Do you write using newer English style or stay traditional?
Posted: 19 Apr 2014, 12:15
There has been an active thread here about typos, whether they irritate you or you just skip them. The discussion also veered into grammar and good composition, not specifically typos, but style. So I thought I'd start a new thread dealing with newer "rules" in modern English and whether you use them, avoid them and stay traditional, and what is your opinion about such.
As you know, modern fiction tends to carry the revisionist banner forward. Traditional rules of grammar are normally observed in nonfiction, such as essays, reviews, textual documents, and formal theses and reports. Rules stay in force if you're writing an article for the New Yorker, for example.
But the rules are now being relaxed in modern fiction, especially American sourced. One particular "rule" that's being overlooked is the requirement that all sentences have verbs. Often, sentences that are list-oriented don't have a verb.
Now I write essays, book reviews, short stories, etc., but recently I've focused on my series of modern American private detective novels. The first 2 are sold and published, and I'm hard at work on the third. As an example, here's the opening of my new book:
"The efficiency apartment was neat and spotless, maintained by someone who obviously took her student life seriously, a young woman with pride in her modest surroundings. Inexpensive bookshelves, filled to capacity with paperbacks and collegiate texts, lined the walls. Stacks of notebooks, a pristine desk and office-style cubicle, laptop and printer, family photos. A small flatscreen TV and combo DVD player on one shelf. Nearby bed made up, sheets tucked. Adjoined kitchenette gleaming, dining counter and two bar stools the same. Bathroom next, also clean, bright.
"Except that the apartment was now an abattoir, every surface strewn with her body parts. A vile and perverted display, hacked-off fingers, random pieces of flesh..."
Sorry for the graphic description but I needed to make my point. Believe me, the description gets worse in subsequent sentences. Anyway...If you check, you'll see that a couple of the "list" sentences in the first paragraph are verb-less, for example "A small flatscreen..."
Omission of the verb is now permissible in some sentences and I've used this recent stylistic change to its desired effect, the non-verb sentence evoking a mechanical and rather emotionless feeling, which of course is the purpose of this rule-breaking technique. The contrast with this introductory dry and dispassionate first paragraph is evident if you were to read the entire 2nd para, which I've only included the first portion, due to the extreme violence described in para #2. So the non-verb sentences in para 1 set up the contrast and help to further emphasize the horror in para 2. And I also deliberately made my narrative brief, using mostly short and common words. This further contrasts the 2nd para, where I wax a bit more expansive, words like "abattoir".
Regardless, I have broken a traditional English rule and I wonder whether you do the same with your writing, or stick to tradition. If you can provide short examples, please do so. Thanks.
As you know, modern fiction tends to carry the revisionist banner forward. Traditional rules of grammar are normally observed in nonfiction, such as essays, reviews, textual documents, and formal theses and reports. Rules stay in force if you're writing an article for the New Yorker, for example.
But the rules are now being relaxed in modern fiction, especially American sourced. One particular "rule" that's being overlooked is the requirement that all sentences have verbs. Often, sentences that are list-oriented don't have a verb.
Now I write essays, book reviews, short stories, etc., but recently I've focused on my series of modern American private detective novels. The first 2 are sold and published, and I'm hard at work on the third. As an example, here's the opening of my new book:
"The efficiency apartment was neat and spotless, maintained by someone who obviously took her student life seriously, a young woman with pride in her modest surroundings. Inexpensive bookshelves, filled to capacity with paperbacks and collegiate texts, lined the walls. Stacks of notebooks, a pristine desk and office-style cubicle, laptop and printer, family photos. A small flatscreen TV and combo DVD player on one shelf. Nearby bed made up, sheets tucked. Adjoined kitchenette gleaming, dining counter and two bar stools the same. Bathroom next, also clean, bright.
"Except that the apartment was now an abattoir, every surface strewn with her body parts. A vile and perverted display, hacked-off fingers, random pieces of flesh..."
Sorry for the graphic description but I needed to make my point. Believe me, the description gets worse in subsequent sentences. Anyway...If you check, you'll see that a couple of the "list" sentences in the first paragraph are verb-less, for example "A small flatscreen..."
Omission of the verb is now permissible in some sentences and I've used this recent stylistic change to its desired effect, the non-verb sentence evoking a mechanical and rather emotionless feeling, which of course is the purpose of this rule-breaking technique. The contrast with this introductory dry and dispassionate first paragraph is evident if you were to read the entire 2nd para, which I've only included the first portion, due to the extreme violence described in para #2. So the non-verb sentences in para 1 set up the contrast and help to further emphasize the horror in para 2. And I also deliberately made my narrative brief, using mostly short and common words. This further contrasts the 2nd para, where I wax a bit more expansive, words like "abattoir".
Regardless, I have broken a traditional English rule and I wonder whether you do the same with your writing, or stick to tradition. If you can provide short examples, please do so. Thanks.