This week: A Grammarian's Panegyric Edited by: Max Griffin š³ļøāš  
More Newsletters By This Editor 
 
1. About this Newsletter
2. A Word from our Sponsor
3. Letter from the Editor
4. Editor's Picks
5. A Word from Writing.Com
6. Ask & Answer
7. Removal instructions
| We all have reasons to come to a place like Writing.Com. For me, it's always been you, the members. My life is richer for reading your stories. My writing is better for receiving your wisdom. Writing this column can't repay the debt I owe, but it's my way saying "Thank you," by sharing some of what I've learned. I hope you enjoy what I've got to offer. |
| ASIN: B085272J6B |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 9.99
|
|
In a prior life, one of my jobs was to draft academic policy. This was always fraught with peril, not over the policy but over alleged grammar errors. I recall one particularly nasty note accusing me of the sin of using a split infinitive. I had to look that one up, and was shocked to learn that a phrase like, āTo boldly go where no man has gone beforeā was a split infinitive. The adverb āboldlyā splits the infinitive āto go.ā
Today, Iād probably avoid both the adverb and the generic use of āmanā for āperson,ā but back then I was chastised. At least, until a colleague from the English Department pointed me to paragraph 5.108 of the Chicago Manual of Style, which states āAlthough from about 1850 to 1925 many grammarians stated otherwise, it is now widely acknowledged that adverbs sometimes justifiably separate the to from the principal verb.ā
Ha! Take that, nasty-gram author!
Still, effective writing involves effective use of language, and that inevitably means understanding grammar. Take verbs, for example. A verb, any verb, has five properties: voice, mood, tense, person, and number. Verbs are conjugated to show these properties. Each of these, even the obvious ones like tense and person, have nuances. Paragraphs 5.117 through at least 5.155 of the Chicago Manual of Style deal with verbs. Each of the five verb properties have a place in the fiction authorās inventory, and it occured to me that it might be useful to have a sequence of newsletters devoted to each one.
At least, it seemed useful when I couldnāt think of anything else to write about this month, so here goes.
Chicago Manual of Style, 5.118: Active and passive voice. Voice shows whether the subject acts (active voice) or is acted on (passive voice)āthat is, whether the subject performs or receives the action of the verb.
Consider the two sentences.
1--> Marie slapped Sam.
2--> Sam was slapped by Marie.
They describe the same event, but the subject of the verb changes. In both sentences, Marie is the actor and Sam receives the action, but the grammatical construction is different. Marie is the subject of the first sentence, while Sam is the subject of the second. The first sentence uses active voice, while the second uses passive, signaled by the helper verb āwasā and the prepositional phrase, āby Marie,ā identifying her as the actor. The grammar is simple enough, although CMOS drones on about progressive conjugations and other matters, the basics are pretty direct.
But itās also more complicated than mere grammar.
In fiction, the author attends not only to voice but also to point of view. We want to put the readers inside the point-of-view characterās head. When this is successful, the readers become the authorās partner in imagining the fictional world. This active imagination then fills in the myriad incidental details that donāt make it to the page but nonetheless bring the scene to life. Activating the readersā imaginations is one of the primary goals of point-of-view.
If weāre in Marieās head, then the first sentence, the one using active voice, keeps the readers in her head. Sheās acting on an element of the fictional world, namely Sam. Her action keeps the readersā imaginations engaged and helps to keep them inside her head and thus inside the fictional world. In this case, the first sentence, with active voice, is superior to the second because it keeps the reader focused on Marie and her actions.
But suppose Sam is the point-of-view character and the readers are in his head. To be sure, the second sentence keeps the focus on Sam, but heās not acting or even reacting. Instead, heās passively receiving the action. This passivity gets transferred to the readers since theyāre in his head. The result tends to deactivate the readersā imaginations and distance them from the ongoing events in the here-and-now. So, the passive voice in the second sentence acts in a manner contrary to one of the main goals of point-of-view, namely inciting active readers.
Of course, in the real world, and hence in the fictional world, things happen to people. Itās certainly possible that Sam might get slapped. The point here is that way to show that is not with passive voice, but rather by showing Samās reaction to being slapped. For example, we might write, āMarie slapped Sam and set his cheek on fire.ā Marieās acting, but now the focus shifts to Samās internal reaction, namely the sensation of being slapped, something only he can feel. This keeps us in his head and keeps the readers active. Better yet, the metaphor āfireā suggests an emotional response of anger as well as a physical one and stimulates the readersā imaginations. Marie is still the actor in this sentence for both verbsāāslappedā and āsetāābut now the readers are in Samās head, imagining both his sensations and emotions.
Iām a mathematician by training, and that peculiar heritage often clouds my thinking. It would be nice if language followed consistent rules, like Zermel-Frankel set theory, but the reality is that English is both irregular and evolving. To be sure, there are grammar rules, and they are often clear-cut, but they can be convoluted as well. Iāve learned over the years to rely on a guide like The Chicago Manual of Style when in doubt. Itās inexpensive to access online, and definitive. If you canāt afford the modest charge, online sources like the Purdue Owl are free and quite good.
Grammar is useful for both clarity and rigor. But grammar isnāt the whole story, or even an important part of it, as the above discussion on voice demonstrates. Itās showing your characters acting and reacting to the fictional world that brings your story to life. Grammar is no substitute for effective craft and artistic nuance. If you write with your heart but edit with your head, youāll probably achieve a good balance.
Next month, Iāll tackle a verbās mood. Unless I think of something more interesting. |
| |  | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#2285017 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#2284255 by Not Available. |
| | | Invalid Item
This item number is not valid.
#2285136 by Not Available. |
|
Have an opinion on what you've read here today? Then send the Editor feedback! Find an item that you think would be perfect for showcasing here? Submit it for consideration in the newsletter!
https://www.Writing.Com/go/nl_form
Don't forget to support our sponsor!
| ASIN: B07YXBT9JT |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 4.99
|
|
| ASIN: B000FC0SIM |
Product Type: Kindle Store
|
Amazon's Price: $ 12.99
|
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, click here for your newsletter subscription list. Simply uncheck the box next to any newsletter(s) you wish to cancel and then click to "Submit Changes". You can edit your subscriptions at any time.
|
For Authors: December 14, 2022 Issue [#11697]
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
