The Glossary is medial to advanced considerations; the Lexicon is starter to medial considerations, neither is comprehensive, though nowhere else is the material as numerous and insightful.
Of note that a close study of the above affords a writer-critiquer ample bases for critique of others' works and, especially, the self's. Never mind that many of the shortfalls indexed and explained therein are as common as breath across the several genre canons and the whole opus. When an otherwise craft shortfall is instead a strength -- an odd congruency -- the strength is due to its dramatic function is earned and probably veiled or wrapped content set up earlier, close to, and after an instance (Chekhov's gun).
Though I cannot encourage writers enough to seek and study the above materials, I also cannot assign them, irrespective of how often I cite those within my discussions and responses. For me, those fostered substantial growth for my composition craft skills and appreciations.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks. Very interesting and useful. It was nice, for example, to hear someone complain about the use of "somehow".
I only read a little. It seems to be mostly glossary for describing mistakes?
One obvious complaint:
quote:“Said” is one of the few invisible words in the English language...
Obviously not true. If you tell me what the author meant, that isn't true either. If you fix that problem, it still probably won't be true.
quote:...and is almost impossible to overuse.
No one believes this, right? The explanation involves "artificial verbs". If you explain what that means, I will probably cry "straw man". If the author meant to say that sometimes "he said" is the best choice and sometimes it isn't, I agree.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both describe more craft mistakes, glitches, and errors than afford guidance; the Glossary, more of those latter.
"Said" and other speech, thought, and action attribution method use varies from writer to writer, narrative to narrative, length to length, age to age, and era to era. Smith, Sterling, and Shiner's assertions are theirs and valid though limited.
On the other hand, less experienced writers are hyperalert to direct speech and thought attribution tags that are writer-narrator filtered. If readers are deeply engaged, timely and judicious "said" and "thought" are all but invisible, and might be essential at times, inapt and overwrought at others. Indirect speech and thought attribution tags that are not extra lens filters, another Glossary subject, rather, are insider viewpoint persona expressions, are yet less visible.
Speech or thought, volitional or nonvolitional; direct or indirect: verbatim or paraphrase; tagged or untagged; filtered or nonfiltered, de dicto, de re, or de se attribution? Plus an arsenal of other related and enhanced methods. Variety is spiced.
The Glossary and the Lexicon, exhaustive as those are for the topics, are shy of complete and are more so paraphrase than extensive definition, explanation, and illustration, are valid sources from which to go forth and expand, though. Several gross misperceptions within those texts, too.
posted
Again, I like the advice, mostly. I now have words for things that just bothered me before.
I think it's hard for anyone to check their advice when they think everyone agrees, which I'm guessing is what happened for dialogue tags.
We use dialogue tags to show who is talking. They wouldn't work if they were invisible, or essentially invisible, or whatever invisible.
So, not invisible.
It is very good advice to avoid dialogue tags. We writers have a variety of ways of doing that, and good writers know them and use them, and beginning writer's should be taught them.
Um, if they were harmless, we wouldn't be trying to avoid them. and saying they are harmless is bad advice.
Those are pretty much facts.
I have opinions too -- you have to worry that "he said" doesn't sound very excited, and awesome moments should try extra hard to avoid dialogue tags. Could be wrong, readers differ, it's just my opinion, believe what you want, etc.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Apr 2018
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narrative point of view type more so than any other factor influences whether a discourse tag is wanted, of appeal, and apt and how. Plus, several of the narrative points of view types somewhat support tag amendments, like "Tom Swifties," especially narrator filtered discourse, includes first person, when insider viewpoint persona as outsider narrator voice-over commentary is apt. (Stephenie Meyer's Twilight saga, Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games cycle, and first person narratives generally, includes Laurence Sterne's The Life and Opinions of Tristam Sandy.)
A somewhat tedious though informative exercise compares and contrasts a novel and a motion picture interpretation of a novel. Rare few motion picture interpretations are close to their novels' content. That itself is an informative study.
One narrative of note, that the motion picture is as faithful to as possible, is Ernest Hemingway's The Old Man and the Sea, 1952 print, 1958 motion picture, directed by John Sturges, Spencer Tracy as Santiago; and 1990 television miniseries, Anthony Quinn as Santiago, both available on DVD. The Sturges interpretation is the more faithful. Hemingway and Sturges developed the production together.
Other than other facets worth note, Tracy as Santiago speaks the narrator voice-over part, though the novella is third-person narrator filtered. The motion picture retains several discourse tags, omits several. At times, the voice-over is patently from an outsider narrator, other times patently is from insider Santiago stream-of-consciousness thought, at times is a middle distance narrator-viewpoint persona mix, and at times somewhat less deft narrative distance management.
For me, the exercise showed shortfalls of both media forms, and strengths, and cinema gimmicks that manage some of the print "mischief," and occasioned insights about the "non-narrated" third person, limited, close, narrative point of view and its comparisons for cinema that Seymour Chatman explicates in Story and Discourse.
A larger and overall consideration for the exercise is how visual media inform written word media and society and culture and vice versa: innovations and technology. Ray Bradbury famously asserted technology destroys culture, a self-stated interpretation and intent of Fahrenheit 451, that and censorship and utter majority rules' force majuere destroys minority rights and obligations, to the detriment of all.
Anyway, motion picture influences exhort a social preference for intimate and personal narrative points of view, irrespective of grammar person, includes third-person, close, limited, bystander outsider narrator as focal viewpoint persona, as well as first person and non-narrated third person.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The TRUE GRIT movies were quite faithful to the book, the second movie more than the first (where the ending was changed) - offered as another possible consideration.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
