand. Okay, he's erudite, knows his snakes, scorpions, and Shakespeare. A few nights later I watched, also in reruns, an episode of CSI NY and heard the medical examiner use the same quote in reference to a dead woman's hand. It stuck out like a purple swollen big toe (I'm trying not to use a cliche).
The writers of these shows [I'm assuming different shows, different writers] probably didn't watch each others' episodes or read the scripts. Perhaps they receive lists of words, phrases, and quotations to choose from for the characters' dialogue. Most viewers wouldn't care. (Or even notice?) This writer, who satisfies her morbid interests by watching bullets bore through brains, knives slice though muscles, and teeth get lodged in guts, DID notice.
So what does this have to do with my own writing? I'm more conscious of re-using words and phrases and try to avoid repetition, but sometimes the echoes sneak through. I'm not talking about "invisible" words like the, it, said, and so on, but special words that sound great used once, overdone if repeated. Take words like frisson or cynosure. The first time I read these words I had to look them up. They are perfect when placed right. But if used again in the same work it seems like lazy writing. I've read books by top-selling authors and have seen them fall into the repetition trap. Makes me cringe. Were they not edited?
Those words are the swollen big toes. They stand out, make readers stop and shake their heads, and lose what's called the fictive dream. There are lesser words that are often repeated and would sound fine in context but often appear too close together in unrelated sentences. Most readers probably don't, but I notice these.
Microsoft Word has a search feature that finds every instance of a word in your file. It's a good way of rooting out undesirable repetition. Another thing I find helpful is having a Dragon NaturallySpeaking program read chapters aloud. Sometimes the ear picks up what the eyes miss.
Cat
For example:
"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. " Macbeth (Act V, Sc. I)
A while back, reruns of the original CSI TV series played each evening. I caught a bit of an episode in which Grissom, the head of the team, used the above quote in reference to a dead woman's hand. Okay, he's erudite, knows his snakes, scorpions, and Shakespeare. A few nights later I watched, also in reruns, an episode of CSI NY and heard the medical examiner use the same quote in reference to a dead woman's hand. It stuck out like a purple swollen big toe (I'm trying not to use a cliche).
The writers of these shows [I'm assuming different shows, different writers] probably didn't watch each others' episodes or read the scripts. Perhaps they receive lists of words, phrases, and quotations to choose from for the characters' dialogue. Most viewers wouldn't care. (Or even notice?) This writer, who satisfies her morbid interests by watching bullets bore through brains, knives slice though muscles, and teeth get lodged in guts, DID notice.
So what does this have to do with my own writing? I'm more conscious of re-using words and phrases and try to avoid repetition, but sometimes the echoes sneak through. I'm not talking about "invisible" words like the, it, said, and so on, but special words that sound great used once, overdone if repeated. Take words like frisson or cynosure. The first time I read these words I had to look them up. They are perfect when placed right. But if used again in the same work it seems like lazy writing. I've read books by top-selling authors and have seen them fall into the repetition trap. Makes me cringe. Were they not edited?
Those words are the swollen big toes. They stand out, make readers stop and shake their heads, and lose what's called the fictive dream. There are lesser words that are often repeated and would sound fine in context but often appear too close together in unrelated sentences. Most readers probably don't, but I notice these.
Microsoft Word has a search feature that finds every instance of a word in your file. It's a good way of rooting out undesirable repetition. Another thing I find helpful is having a Dragon NaturallySpeaking program read chapters aloud. Sometimes the ear picks up what the eyes miss.
Cat
Sunday, May 03, 2015
Curse of the comma and more
While editing, I found I've been playing fast and loose with commas, constantly inserting them when not needed. Guess you could say I never met a comma I didn't like. Of course the comma is a necessary tool, it gives the reader a moment to pause, breathe, then continue. But too many, inappropriately placed, say pause, pause, pause, interrupting the hopefully fine flow of prose.
There are several helpful websites about comma usage. I may be one of few, but I prefer the Oxford [serial] comma. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm
As for the other horrors: I waste too much time reading. But reading is never a waste of time. No, because reading is learning. But I'm on learning overload. Not from novels or research texts, but from reading of the on-line sort. Call me a blog junkie--I read writers' blogs, literary agents' blogs, political ranters' blogs, people-living-on-the-other-side-of-the-world-learning-English blogs. Then there are writers' websites, writers' forums, all packed with information......whew! I have barely time left to do what I want to do, which is write.
So as of today I'm putting a stop to my internet wanderings and will GET DOWN TO BUSINESS.
So why am I wasting more time on this blog? Well, I feel somehow connected. Maybe someone living on the other side of the world learning English is reading this. What a concept!
Neat poem by Shel Silverstein:
FROZEN DREAM
I'll take the dream I had last night
And put it in my freezer,
So someday long and far away
When I'm an old grey geezer,
I'll take it out and thaw it out,
This lovely dream I've frozen,
And boil it up and sit me down
And dip my old cold toes in.
– Cat
Monday, April 20, 2015
Spiders in Love
I read that a university is seeking female spiders for some type of study. I must emphasize that I did not read the article so have no idea what, where, or why.
But on such slight information the wheels of whimsy begin to spin.
Thought I, shouldn't the shortage be of male spiders? Don't female arachnids kill, then like cannibals eat their mates after the ultimate rapture?
Do the males know this is going to happen? Who survives to tell them? The females wouldn't let them know ahead of time--or do they, and thus allow them to nobly sacrifice their lives for the continuance of the species?
Do the males perhaps observe this ritual, then knowing what's in store for them, run for their lives? Is there a band of brothers--a resistance movement--somewhere living deep underground determined to survive, at least until the cruel chill of winter brings their life spans to a melancholy, but natural end?
Were I a writer of fantasy, I could go places with such a premise.
But no. I write romance, and at the moment there's not much romance in a female killing and eating her mate.
Not yet, anyway.
Cat
Monday, April 13, 2015
Editing update
Progress –
Today I reduced my word count by 125 words.
I came across an unnecessary word. I then decided the sentence that contained it was unnecessary. As I read further, I asked myself if the paragraph that contained the unnecessary sentence that contained the unnecessary word, was necessary. [Oof – sounds like a song!]
And I laughed. Of course the paragraph, and the two that came after it were not necessary to the story. They may have added a bit of fluffy background for a character who isn't the main one, but their presence or lack thereof made no difference to the plot.
I'll have another update in a few days.
– Cat
Today I reduced my word count by 125 words.
I came across an unnecessary word. I then decided the sentence that contained it was unnecessary. As I read further, I asked myself if the paragraph that contained the unnecessary sentence that contained the unnecessary word, was necessary. [Oof – sounds like a song!]
And I laughed. Of course the paragraph, and the two that came after it were not necessary to the story. They may have added a bit of fluffy background for a character who isn't the main one, but their presence or lack thereof made no difference to the plot.
I'll have another update in a few days.
– Cat
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)