Part of the reason why I started this blog was for it to take the place of
the Grammar Club I started up and briefly ran at my school. Since it proved
impossible to find a time when everyone could attend Grammar Club (and the
number of people at my school who cared about grammar and language was limited
anyway), the club disbanded and I decided to write this blog instead. Because
of its origins, I think it's about time this blog had a grammar post on it,
don't you?
Here are ten tips to help you avoid the most basic, common grammatical
errors:
1. You only ever use it's if you mean it is. Don't get
confused by the possessive apostrophe rule (I'll get to that in another post),
because in this case the possessive form doesn't have an apostrophe. Its means
belonging to it.
"It's a nice day today" is interchangeable with "It is a nice
day today".
"I'm going to give the dog its dinner" is different, because you
couldn't say "I'm going to give the dog it is dinner" and still make
sense.
2. There, they're, and their are all homophones -- which
I've spoken about before -- so they're easily confused. Essentially, they're
means they are, there is referring to a place, and their indicates
that something is belonging to someone.
"They're eating dinner."
"Look over there!"
"The kids really like their Christmas presents."
3. Don't write loose when you mean lose. The former, loose,
is the adjective form of the verb loosen; something that is loose is
not tight. To lose is a verb, meaning to have misplaced something.
"These trousers are really loose."
"Did you lose your keys again?"
4. I once had a history teacher who would mark our essays down if we wrote could
of instead of could have. I liked that teacher.
There are no circumstances I can think of where writing could of, would
of, or should of is grammatically correct. What you mean is could
have, would have, or should have. The reason for this common
error is that the verbalised could've sounds a lot like could of.
"I could have passed that test if I'd revised."
5. Most people aren't entirely sure when to say and I as opposed to and
me. Generally, people either guess with whatever sounds right or they just
stick to the latter, which is more casual. The easiest way to tell the
difference is by taking the other people out of the sentence.
"You and I should go to the party" is correct because "I
should go to the party" is correct by itself.
"You should come to the party with Jane and me" works because
"you should come to the party with me" works.
If you can't remember that rule, then just remember that and I almost
always goes at the start of a sentence whereas and me generally comes at
the end of the sentence (or clause).
6. Your and you're are another set of homophones, but they
follow the same rules as their and they're: your is possessive,
while you're means you are.
"You're looking very nice today."
"Are you aware that your coat is on fire?"
7. Not everybody is aware that practise and practice are two
different words. Practise is a verb; practice is a noun.
"I have to practise the piano if I want to improve."
"Netball practice is after school."
8. Similarly, affect and effect are often confused. In
general, effect is a noun and affect is a verb.
"This will have a causal effect."
"How will this affect the business?"
There are exceptions to this rule: in psychology, affect can be used
as a noun to describe how someone is feeling; effect is also a verb
meaning to bring about.
9. To understand when to use who and when to use whom, you
need to understand what the subject and object of a sentence are. The subject
is the one doing something the object is the one having something done to them.
The sentence subject is referred to as who and the sentence object is whom.
"With whom are you going to the dance?"
"Who's coming with me?"
10. You can't interchangeably use i.e. and e.g.: i.e.
means that is, so it is used to clarify your meaning, and e.g.
means for example.
"I only like bright colours, e.g., yellow and orange."
"I spend all my time in one place, i.e., my bedroom."
I hope you find these tips useful! I'll post some more about grammar in the
future.
Today was the last day of Blog Every Day September! I'm going to try to
write a blog post every week from now on, but it was fun to post so often. I
didn't realise quite how much I had to say until I tried it; I still have
plenty of ideas for posts, so expect lots more.
Sunday, 30 September 2012
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Day 29: Writing tips part two
I know I said that I'd add any new writing tips to my previous post, but there are so many more that I may as well write another post!
1. Most of what you learnt about creative writing when you were ten years old still applies. Use of the senses is still one of the most powerful literary tools. Metaphors and similes are basic, but the're effective; and you'd be surprised by how many people can't tell the difference between them.*
2. Write what you know. If you know nothing about 18th century France, then -- unless you're prepared to track down some historians, travel to France, and read dozens of books -- don't write a novel set in 18th century France. Of course, you can't get through ten pages of writing without having to research a dozen things, each of which could take anywhere from five minutes to five hours to fully research, but you don't make it so hard for yourself that you have to look something up for every other line of text you write.
3. Some people really, really hate cliches. Personally, I don't mind them, as long as they're not overused. I'd advise that you avoid them where possible, but if a cliche is the only suitable way of describing a situation then don't go out of your way to use a less accurate phrase.
4. When you're writing dialogue, don't be afraid to just write the speech. Dialogue tags are useful at the start of the conversation and every so often to clarify who's talking, but they become redundant if you repeat "he said" at the end of every sentence. Action beats**, which are the sentences in the middle of dialogue, are good to mix in with dialogue tags, but equally should not be overused. Don't list every expression the crosses your characters' faces, and don't use too many signals of their mood. The dialogue itself should give away most of what you need to get across.
5. Vary your line lengths. I'm sure you're aware that short sentences are useful for building tension, but they lose their effect if they're not placed in contrast with a few longer sentences. Using multiple long sentences can sound like rambling (though this might be appropriate in a stream of consciousness narrative), so that's to be avoided, too.
6. Don't start your sentences in the same way, unless you're doing so for effect. In dialogue, it can be powerful if your character is giving a speech (after all, repetition is a rhetorical device, designed for speech-making) or generally trying to sound important. Otherwise, it just sounds boring and samey. To avoid starting your sentences with the same word -- mostly commonly "I" -- you can use poetic brute force: this is where you re-write your work is a sort of poetry format, with each new sentence on a new line. Look down the line to see how similar all your sentence starters are.
7. Have a powerful opening line. Don't dwell on this when you first start writing your story, but don't settle for a mediocore opening line in the end, else your readers will never get sucked in.
8. Long words aren't always better than short ones. While some varied language can improve your writing, simplistic vocabulary will get your point across much better than a series of words your reader will have to look up in a dictionary to understand.
9. If you're struggling for ideas, find something that helps you to think. I find that walking helps; so much so that at least three-quarters of my story ideas have come into being while I've been walking somewhere. This is so useful for me that I tend to pace around my house all the time. Other ways to get ideas are: make lists, collaborate, look through a baby name website for character names, go somewhere new, and -- above all -- read.
*If you don't know, a simile is a comparison that uses the words "like" or "as", whereas a metaphor doesn't use either of these. "She looks like a horse" is a simile but "she's such a pig" is a metaphor.
** In this line, "Hi!" She waved. "How're you?" the bolded sentence is an action beat.
1. Most of what you learnt about creative writing when you were ten years old still applies. Use of the senses is still one of the most powerful literary tools. Metaphors and similes are basic, but the're effective; and you'd be surprised by how many people can't tell the difference between them.*
2. Write what you know. If you know nothing about 18th century France, then -- unless you're prepared to track down some historians, travel to France, and read dozens of books -- don't write a novel set in 18th century France. Of course, you can't get through ten pages of writing without having to research a dozen things, each of which could take anywhere from five minutes to five hours to fully research, but you don't make it so hard for yourself that you have to look something up for every other line of text you write.
3. Some people really, really hate cliches. Personally, I don't mind them, as long as they're not overused. I'd advise that you avoid them where possible, but if a cliche is the only suitable way of describing a situation then don't go out of your way to use a less accurate phrase.
4. When you're writing dialogue, don't be afraid to just write the speech. Dialogue tags are useful at the start of the conversation and every so often to clarify who's talking, but they become redundant if you repeat "he said" at the end of every sentence. Action beats**, which are the sentences in the middle of dialogue, are good to mix in with dialogue tags, but equally should not be overused. Don't list every expression the crosses your characters' faces, and don't use too many signals of their mood. The dialogue itself should give away most of what you need to get across.
5. Vary your line lengths. I'm sure you're aware that short sentences are useful for building tension, but they lose their effect if they're not placed in contrast with a few longer sentences. Using multiple long sentences can sound like rambling (though this might be appropriate in a stream of consciousness narrative), so that's to be avoided, too.
6. Don't start your sentences in the same way, unless you're doing so for effect. In dialogue, it can be powerful if your character is giving a speech (after all, repetition is a rhetorical device, designed for speech-making) or generally trying to sound important. Otherwise, it just sounds boring and samey. To avoid starting your sentences with the same word -- mostly commonly "I" -- you can use poetic brute force: this is where you re-write your work is a sort of poetry format, with each new sentence on a new line. Look down the line to see how similar all your sentence starters are.
7. Have a powerful opening line. Don't dwell on this when you first start writing your story, but don't settle for a mediocore opening line in the end, else your readers will never get sucked in.
8. Long words aren't always better than short ones. While some varied language can improve your writing, simplistic vocabulary will get your point across much better than a series of words your reader will have to look up in a dictionary to understand.
9. If you're struggling for ideas, find something that helps you to think. I find that walking helps; so much so that at least three-quarters of my story ideas have come into being while I've been walking somewhere. This is so useful for me that I tend to pace around my house all the time. Other ways to get ideas are: make lists, collaborate, look through a baby name website for character names, go somewhere new, and -- above all -- read.
*If you don't know, a simile is a comparison that uses the words "like" or "as", whereas a metaphor doesn't use either of these. "She looks like a horse" is a simile but "she's such a pig" is a metaphor.
** In this line, "Hi!" She waved. "How're you?" the bolded sentence is an action beat.
Day 28: Film adaptations
Sorry this is late! For some reason it didn't post last night and I didn't know until now.
I always expect the film adaptation of a book I've read to be terrible. I expect this is a product of my overzealous imagination, as I have the perfect images of each and every character I read about imprinted on my mind like light on my retinas -- only far more permanent.
For me, casting and script are the two most important parts of film adaptations. Thankfully, most films of recent books tend to keep the author as one of the script-writers (or at least keep them informed) so generally the script is a condensed version of the novel it’s based on. However, there will be the occasional film for which the scriptwriters entirely ignore the plot of the book, instead simply taking the characters and inserting them into a series of action sequences; the only example I can think of is 'The Saga of Darren Shan', but I've seen others.
Going back to casting, I'd say that it makes the difference between a good adaptation and a bad adaption (though not necessarily a bad film, just not true to the book). For example, I found the casting in the BBC TV series of 'Pride and Prejudice' to be completely spot on; I could tell which of the Bennet sisters were which just from them walking along, without even being told their names, and Lizzie was the perfect mix of kind and judgemental. The film, however, was excellent, but the characters weren't the same as the characters from the novel. The Bennets all sort of merged into one, and Lizzie lost all her delightful sarcasm and wit, in favour of a smiling, laughing main character.
Similarly, the best-of-British cast in 'Harry Potter' gave us the perfect cast for roles such as Bellatrix, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, Fudge, and Umbridge, but the younger generation of actors -- Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Matt Lewis, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright -- grew into their characters and became perfect for them. In 'The Hunger Games', I fully expected to hate the film because I didn't like the look of the cast, but they more than lived up to my expectations: if they were not exactly what I'd imagined, then they were still perfectly suited to their roles in a slightly different way.
Recently, I've been keeping an eye on the casting for 'Catching Fire', the sequel to 'The Hunger Games', as well as Cassie Clare's 'City of Bones'. It helps that I happen to know who most of the actors and actresses in these two in-production films are, so I can judge whether or not they're suited to the roles. So far, I'm pretty impressed with the actors involed. The scriptwriters just need to give them the right things to work with.
One thing that bothers me about film adaptations is when they change the title entirely; 'Before I Die', a novel I mentioned yesterday, has a film that's very recently come out called 'Now Is Good'. Personally, I preferred the original title. Besides, fans of the book should be able to refer to both under the same title; changing the name very much signifies a split between the book and the film, which worries me because it tends to lead to script changes. Still, I'll wait to see 'Now Is Good' for myself.
Another film coming out this year is 'The Great Gatsby', which is based on one of my favourite books. The choice to have Leonardo DiCaprio play Gatsby is questionable, since I'm not sure he can play Gatsby's insecurities well, but he is an incredible actor so he might manage it.
Of course, I mustn't forget that plays are often made into films; it's not just novels. The main difference from novels is that plays are written to be watched, but there's a huge discrepancy between watching a play and watching a film. In English, we're currently watching a film of 'Hamlet'; having seen this very same version of 'Hamlet' (with the same actors) a few years ago, I'd say that the film loses some of its atmospheric quality, but that's to be expected. The quality of the production hasn't lessened, so perhaps film adaptations of plays can be just as enjoyable as the plays themselves, but they are much more accessible.
I always expect the film adaptation of a book I've read to be terrible. I expect this is a product of my overzealous imagination, as I have the perfect images of each and every character I read about imprinted on my mind like light on my retinas -- only far more permanent.
For me, casting and script are the two most important parts of film adaptations. Thankfully, most films of recent books tend to keep the author as one of the script-writers (or at least keep them informed) so generally the script is a condensed version of the novel it’s based on. However, there will be the occasional film for which the scriptwriters entirely ignore the plot of the book, instead simply taking the characters and inserting them into a series of action sequences; the only example I can think of is 'The Saga of Darren Shan', but I've seen others.
Going back to casting, I'd say that it makes the difference between a good adaptation and a bad adaption (though not necessarily a bad film, just not true to the book). For example, I found the casting in the BBC TV series of 'Pride and Prejudice' to be completely spot on; I could tell which of the Bennet sisters were which just from them walking along, without even being told their names, and Lizzie was the perfect mix of kind and judgemental. The film, however, was excellent, but the characters weren't the same as the characters from the novel. The Bennets all sort of merged into one, and Lizzie lost all her delightful sarcasm and wit, in favour of a smiling, laughing main character.
Similarly, the best-of-British cast in 'Harry Potter' gave us the perfect cast for roles such as Bellatrix, Snape, McGonagall, Hagrid, Fudge, and Umbridge, but the younger generation of actors -- Dan Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Matt Lewis, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright -- grew into their characters and became perfect for them. In 'The Hunger Games', I fully expected to hate the film because I didn't like the look of the cast, but they more than lived up to my expectations: if they were not exactly what I'd imagined, then they were still perfectly suited to their roles in a slightly different way.
Recently, I've been keeping an eye on the casting for 'Catching Fire', the sequel to 'The Hunger Games', as well as Cassie Clare's 'City of Bones'. It helps that I happen to know who most of the actors and actresses in these two in-production films are, so I can judge whether or not they're suited to the roles. So far, I'm pretty impressed with the actors involed. The scriptwriters just need to give them the right things to work with.
One thing that bothers me about film adaptations is when they change the title entirely; 'Before I Die', a novel I mentioned yesterday, has a film that's very recently come out called 'Now Is Good'. Personally, I preferred the original title. Besides, fans of the book should be able to refer to both under the same title; changing the name very much signifies a split between the book and the film, which worries me because it tends to lead to script changes. Still, I'll wait to see 'Now Is Good' for myself.
Another film coming out this year is 'The Great Gatsby', which is based on one of my favourite books. The choice to have Leonardo DiCaprio play Gatsby is questionable, since I'm not sure he can play Gatsby's insecurities well, but he is an incredible actor so he might manage it.
Of course, I mustn't forget that plays are often made into films; it's not just novels. The main difference from novels is that plays are written to be watched, but there's a huge discrepancy between watching a play and watching a film. In English, we're currently watching a film of 'Hamlet'; having seen this very same version of 'Hamlet' (with the same actors) a few years ago, I'd say that the film loses some of its atmospheric quality, but that's to be expected. The quality of the production hasn't lessened, so perhaps film adaptations of plays can be just as enjoyable as the plays themselves, but they are much more accessible.
Thursday, 27 September 2012
Day 27: Favourite books
Here's a list of ten of my favourite novels! I'm discounting books from series because I am in love with far too many trilogies. I have also only included only one novel per author, to keep my list varied. I may have hyperbolised these novels, but that just shows how much I adore them, and I may have been intentionally vague about others because they're difficult to talk about without spoiling them.
'The Great Gatsby' by F. Scott Fitzgerald is mostly on this list for Fitzgerald's unparalleled used of symbolism. The characters, the setting, and the green light on the dock are all used as representations of the abstract: ignorance, society, and hope. As far as literary technique goes, there are few novels as good as 'The Great Gatsby'.
I've already spoken about 'The Princess Bride' by William Goldman; I'll summarise it as a novel you're bound to like if you enjoy witty humour and remarkable characterisation.
Markus Zusak's 'The Book Thief' is the most effective tear-jerker I've ever read; it's written from the point of view of Death, who tells the story of a little girl living in Nazi Germany. Beyond Zusak's horrifying tales of love and loss is his incredible writing style, which focuses heavily on foreshadowing and creates something of a microcosm of Nazi Germany set primarily on just one street..
'
'The Fault in Our Stars' is the most successful book that my favourite author, John Green, has written thus far, having spent seven consecutive weeks in the top spot of the New York Times bestseller list. 'TFiOS' is the most honest sory about death, love, and the impact we have on this world that I have ever read and that I suspect will ever be written. The characters are flawed in very non-typical ways, making them totally believable and impossible not to love. 'TFiOS' is a cancer book, but it's philosophical and funny and so very real.
'Pride and Prejudice' is a novel I hope you've read, and if you haven't then I suggest you immediately find your way to a bookshop or a library, find it, and read it. The characters are perhaps over-emphasised, but there are some very strong characters (many of them female) who all link together in an elaborate web of names and relations that is very much like real life. 'Pride and Prejudice' is a classic, and widely regarded as Jane Austen's best work, so you definitely ought to read it.
'Lord of the Flies' by William Golding was the first book I really read into; before studying 'LotF', I had no concept of microcosms, allegories, symbolism, or pathetic fallacy. This is the novel that introduced me to literature and it will forever be important to me.
'A Picture of Dorian Gray' is Oscar Wilde's only novel -- but that's just as well because nothing could ever live up to it. It's a very dark story, focusing heavily on sex, drugs and murder. However, to state these as the full content of the novel would be missing the point. 'Dorian Gray' is about how our experiences shape us and how a society with youth and beauty at its centre will eventually destroy itself. Read anything of Wilde's, as it's all brilliant, but especially read this.
'A Monster Calls' was written by Patrick Ness but the idea belonged to Siobhan Dowd, who died before she had a chance to write it. It's a children's story but the subtleties of it, the emotions explored throughout it, and the symbolism it's focused on are all very much suited to an adult audience. The book contains elements of Ness' fantasy and sci-fi writings, while maintaining Dowd's depth, characterisation and humanity.
'Before I Fall' by Lauren Oliver is a novel that sat on my bookshelf for a long time before I got around to reading it. I had low expectations of it, based on the blurb, but it'd been recommended to me so I decided to read it. I was blown away. It shouldn't be possible for a character to believably transform from shallow and selfish to selfless and empathetic, but Oliver manages it. It shouldn't be interesting to read an account of the very same day seven times, but Oliver makes it interesting. She has a very subtle kind of writing talent that can sneak up on you and leave you in awe.
With a similar title to the last novel, Jenny Downham's 'Before I Die' is another cancer book. I read this novel a long time ago and it got me hooked on young adult fiction, because it stayed with me for so long after I'd read it. The story is one of a bucket list to be completed before the main character succumbs to her cancer; the list is very stereotypical for a teenager, but in the end the tasks themselves aren't the important thing. The important thing is living life to its fullest.
'The Great Gatsby' by F. Scott Fitzgerald is mostly on this list for Fitzgerald's unparalleled used of symbolism. The characters, the setting, and the green light on the dock are all used as representations of the abstract: ignorance, society, and hope. As far as literary technique goes, there are few novels as good as 'The Great Gatsby'.
I've already spoken about 'The Princess Bride' by William Goldman; I'll summarise it as a novel you're bound to like if you enjoy witty humour and remarkable characterisation.
Markus Zusak's 'The Book Thief' is the most effective tear-jerker I've ever read; it's written from the point of view of Death, who tells the story of a little girl living in Nazi Germany. Beyond Zusak's horrifying tales of love and loss is his incredible writing style, which focuses heavily on foreshadowing and creates something of a microcosm of Nazi Germany set primarily on just one street..
'
'The Fault in Our Stars' is the most successful book that my favourite author, John Green, has written thus far, having spent seven consecutive weeks in the top spot of the New York Times bestseller list. 'TFiOS' is the most honest sory about death, love, and the impact we have on this world that I have ever read and that I suspect will ever be written. The characters are flawed in very non-typical ways, making them totally believable and impossible not to love. 'TFiOS' is a cancer book, but it's philosophical and funny and so very real.
'Pride and Prejudice' is a novel I hope you've read, and if you haven't then I suggest you immediately find your way to a bookshop or a library, find it, and read it. The characters are perhaps over-emphasised, but there are some very strong characters (many of them female) who all link together in an elaborate web of names and relations that is very much like real life. 'Pride and Prejudice' is a classic, and widely regarded as Jane Austen's best work, so you definitely ought to read it.
'Lord of the Flies' by William Golding was the first book I really read into; before studying 'LotF', I had no concept of microcosms, allegories, symbolism, or pathetic fallacy. This is the novel that introduced me to literature and it will forever be important to me.
'A Picture of Dorian Gray' is Oscar Wilde's only novel -- but that's just as well because nothing could ever live up to it. It's a very dark story, focusing heavily on sex, drugs and murder. However, to state these as the full content of the novel would be missing the point. 'Dorian Gray' is about how our experiences shape us and how a society with youth and beauty at its centre will eventually destroy itself. Read anything of Wilde's, as it's all brilliant, but especially read this.
'A Monster Calls' was written by Patrick Ness but the idea belonged to Siobhan Dowd, who died before she had a chance to write it. It's a children's story but the subtleties of it, the emotions explored throughout it, and the symbolism it's focused on are all very much suited to an adult audience. The book contains elements of Ness' fantasy and sci-fi writings, while maintaining Dowd's depth, characterisation and humanity.
'Before I Fall' by Lauren Oliver is a novel that sat on my bookshelf for a long time before I got around to reading it. I had low expectations of it, based on the blurb, but it'd been recommended to me so I decided to read it. I was blown away. It shouldn't be possible for a character to believably transform from shallow and selfish to selfless and empathetic, but Oliver manages it. It shouldn't be interesting to read an account of the very same day seven times, but Oliver makes it interesting. She has a very subtle kind of writing talent that can sneak up on you and leave you in awe.
With a similar title to the last novel, Jenny Downham's 'Before I Die' is another cancer book. I read this novel a long time ago and it got me hooked on young adult fiction, because it stayed with me for so long after I'd read it. The story is one of a bucket list to be completed before the main character succumbs to her cancer; the list is very stereotypical for a teenager, but in the end the tasks themselves aren't the important thing. The important thing is living life to its fullest.
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
Day 26: Open University Block 3
Remember in Spring when I did a twelve-week Open University course titled Start Writing Fiction? I promised back then to summarise the five "blocks", or units, for you all, but I only wrote the first of five blog posts. I'm going back to writing these summaries, particularly because I want to read through my notes; paraphrasing them for you will help me to consolidate what I've learnt. However, these posts aren't going to be in order. I'm skipping Block 2 for now and starting with Block 3: Plot, Narrative, and Time. Sorry if it's a bit disjointed, but there's loads to include and it's not all relevant to the other points I'm making.
The linger factor is when a book stays with you after you've finished with it. This can be achieved using suspense and intrigue: for example, adding pathetic fallacy (mood represented by the weather) to a scene, foreshadowing a future event, or adding an element of uncertainty. Be careful not to wait too long to reveal the truth, or part of it, to your readers; if you've signalled something out as being important then they need to hear about it again soon.
"Narrative is the vehicle by which you get your story from A to B."
One narrative method is stream of consciousness, which comes directly from the thoughts of the main character. It tends to lead to lengthy, thoughtful sentences and inner-monologues. One novel with a stream of consciousness format is 'A Catcher in the Rye'.
Time is all about causality: if A caused B then that needs to be shown, but the bit in the middle of these events can be missed out -- time shifts are your friend. The course recommends that you focus on "emotional constellations" rather than worrying about transitions between scenes. However, time also requires that you consider the past in relation to the present and use backstory to add motive or causation to the present storyline.
In medias res is a way of manipulating time to suit your purpose; it involves coming into the story in the middle of the action, without preamble or introduction. Shakespeare used this technique to open a lot of his plays.
"The wonderful thing about writing prose...you've got to put one word next to another -- it's a linear form and it does in a sense make your eye travel down a page, over a page, from a beginning to an end."
The linger factor is when a book stays with you after you've finished with it. This can be achieved using suspense and intrigue: for example, adding pathetic fallacy (mood represented by the weather) to a scene, foreshadowing a future event, or adding an element of uncertainty. Be careful not to wait too long to reveal the truth, or part of it, to your readers; if you've signalled something out as being important then they need to hear about it again soon.
"Narrative is the vehicle by which you get your story from A to B."
One narrative method is stream of consciousness, which comes directly from the thoughts of the main character. It tends to lead to lengthy, thoughtful sentences and inner-monologues. One novel with a stream of consciousness format is 'A Catcher in the Rye'.
Time is all about causality: if A caused B then that needs to be shown, but the bit in the middle of these events can be missed out -- time shifts are your friend. The course recommends that you focus on "emotional constellations" rather than worrying about transitions between scenes. However, time also requires that you consider the past in relation to the present and use backstory to add motive or causation to the present storyline.
In medias res is a way of manipulating time to suit your purpose; it involves coming into the story in the middle of the action, without preamble or introduction. Shakespeare used this technique to open a lot of his plays.
"The wonderful thing about writing prose...you've got to put one word next to another -- it's a linear form and it does in a sense make your eye travel down a page, over a page, from a beginning to an end."
Tuesday, 25 September 2012
Day 25: Writing tips
Every writer has their own personal way of doing things and their own writing preferences. I'm going to tell you a few of my own, which come from many different sources.
1. The most important thing anyone has ever told me about writing is dare to suck. Seriously, I don't care if you write something terrible. If you write enough of something terrible, there will be good bits, which you can polish and make shiny so that you end up with a good piece of writing. Watch this video for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyhv80HDSj4
2. I don't subscribe to the idea that brevity is best. Many teachers will recommend that you write "she yelled/whispered/murmured" or some other variation of "said", but there's nothing wrong with writing "she said", as long as you don't overuse it and you use the appropriate modifiers (such as "she said angrily"). If you constantly try to replace "said" with another word then your writing will sound unnatural. It's the same in many other cases, too -- don't ramble, but do describe.
3. Leave the title until last. While in some cases the title might come to you right at the start of planning a novel or poem or play, usually it's still undecided when you're editing your final draft. I'd suggest that you don't fret about titles until you've finished everything else; by the time you're done writing, you'll be so familiar with your plot that you should find it much easier to pick out a key point as a title. Use a quote from somewhere in the work you've written if you like.
4. As much as I adore Oscar Wilde, he tends to write paragraphs that can span for more than a page, which I really dislike. I have no problem with reading something lengthy, but it helps for it to be broken up into separate ideas; paragraphs that drag on are prone to skim-reading, and nobody wants the writing they've slaved over to be skimmed. The same can be said for the length of a chapter or scene; if it goes on for too long, your reader is likely to get bored.
5. Don't spoon-feed meaning. I believe that this is another Maureen Johnson-ism, and it's a good variation on "show don't tell", since I'm sure you're all tired of hearing that one from every English teacher on the planet. Basically, don't be blatant: though this does work in some circumstances, you're usually better off being subtle with your ideas through the use of imagery or through a person's speech and attitude. If you can help it, don't tell your reader outright that your main character is intelligent or clumsy or responsible (and especially don't do a Bella Swan and call your character all these things only to provide evidence that she's none of them). Show it instead, though actions and dialogue.
6. To quote this blog, "sentences are not minivans". Don't try to cram everything into one sentence, especially without using a semi-colon. It's best not to have too many clauses in one sentence or it just gets cluttered, your main clause gets lost, and the meaning becomes distorted.
That's all I've got for now, but I might add to this post if I come up with some more tips. If you have any of your own tips that you want me to include, then feel free to let me know; and, of course, you don't have to agree with everything I've said!
1. The most important thing anyone has ever told me about writing is dare to suck. Seriously, I don't care if you write something terrible. If you write enough of something terrible, there will be good bits, which you can polish and make shiny so that you end up with a good piece of writing. Watch this video for more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyhv80HDSj4
2. I don't subscribe to the idea that brevity is best. Many teachers will recommend that you write "she yelled/whispered/murmured" or some other variation of "said", but there's nothing wrong with writing "she said", as long as you don't overuse it and you use the appropriate modifiers (such as "she said angrily"). If you constantly try to replace "said" with another word then your writing will sound unnatural. It's the same in many other cases, too -- don't ramble, but do describe.
3. Leave the title until last. While in some cases the title might come to you right at the start of planning a novel or poem or play, usually it's still undecided when you're editing your final draft. I'd suggest that you don't fret about titles until you've finished everything else; by the time you're done writing, you'll be so familiar with your plot that you should find it much easier to pick out a key point as a title. Use a quote from somewhere in the work you've written if you like.
4. As much as I adore Oscar Wilde, he tends to write paragraphs that can span for more than a page, which I really dislike. I have no problem with reading something lengthy, but it helps for it to be broken up into separate ideas; paragraphs that drag on are prone to skim-reading, and nobody wants the writing they've slaved over to be skimmed. The same can be said for the length of a chapter or scene; if it goes on for too long, your reader is likely to get bored.
5. Don't spoon-feed meaning. I believe that this is another Maureen Johnson-ism, and it's a good variation on "show don't tell", since I'm sure you're all tired of hearing that one from every English teacher on the planet. Basically, don't be blatant: though this does work in some circumstances, you're usually better off being subtle with your ideas through the use of imagery or through a person's speech and attitude. If you can help it, don't tell your reader outright that your main character is intelligent or clumsy or responsible (and especially don't do a Bella Swan and call your character all these things only to provide evidence that she's none of them). Show it instead, though actions and dialogue.
6. To quote this blog, "sentences are not minivans". Don't try to cram everything into one sentence, especially without using a semi-colon. It's best not to have too many clauses in one sentence or it just gets cluttered, your main clause gets lost, and the meaning becomes distorted.
That's all I've got for now, but I might add to this post if I come up with some more tips. If you have any of your own tips that you want me to include, then feel free to let me know; and, of course, you don't have to agree with everything I've said!
Monday, 24 September 2012
Day 24: Greatest people in English Literature and Language
I've been reading a few of the grammar tips in Mignon Fogarty's 'The Grammar
Devotional' and her Language Rock Star sections really interest me. For today's
blog post, I'm compiling a list of my personal top ten people who most
influenced literature or the English language! (On a side note, anyone who is
interested in grammar or who struggles with it should look up Grammar Girl's
website -- http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ -- or read her books. Both
'The Grammar Devotional' and 'Quick and Dirty Tips For Better Writing' are full
of simple and useful tips; even if you have excellent grammar, you're likely to
come across a few things you didn't know.)
This is not an ordered list and it is by no means a complete one; these are just some people who I feel influenced the field of English Literature or the English language itself.
1. Lexicographer Noah Webster is responsible for much of American English (such as the American spelling of the word "color"), having created the very first American dictionary. He also created a series of speller books that helped teach five generations of American children how to read.
2. Rudyard Kipling was both a poet and a novelist; he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907. He was offered the title of British Poet Laureate but declined it, as well as declining knighthood several times. The more famous of his works include 'The Jungle Book' and 'Kim'.
3. William Golding was another Nobel Prize winner and is best known for his allegoric novel 'Lord of the Flies', which is a popular text to study for GCSE exams in the UK. Golding was a playwright and a poet in addition to being a novelist.
4. I've talked about William Shakespeare before, but he needs mentioning again here. Shakespeare added multiple words to the English language -- or at least popularised them --and wrote a total of 38 plays and 154 sonnets.
5. Jane Austen is probably the best-known female writer to have lived. Though only four of her novels were published during her lifetime, two more were published posthumously, along with other works. Since 1833, her novels have never been out of print.
6. Leo Tolstoy's epic 'War and Peace' is one of the longest novels ever to be written. Another well-known novel of his, 'Anna Karenina' has recently been made into a film.
7. Only 10 of Emily Dickinson's poems were published during her lifetime, but around 1700 have been published since her death. She is ranked as one of the most gifted poets of all time, and is almost as famous for her secluded life as for her poetry.
8. Edgar Allan Poe is considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre. He was the author, poet, and literary critic after whom the Edgar Award was named.
9. Oscar Wilde is one of the most successful playwrights of all time; he is also famous for his novel, 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' and multiple poems and short stories. He was famously arrested for gross indecency with other men and sentenced to two years of hard labour. Upon his release, he wrote his last work, 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', and died two years later.
10. J. K. Rowling is the author of 'Harry Potter', the best-selling book series in history. In 2010, she was named the most influential woman in Britain. Her new book -- and her only book outside of the 'Harry Potter' series -- 'The Casual Vacancy' will be released this Thursday.
This is not an ordered list and it is by no means a complete one; these are just some people who I feel influenced the field of English Literature or the English language itself.
1. Lexicographer Noah Webster is responsible for much of American English (such as the American spelling of the word "color"), having created the very first American dictionary. He also created a series of speller books that helped teach five generations of American children how to read.
2. Rudyard Kipling was both a poet and a novelist; he won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1907. He was offered the title of British Poet Laureate but declined it, as well as declining knighthood several times. The more famous of his works include 'The Jungle Book' and 'Kim'.
3. William Golding was another Nobel Prize winner and is best known for his allegoric novel 'Lord of the Flies', which is a popular text to study for GCSE exams in the UK. Golding was a playwright and a poet in addition to being a novelist.
4. I've talked about William Shakespeare before, but he needs mentioning again here. Shakespeare added multiple words to the English language -- or at least popularised them --and wrote a total of 38 plays and 154 sonnets.
5. Jane Austen is probably the best-known female writer to have lived. Though only four of her novels were published during her lifetime, two more were published posthumously, along with other works. Since 1833, her novels have never been out of print.
6. Leo Tolstoy's epic 'War and Peace' is one of the longest novels ever to be written. Another well-known novel of his, 'Anna Karenina' has recently been made into a film.
7. Only 10 of Emily Dickinson's poems were published during her lifetime, but around 1700 have been published since her death. She is ranked as one of the most gifted poets of all time, and is almost as famous for her secluded life as for her poetry.
8. Edgar Allan Poe is considered the inventor of the detective fiction genre. He was the author, poet, and literary critic after whom the Edgar Award was named.
9. Oscar Wilde is one of the most successful playwrights of all time; he is also famous for his novel, 'The Picture of Dorian Gray' and multiple poems and short stories. He was famously arrested for gross indecency with other men and sentenced to two years of hard labour. Upon his release, he wrote his last work, 'The Ballad of Reading Gaol', and died two years later.
10. J. K. Rowling is the author of 'Harry Potter', the best-selling book series in history. In 2010, she was named the most influential woman in Britain. Her new book -- and her only book outside of the 'Harry Potter' series -- 'The Casual Vacancy' will be released this Thursday.
Sunday, 23 September 2012
Day 23: Portmanteau words
A portmanteau word is made up of two or more others words which have been combined into one. Common examples are spork, brunch, and ginormous -- none of which need explaining. Other portmanteaus include: liger, a cross between a lion and a tiger; bionic, a combination of biology and electronic; blog, made up of web and log; and emoticon comes from emotion and icon.
There are some words which are so accepted in English that we don't even really realise they're portmanteau words. The word squiggle comes from squirm and wiggle, pixel comes from picture and element, and internet comes from international and network.
A common reason for creating portmanteaus is to combine names when two people are in a relationship. Brangelina is the name for the couple of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Bennifer is the name for Benn Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. On the television show Glee, portmanteaus are used for the pairings of Finn and Rachel (Finchel), Rachel and Puckerman (Puckleberry), and Finn and Kurt (Furt), among others. This is a popular practice with the fans of many works of fiction: Romione, for example, is the pairing of Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.
There are some words which are so accepted in English that we don't even really realise they're portmanteau words. The word squiggle comes from squirm and wiggle, pixel comes from picture and element, and internet comes from international and network.
A common reason for creating portmanteaus is to combine names when two people are in a relationship. Brangelina is the name for the couple of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and Bennifer is the name for Benn Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. On the television show Glee, portmanteaus are used for the pairings of Finn and Rachel (Finchel), Rachel and Puckerman (Puckleberry), and Finn and Kurt (Furt), among others. This is a popular practice with the fans of many works of fiction: Romione, for example, is the pairing of Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.
Saturday, 22 September 2012
Day 22: Guest Post on Medical Terminology!
Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Marco, I am a classmate and friend of Lex and ardent word lover (though admittedly not as much as Lex is). I run my own blog called The MedSchool Project but unlike Mere Words, my blog looks at the science and art of Medicine. I primarily want to become a doctor and I am applying for Medicine at university. Despite the differences between Lex and me, our common interest - words - is something that features a lot in my chosen career. Being a doctor involves words.
Why are words so important?
Medical terminology is so frequently seen in medical dramas. Doctors on TV may say something like, "Mrs. Terry had a syncopal episode following tachycardia, so I sent her off for a Holter monitor," which really means, "Mrs. Terry fainted after having an unusually rapid pulse so we're monitoring her heart rhythms for 24 hours." You may have heard a doctor talking about an EEG, CT, PET and MRI, among many other abbreviated names for scans. Medical terminology is important in Medicine for three obvious reasons:- One word can express many. Consider "appendicectomy" versus "a surgical procedure to remove an appendix," or "tonsillitis" versus "inflammation of the tonsils."
- Information can be relayed from person to person with great accuracy. Consider "a Salter-Harris II fracture of the right digital radius with moderate lateral displacement and 28 degrees of upward angulation," versus "a badly broken wrist."
- To accommodate for new technologies. Consider "laparascopic surgery," versus "surgery through a small hole in the body with a fibre-optic instrument."
Etymology - The Root of All Evil Words
Etymology is the study of the origin of words. I personally find it interesting, others may think it's boring. Others may say "It's all Greek to me!" and although it is probably more correct to be saying "It's all Latin to me!" it is true that most medical terms come Latin and Ancient Greek. Take the word opthalmologist (an eye doctor) - this comes from Ancient Greek ophthalmos, meaning "eye." And what about your quadriceps muscle in your thigh, which comes from Latin quattuor and caput, meaning "four-headed." (Note: your quadriceps aren't literally four-headed, but its name stems from the fact that it has four sections!)
To help you learn medical jargon, it is good to learn etymology because the root of the word, or the main part of the word, usually talks about what you are dealing with, usually a body part. The root is usually the Greek or Latin part of the word.
Common roots that refer to a body part include blephar (eyelid), cephal (head), cervic (cervix), cardio (heart), derma (skin), gingiv (gums), gnath (jaws), labi (lips), lapar (abdomen), mammo (breast), mast (breast), occipit (back of the head), etc. Hence blepharitis is inflammation of the eyelid, hydrocephaly is the accumulation of water in the head, cervical cancer is cancer of the cervix, a cardiologist is a heart specialist and a dermatologist is a skin specialist.
The root is normally flanked by two bits - the prefix which occurs at the beginning of the word and tells you about the condition of the main topic (the root) and the suffix which generally indicates what is being done to the main topic.
Common Prefixes
- A- or An- Lack of
- Anti- Against
- Bi- Two/Twice
- Con- or Co- Together with
- Hemi- or Semi- Half of
- Hyper- Excess
- Hypo- Deficient
- Macro- Large
- Micro- Small
- Post- After
- Pre- Before
- Trans- Through or across
- Tri- Three
So an anaemia is the lack of red blood cells in the bood. An antacid medicine works against stomach acid. A bicuspid valve has two cusps. Constipation occurs as faecal matter is compacted together. A hemiplegic is a patient with paralysis on one half or one side of the body. Hypertrophy is an enlargement of an organ due to an excess of cells. Hypoglycaemia is the deficiency of glucose in the blood. And so on!
Common Suffixes
Suffixes usually tell you whether we're talking about a procedure, a condition or a disease. You can use the same root word and by changing the the suffix (or the prefix), the word's meaning changes completely!
For example urology is the study of the urinary tract. Now, whereas a urogram is an X-ray of the urinary tract and a urologist is a doctor of the urinary tract, a urinalysis is the chemical analysis of urine and urethritis is inflammation of the urethra.
- -ate, -ise To subject something to
- -ist A person
- -genic Cause
- -gram A record
- -graph An instrument to record
- -ism A condition
- -itis Inflammation of
- -ologist A specialist in
- -ology The study of
- -phobia Fear of
- -scope An instrument to examine
So to cauterise a blood vessel is to subject it to heat/electricity/chemicals to stop it from bleeding. A pharmacist is a person who prepares and dispenses drugs. An allergenic substance causes allergies. A cardiogram is a record of heart muscle activity made by a cardiograph when checking the heart of someone with carditis, inflammation of the heart.
Logophilia, the love of words
There are so many more roots, prefixes and suffixes that I haven't mentioned but I hope that has given you an introduction to medical jargon and has shown you a way to approach deciphering the meaning of medical words!
Here's a quick test to see how well you've assimilated all that information. Try to work out the meaning of the five words or phrases below. Click "read more" to get to the answers!
What is the meaning of the following?
- Mammogram
- Tricuspid valve
- Occipital bone
- Gingivitis
- Macrocephaly
Friday, 21 September 2012
Day 21: "To be, or not to be"
In my English class today, we went to the drama department to assess various
teaching methods. Using the "to be, or not to be" soliloquy in 'Hamlet
as the object of the lesson, we watched a film clip, had some notable lines
from the soliloquy projected onto three different screens, used our phones to
send answers to the drama teacher's computer, and did some group work. It was
an unusual lesson, but it was fun. Since the drama teacher taught the soliloquy
as literature without the language analysis, my English teacher asked us to do
the analysis for homework. I decided to make my short essay response into a
blog post. If you're unfamiliar with 'Hamlet', here's a link to the passage I'm
analysing: http://www.monologuearchive.com/s/shakespeare_001.html
The soliloquy is essentially a verbal representation of Hamlet's internal debate over whether or not to commit suicide. The prominent line "to be, or not to be" literally asks whether Hamlet should live or die. His longing for death is due to his father's murder and his mother's remarriage, as well as his difficulty in avenging his father.
Much of Hamlet's desire for death seems to be due to an overwhelming feeling of helplessness. He describes himself using the metaphor "to take arms against a sea of troubles"; by using the sea as a representation of his problems, he is setting up his troubles as unconquerable, as the sea cannot be beaten by one man with a sword. Similarly, the line "the heart-ache...that flesh is heir to" equates suffering to his birth right and his being royalty, suggesting that his pain was unavoidable. This feeling of hopelessness is reinforced by the symbol of a "mortal coil", demonstrating how Hamlet feels trapped by his life and perhaps by his duty to avenge his father. In this very same scene, Hamlet passes up an opportunity to kill Claudius, which suggests that he is not committed to his revenge.
Death is presented in two different ways. The first is in a comparison to sleep; however, the repetition of "to die, to sleep" implies that Hamlet is not confident in the ideal of a peaceful death (especially having seen the wretched ghost of his father) and so he is actually urging himself towards death. The second representation of death is that of a "country from whose bourn no traveller returns"; from this, it can be inferred that Hamlet isdoubting his desire for death and is focusing on its finality. He certainly feels some fear for death, and cannot even speak of it in reference to himself, as he uses very few personal pronouns and those that are used are always plural ("we" and "us"). There is a clear distinction between Hamlet's theoretical pondering of death and actually intending to die; his detachment from what he is saying defines this soliloquy as mostly hypothetical without real intent.
Life is perceived in an equally negative way. The semantic field of pain and suffering, including the lexis "weary", "despised", and "spurns", is used with reference to the burdens of life, and the metaphor "to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" illustrates a further example of how life and suffering are unalterably linked in Hamlet's mind. In contrast with the usual idea of time being a healer, Shakespeare describes "bear[ing] the whips and scorns of time", again supporting Hamlet's hopeless belief that life will forever correlate with suffering.
Beyond expressing Hamlet's ideas on death and life, Shakespeare uses this soliloquy to show Hamlet's creeping madness. The audience is aware that Hamlet is pretending to be mad, but in soliloquies, Hamlet should be perfectly sane; the vengeance he seeks and the unending pretention of madness seem to be driving him truly mad, as is shown by his long, rambling sentences and his use of interrogatives to show indecision. There is certainly bitterness and anger within this soliloquy; Shakespeare's use of fricatives (such as "flesh" and "fly") and sibilance (such as "suffer", "sea", and "sleep") illustrate Hamlet's underlying hatred for Claudius, his fury at his mother, and his dismay at the position of avenger he has found himself in.
This was better the first time I wrote it but my laptop shut itself down and this didn't save.
The soliloquy is essentially a verbal representation of Hamlet's internal debate over whether or not to commit suicide. The prominent line "to be, or not to be" literally asks whether Hamlet should live or die. His longing for death is due to his father's murder and his mother's remarriage, as well as his difficulty in avenging his father.
Much of Hamlet's desire for death seems to be due to an overwhelming feeling of helplessness. He describes himself using the metaphor "to take arms against a sea of troubles"; by using the sea as a representation of his problems, he is setting up his troubles as unconquerable, as the sea cannot be beaten by one man with a sword. Similarly, the line "the heart-ache...that flesh is heir to" equates suffering to his birth right and his being royalty, suggesting that his pain was unavoidable. This feeling of hopelessness is reinforced by the symbol of a "mortal coil", demonstrating how Hamlet feels trapped by his life and perhaps by his duty to avenge his father. In this very same scene, Hamlet passes up an opportunity to kill Claudius, which suggests that he is not committed to his revenge.
Death is presented in two different ways. The first is in a comparison to sleep; however, the repetition of "to die, to sleep" implies that Hamlet is not confident in the ideal of a peaceful death (especially having seen the wretched ghost of his father) and so he is actually urging himself towards death. The second representation of death is that of a "country from whose bourn no traveller returns"; from this, it can be inferred that Hamlet isdoubting his desire for death and is focusing on its finality. He certainly feels some fear for death, and cannot even speak of it in reference to himself, as he uses very few personal pronouns and those that are used are always plural ("we" and "us"). There is a clear distinction between Hamlet's theoretical pondering of death and actually intending to die; his detachment from what he is saying defines this soliloquy as mostly hypothetical without real intent.
Life is perceived in an equally negative way. The semantic field of pain and suffering, including the lexis "weary", "despised", and "spurns", is used with reference to the burdens of life, and the metaphor "to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune" illustrates a further example of how life and suffering are unalterably linked in Hamlet's mind. In contrast with the usual idea of time being a healer, Shakespeare describes "bear[ing] the whips and scorns of time", again supporting Hamlet's hopeless belief that life will forever correlate with suffering.
Beyond expressing Hamlet's ideas on death and life, Shakespeare uses this soliloquy to show Hamlet's creeping madness. The audience is aware that Hamlet is pretending to be mad, but in soliloquies, Hamlet should be perfectly sane; the vengeance he seeks and the unending pretention of madness seem to be driving him truly mad, as is shown by his long, rambling sentences and his use of interrogatives to show indecision. There is certainly bitterness and anger within this soliloquy; Shakespeare's use of fricatives (such as "flesh" and "fly") and sibilance (such as "suffer", "sea", and "sleep") illustrate Hamlet's underlying hatred for Claudius, his fury at his mother, and his dismay at the position of avenger he has found himself in.
This was better the first time I wrote it but my laptop shut itself down and this didn't save.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)