What Rules Do You Hate as a Writer?

Typographic quotation marks (top) versus straight quotation marks, or "dumb quotes" (bottom). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

They’re there, everywhere you look, on blogs, in books, on websites – those unbreakable rules for writers. Some are concerned with language itself; grammar, syntax, spelling. Others are to do with style; repetition, viewpoint, backstory, vocabulary. Then there are the rules surrounding presentation; font, paragraphs, spacing, quotations, dialogue. Of course, the gurus and mentors have their own sets of rules: you must do this or that if you’re to succeed as a writer. These latter rules come in the form of exhortations to build an author platform, participate in forums, network, join groups, create a bog, a website, become a member of any of dozens of professional organisations. And so it goes on.

Do you ever get the feeling you’re being bamboozled, perhaps being patronised, maybe being groomed as a cash cow for some organisation or individual? There are lots of wolves out there, seeking out those ignorant, naïve or inexperienced enough to become the victims of the many scams aimed specifically at writers. And all of them have their rules. Those laws that you must obey if you’re ever to become a writer, ever to make a name for yourself, ever to make your fortune. Assuming that’s what you’re after.

I, of course, have special rules that I hate. Some of these have been exposed as irrelevant or simply wrong as a result of experience. Some have been pointed out by other writers. Some were clearly not right from the word go.

Let’s have look at some of those I have problems with. Well, there’s one for a start: never finish a sentence with a preposition. Rubbish. We do it all the time. Writers have been breaking this rule ever since they first picked up a chisel to mark the first slab of rock. It’s idiotic. To obey this rule, my initial sentence would have to be reconstructed as, ‘Let’s have a look at some of those with which I have problems.’ Clumsy, at best. No one speaks like this and we shouldn’t be required to write this way. Only the Grammar Police will ever find fault with the use of a preposition at the end of your sentences. So, if it sounds right, use it.

Another: build an author platform. No agent or publisher will look at you these days unless you have a decent following on Twitter, Facebook, Google+, YouTube, LinkedIn etc, etc. Two points with this one: do you want an agent or a publisher, bearing in mind the way they rip off writers these days? And, far more importantly, this rule is designed to stop you writing and to make you spend all your time making contacts online. I tried it last year, as a way of discovering the validity of this exhortation to build a following. Did it have any measurable effect on my book sales? With the possible exception of Twitter, none whatsoever. I’ve increased my ‘presence’ across the various networks I belong to (there goes that preposition at the end of a sentence again!). But, whilst this has amplified requests for my help for other writers (something I’m happy to do when I’m able), has resulted in numerous requests for the endorsement of work I’ve no experience of (there it goes again; another preposition in danger of ending a sentence!), has brought many requests for me to review books written by other authors (as if my increased visibility has somehow had a similar effect on my time available for reading), it has had no measurable effect on shifting my books off the shelves. This rule, so beloved of agents and publishers, is unlikely to get you what you actually want; i.e. more readers.

One more: use curly quotes, use straight quotes, use double quotes, use single quotes…etc. The only rule with any validity regarding such stylistic matters is the one that guides the publication to which you’re submitting your work (there; I stuck this preposition in place for the purists). Seriously, if a publication you want to publish your work uses single, curly quotes, then have the common sense to follow their house style. Otherwise, the choice is yours. Same with fonts (but do make the size and typeface easy to read, and you can use any colour as long as it’s black. On your website or blog you have the freedom to make your font and background colours the same, violently different, or traditional black on white, but bear in mind that people are going to be trying to read that text).

I must, of course, remind you of George Orwell’s rules for writers. These are, if taken with an intelligent pinch of common sense in interpretation, very sensible. The last one, naturally, is the most important:

1.      Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print. (see my piece on clichés)

2.      Never use a long word where a short one will do.  (dip a toe in the hydrotherapeutic fluid and see whether the pool will suffice)

3.      If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out. (surgical excision, scalpel at the ready, is essential to the prevention of purple prose)

4.      Never use the passive where you can use the active. (always better to be the one doing the doing than having the doing done to you)

5.      Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent. (using obscurum per obscurius is simply employing obfuscation for the sake of it)

6.      Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous. (up with this I will never put)

And I’d apply that last rule to all the various rules of writing.

Finally, from me at any rate, remember you’re a writer. Writers write. That’s their purpose, their raison d’être (oops, Orwell’s 5^th rule broken!).

So, that’s my piece said. Are there any writing rules you abhor? Let’s have a comment with your reasons; see if we can help each other here, shall we?

Related articles

• 40+ Tips to Improve your Grammar and Punctuation
• Rules, rules, rules
• Phony Rules of English Grammar
• Week 10: Ending a sentence with a preposition
• Those Grammar Gaffes Will Get You

7 Ways to Improve Your Grammar and Impress Readers.

Cover via Amazon

Some aspects of English grammar create more confusion and resultant errors than others. I get far too het up about them. But, there you are; I guess I care a little too much about the way writer's constantly break rules they often don't appear to know exist. However, in common with George Orwell, I'd rather all the rules were broken than have to endure an ugly sentence. But, in order to break rules effectively, you have to know what they are.

So, here's a list of seven of the most common errors and some suggested solutions.

1.      Contractions.
We all speak using contractions. But when we write them down, they seem to cause problems. Here are some of the common pitfalls.
They're, you're, we're; all contractions of the pronoun used with 'are'. So, they are becomes they're, etc. The most common error occurs when your, the possessive pronoun, is substituted for you're, the contraction. The only sensible way to avoid the error is to write out the meaning in full and then apply the contraction if it's appropriate. Example:  This is a chance to improve your writing. Here, your refers to the writing and the context makes it plain that it is the writing that belongs to you. The possessive pronoun is therefore the correct usage. However; If you're going to improve the way you write, you need to be aware of how grammar works. Here, you're can be replaced by you are, so the contraction is the correct form. If your were used, it would make no sense, since there's nothing belonging to anyone in the sentence.

2.      Homonyms.
This leads quite naturally onto the homonyms, those words that sound alike but have different spellings and/or different meanings. We've looked at your and you're but there are many examples in English and they confuse even those raised with the language, so it's hardly a surprise if foreign language speakers have problems.
They're, their, there; we're, wear, where, were; bow(bend from the waist), bough; buy, by, bye; row (a boat), roe; tyre, tire; tear (cry), tier; peer, pier; pear, pair; stare, stair. A non-comprehensive list of some common homonyms. These won't be picked up by your spell-checker, because the spelling is correct. Only you, as the writer, can determine whether you've used the right word, though. And, if in doubt, please resort to that invaluable tool of the author; a reference book called a 'dictionary'. And, as a means of getting those of you who rarely open this writers' bible to do just that, I'm not going to provide further help here on this one.

3.      Apostrophe 's'.
Lynn Truss wrote a wonderful short book on this, and other, grammatical pitfalls. If you haven't read 'Eats Shoots and Leaves', shame on you.
The apostrophe 's' identifies the word as a possessive and is often confused with the plural form. So we have the field-side signs inviting the driver to 'Stop and Pick Your Own Potatoe's'. Generally, it's not clear which of the potatoe's belongings we're being invited to choose. That's because it's a simple plural and the apostrophe is redundant, incorrect, wrong, unnecessary and generally no more than the product of a confused and ill-educated mind.
It's not helpful that such worthy stores as Waterstone's, a chain of shops selling books for heaven's sake, decided to ditch the apostrophe in their name. Why? It hardly causes confusion or extra work for the sign-writer.
Please remember to ask yourself the question, when unsure about the insertion of an apostrophe: 'Does this word indicate the ownership of something (apostrophe) or is it simply stating the plural case (no apostrophe). Really quite simple, you see?

4.      Tenses.
I can get quite tense about tenses. Even journalists, particularly TV reporters, can mix these up and it really sets my teeth on edge. Reports tell us that '…the injured player was took off the pitch.' We all know, don't we, that it's '...the injured player was taken off…'? It's not difficult; or, perhaps it is, is it? And then there's the wonderful, '…all thought the boy done good.' What? Surely, even the most basic English education explains that we should say, '…all thought the boy had done well.' or, '…all thought the boy did well,' or, perhaps, '…the boy did a good job.' doesn't it? And then there's the confusion that persists about the use of such forms as 'spun/span, swum/swam, and hung/hang'. 'The spider had spun a web across the corner.' 'The car span out of control.' 'Beryl swam across the current to reach the other side.' 'Georgina has swum the Channel on three occasions.' 'I hung up my coat.' 'Will you hang up my coat, please?' But, 'The killer was hanged for murder.'
English is noted for its irregular forms. I could go on for a very long time here, but I don't wish to bore you. If in doubt about these things, buy, borrow or steal a copy of one of the many 'English Usage' guides. I use Fowler's, the Oxford Guide and Partridge's Usage and Abusage. All worth the few quid/dollars you need to spend to get it right, don't you think?

5.      Plural or Singular?
There is often some uncertainty about whether a plural or singular verb is correct usage in sentences where there appears to be more than one subject. e.g. Bread and water is too good for that prisoner. I suspect most people would agree with the singular 'is' rather than the plural 'are' here, even though we have two subjects; 'bread' and 'water'. The 'and' here engages both subjects and combines them into a single entity that is understood by readers to be a combined subject. Therefore, the singular form is correct. In any case, it sounds better. If you don't believe me, try reading both versions aloud and you'll see how the plural effort makes you squirm with discomfort.
The above is one example of a long list of similar combined subjects, where two or more terms that form the subject are, or may be, understood to be expressed as a single entity. 'Cheese and wine', 'short back and sides', 'rape and murder', 'love and kisses' and 'apple pie and custard' are all examples of such combinations. When in doubt about usage, it is the meaning that should take precedence over the form. Read it aloud and hear it; the correct version should be clear that way.
English, however, being the complex language it is, has another trick up its sleeve regarding plural and singular forms. When we write about collective or group nouns, the decision about whether to use them as plural or singular forms again arises. And the solution depends on meaning. So, you might write, The gang were all at the crime scene. When describing the actions of the individuals making up the group. But you'd write, The gang was first to arrive. When examining the action of the group as a whole.
Meaning is the paramount determiner here. I hope I've cleared rather than muddied the waters. But, if you're still unsure, let me recommend an excellent piece on this in Thomas Parrish's The Grouchy Grammarian.

6.      Dangling Modifiers.

What? A 'dangling modifier' is a phrase that's intended to explain about one subject but actually relates to another entirely, or even to none at all. We've all come across, though hopefully not written, such sentences as; Walking into the library, Karen's list of books befuddled the girl at the counter. Hardly surprising! The poor girl could rarely have witnessed a list of books walking at any other time. It was, of course, Karen who was walking, not her list of books. The sentence needs to be re-written differently; Walking into the library, Karen approached the girl at the counter and befuddled her with her list of books. Not brilliant, but it says what it means. The opening phrase now relates to the rest of the sentence.
Another? Having less knowledge than needed, the teacher sent Jones on a course designed to increase his awareness of the subject. One wonders why the teacher should have less knowledge than necessary and then send the pupil away for improvement. But, of course, the writer meant that the pupil had less knowledge and that the teacher was intent on increasing it by sending him on a course. So, the sentence would have been better written as; Having less knowledge than needed, Jones was sent on a course designed to increase his awareness of the subject. Of course, this sentence doesn't tell us that it was the teacher who sent Jones. But I'll leave it to you to modify the sentence or add another, to include that aspect.
Please don't leave your modifiers dangling; someone might come along and cut them off!

7.      Which, That or Who?
There has been, is, and will be much debate on this issue. When to use which, that or who, because, it seems, it isn't as straightforward as it may appear. The common belief is that who is used for people and that for things and never vice-versa. The which question is not commonly held to be so clear cut.
Please note; I said 'the common belief'. That doesn't make it the right one, of course.
The fact is that that can be used for people, under certain circumstances. For instance, it's perfectly correct to say, Of those members that were in attendance, all were in favour of the amendment. Similarly, it is fine to say, Are you the one that said it was my fault?
However, who should be reserved only for people. It's true that certain journals have, of late, allowed the use of who when referring to an animal, whose gender is known. But this isn't generally accepted usage and is probably best avoided.

Most commentators will agree with the above, but some will not. Because of this, it's probably best for you to decide for yourself which you will use; be consistent, though. Personally, I'd avoid using who for an animal, except in the case where I was deliberately anthropomorphising the creature referred to. I would also not use that for people, as illustrated in the sentences above. Although such usage isn't incorrect, I find it awkward and impersonal and would use who or whom in preference.
So, to the which issue. I'll make a bald statement, with which you can agree or not. Which is never, under any circumstances, used for people. The only which that refers to people is witch, which is an entirely different affair. Depending on the witch in question, I'd avoid the affair, unless of course, the witch has placed you under a spell. Which is used exclusively for inanimate objects and qualities. So, you might say, The tree, which blew down in the storm, is now dead. But you would, hopefully, never say, The robber, which took all your clothes, is a foul asset stripper. regardless of how you might feel about him. You would, of course, always use who when referring to said brigand.
I could go on at length about restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, relative pronouns and other grammatical niceties, but it isn't my purpose here to go into great depth. I'll leave that to Fowler and his ilk, to whom I refer you for such depth of treatment. My purpose is merely to raise awareness of the issues, to point out that there are issues and that it is incumbent on the writer who wishes to impress and learn the trade that such issues should be examined and taken seriously.

So, hopefully, I've provided you with food for thought and whetted your appetite for further research. If you don't own any of the grammar guides I've mentioned, I urge you to add them to your reference library.

Stuarts' Daily Word Spot: Allegory

Allegory: noun - a narrative written under the guise of another and sharing points of correspondence with it; symbolic representation; an extended metaphor; an emblem; a picture where meaning is represented symbolically.

Allegory in the visual arts is almost as old as the art form itself. I could list hundreds of examples, but will make do with just three representatives of the form: Sandro Botticelli' s Primavera, also known as Allegory of Spring, Johann Vermeer's Allegory of the Catholic Faith and Il Bronzino's Venus, Cupid, Folly and Time

In literature, there is the famous case of the 'mistaken' allegory as exemplified by JRR Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, which many critics assumed to be an allegory of WWII, in spite of Tolkien's emphatic denial of such and his assertion that he loathed the very idea of allegory.

Amongst those works that are recognised as allegory, of which there are many, a few are as follows:

Jonathan Swift's political allegory, Gulliver's Travels, William Golding's Lord of the Flies, an allegory about the conflicting forces that apply to civilisation and power, and, of course, the famously allegorical work by George Orwell. In Animal Farm the author skilfully caricatures the rise of Stalin and the follies of the communist state.

Many works of fiction contain elements of allegory and some have said that my own Breaking Faith is an allegory of good and evil. I'd argue that 'good and evil' is too wide a topic to be the subject of allegory and, in any case, is more a theme than a subject for allegory. But it is nevertheless true that many novels that are not specifically allegorical do carry an element or elements of allegory within them. Often, however, these are interpretations made by readers and critics, rather than intentional designs of the authors.

1696 - A window tax was imposed in England, causing many shopkeepers to brick up their windows to avoid the tax. It was repealed on the 24th July 1851, following much lobbying. A similar tax was imposed in France from 1798 and lasted until 1926. A real example of the wealthy law-makers being oblivious to the harm caused by thoughtless legislation on those less well-off, it was responsible for serious deterioration in living conditions for many of those who lived in poverty. The lack of light and air caused innumerable illnesses and deaths amongst the poor. Walking around England's historical urban areas it is easy to mistake some architectural devices for examples of attempts to defeat the window tax. Many windows were, or course, bricked up as a result of the imposition, but the habit of designing 'mock' windows continued long after the tax had been repealed and goes on today, with the decorative elements now used to harmonise and bring symmetry into the design of some buildings.