The contraction faction
Mar. 20th, 2004 09:50 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gwynSorry -- day got a way from me yesterday -- sunshine in Seattle! the garden beckoned.
Back when I first started this, I talked about apostrophes, particularly the apostrophe s possessive misunderstanding. But there are other uses for the apostrophe, especially in contractions.
Most of us actually know how to use contractions (I say most, because of course, probably all of us have come across the fan typists who either have never heard of a contraction, or where to put the apostrophe), so there’s (there is) probably no misunderstanding about them, right? Well, moooostly. But not totally. With contractions, it usually isn’t (is not) the actual placement of the apostrophe that’s the problem, it’s the words themselves, and how sometimes amateur writers avoid using them altogether.
The single greatest sign to me that the writer whose work I’m (I am) looking at is not an experienced or knowledgeable writer is lack of contractions. Most of the documentation I’d (I would) get from my client at work would never show contractions where they should be, and much of the fan writing I see from newbies uses an oddly formal and inappropriate style, especially in dialog -- because people talk in contractions.
As an example, when I was working on the employee newsletter for a company years ago, our president decided he wanted to start having a President’s Message each month. He wanted to write it and just have me edit it, rather than ghostwrite, as those usually are. When I touched up the copy, the communications staff had a meeting where we tried to figure out what was wrong with the piece -- it sounded stiff, unfriendly, odd. Finally we figured out that there were no contractions. It came across as distant and so formal it wouldn’t (would not) connect with employees.
And this sort of thing happens a lot in fanfic. I can’t count how many times I see characters speaking in these weird, formal styles they never would use, because the writer doesn’t (does not) really understand how to use contractions, and when. See how different these pairs of sentences feel if you read them out loud:
“It is times like these, mate, when I do not know why I should not just kill you,” Spike said to Xander.
“It’s times like these, mate, when I don’t know why I shouldn't just kill you,” Spike said to Xander.
“We cannot find the murder weapon. I am mystified,” Jim said.
“We can’t find the murder weapon. I’m mystified,” Jim said.
You can see how strangely stiff those first sentences are, yet it’s something I see all the time. I’m honestly not sure if people just don’t hear the words as they appear, or if they truly believe that writing should use formal, stiff constructions to be appropriate. I do know that some people think contractions are too informal, especially in technical documentation, but I disagree -- people are so used to hearing them that they’re (they are) a part of the aural landscape, as well as our visual landscape when we read. By all means, keep contractions out for times when you need the character to be speaking more formally (Giles is an excellent example, in that he often spoke more formally than others around him, especially when making points), but consider using them the rest of the time. Your prose will come across more naturally, and your dialog will definitely sound more like a real person talking.
Most of us know the common contractions -- don’t (do not), can’t (cannot), won’t (will not). But here’s (here is) a list of some that cause a few problems for folks:
let’s (for let us; using lets without an apostrophe means allows)
it’s (means it is; if you’re talking about something possessing something else, then you want its. This one will get you into lots of trouble with nitpickers, so it’s a helpful one to memorize -- if you get confused, just ask yourself if the word you want means it is when spelled out.)
you’re (means you are; the other version, your, is what you use when describing something owned by another person. “You’re too stupid to know your own name.”)
they’re (stands for they are. Do not confuse this with their, the possessive form of they, or there, meaning that place yonder. This is *the* most hated error made by people who don’t know the mechanics of writing, so spend a little time learning this contraction, and you’ll be loved and adored by millions.)
I’d (this is a toughie because it can mean either I had or I would, so it’s often a good idea to just spell it out all the way, if you need to be clear. Really avoid using I’d’ve for I would have.)
You get the idea -- take a look at some formally published work, and you’ll (you will) see how these things look on the page. I keep trying to recommend reading good literature to see how good writing is handled on a page; with contractions, I think that’s (that is) one of the best exercises you can do.
And a word about strange, longer contractions such as where’ve and would’ve (where have and would have) and so on: unless you’re really sure you know what you’re doing, avoid these if you can. Even though in speech we say would’ve, there seems to be a popular and irritating conviction that it’s written out as would of (or where’ve). Now, think about it: what the hell would would of mean? These two words in conjunction with each other are nonsense, yet so many people think it’s would of because would’ve kind of vaguely sounds like that, that it could drive an editor to drink. It has, in fact, driven me to drink. Even if the character you’re writing would probably think it’s would of, just avoid it. You’ll only perpetuate a pretty annoying problem, and it doesn’t really add anything to the dialog as written, because we tend to fill in speech patterns anyway, so if we know a character has an unsophisticated style, we kind of place that on the dialog as we read.
This construction drove me batshit throughout Cormac McCarthy’s All the Pretty Horses, and I’ve seen a few really good fan writers use would of and where of as a dialog device to assist characterization, but I would really discourage people from using it. Just because that’s what folks think it is, doesn’t mean we have to play into that. I always preach tolerance because language is changing all the time, but this is one place I’m not tolerant. Stick with where have and would have, and you’ll always be good -- no one can really come back at you and accuse you of not knowing how to write, even if the reason you used the contractions (or god forbid, would of) was for characterization. (I have a very long piece about writing in dialect that will come up later once I revise it for this audience, but that’s my anti-dialect statement for now.)
Back when I first started this, I talked about apostrophes, particularly the apostrophe s possessive misunderstanding. But there are other uses for the apostrophe, especially in contractions.
Most of us actually know how to use contractions (I say most, because of course, probably all of us have come across the fan typists who either have never heard of a contraction, or where to put the apostrophe), so there’s (there is) probably no misunderstanding about them, right? Well, moooostly. But not totally. With contractions, it usually isn’t (is not) the actual placement of the apostrophe that’s the problem, it’s the words themselves, and how sometimes amateur writers avoid using them altogether.
The single greatest sign to me that the writer whose work I’m (I am) looking at is not an experienced or knowledgeable writer is lack of contractions. Most of the documentation I’d (I would) get from my client at work would never show contractions where they should be, and much of the fan writing I see from newbies uses an oddly formal and inappropriate style, especially in dialog -- because people talk in contractions.
As an example, when I was working on the employee newsletter for a company years ago, our president decided he wanted to start having a President’s Message each month. He wanted to write it and just have me edit it, rather than ghostwrite, as those usually are. When I touched up the copy, the communications staff had a meeting where we tried to figure out what was wrong with the piece -- it sounded stiff, unfriendly, odd. Finally we figured out that there were no contractions. It came across as distant and so formal it wouldn’t (would not) connect with employees.
And this sort of thing happens a lot in fanfic. I can’t count how many times I see characters speaking in these weird, formal styles they never would use, because the writer doesn’t (does not) really understand how to use contractions, and when. See how different these pairs of sentences feel if you read them out loud:
“It is times like these, mate, when I do not know why I should not just kill you,” Spike said to Xander.
“It’s times like these, mate, when I don’t know why I shouldn't just kill you,” Spike said to Xander.
“We cannot find the murder weapon. I am mystified,” Jim said.
“We can’t find the murder weapon. I’m mystified,” Jim said.
You can see how strangely stiff those first sentences are, yet it’s something I see all the time. I’m honestly not sure if people just don’t hear the words as they appear, or if they truly believe that writing should use formal, stiff constructions to be appropriate. I do know that some people think contractions are too informal, especially in technical documentation, but I disagree -- people are so used to hearing them that they’re (they are) a part of the aural landscape, as well as our visual landscape when we read. By all means, keep contractions out for times when you need the character to be speaking more formally (Giles is an excellent example, in that he often spoke more formally than others around him, especially when making points), but consider using them the rest of the time. Your prose will come across more naturally, and your dialog will definitely sound more like a real person talking.
Most of us know the common contractions -- don’t (do not), can’t (cannot), won’t (will not). But here’s (here is) a list of some that cause a few problems for folks:
let’s (for let us; using lets without an apostrophe means allows)
it’s (means it is; if you’re talking about something possessing something else, then you want its. This one will get you into lots of trouble with nitpickers, so it’s a helpful one to memorize -- if you get confused, just ask yourself if the word you want means it is when spelled out.)
you’re (means you are; the other version, your, is what you use when describing something owned by another person. “You’re too stupid to know your own name.”)
they’re (stands for they are. Do not confuse this with their, the possessive form of they, or there, meaning that place yonder. This is *the* most hated error made by people who don’t know the mechanics of writing, so spend a little time learning this contraction, and you’ll be loved and adored by millions.)
I’d (this is a toughie because it can mean either I had or I would, so it’s often a good idea to just spell it out all the way, if you need to be clear. Really avoid using I’d’ve for I would have.)
You get the idea -- take a look at some formally published work, and you’ll (you will) see how these things look on the page. I keep trying to recommend reading good literature to see how good writing is handled on a page; with contractions, I think that’s (that is) one of the best exercises you can do.
And a word about strange, longer contractions such as where’ve and would’ve (where have and would have) and so on: unless you’re really sure you know what you’re doing, avoid these if you can. Even though in speech we say would’ve, there seems to be a popular and irritating conviction that it’s written out as would of (or where’ve). Now, think about it: what the hell would would of mean? These two words in conjunction with each other are nonsense, yet so many people think it’s would of because would’ve kind of vaguely sounds like that, that it could drive an editor to drink. It has, in fact, driven me to drink. Even if the character you’re writing would probably think it’s would of, just avoid it. You’ll only perpetuate a pretty annoying problem, and it doesn’t really add anything to the dialog as written, because we tend to fill in speech patterns anyway, so if we know a character has an unsophisticated style, we kind of place that on the dialog as we read.
This construction drove me batshit throughout Cormac McCarthy’s All the Pretty Horses, and I’ve seen a few really good fan writers use would of and where of as a dialog device to assist characterization, but I would really discourage people from using it. Just because that’s what folks think it is, doesn’t mean we have to play into that. I always preach tolerance because language is changing all the time, but this is one place I’m not tolerant. Stick with where have and would have, and you’ll always be good -- no one can really come back at you and accuse you of not knowing how to write, even if the reason you used the contractions (or god forbid, would of) was for characterization. (I have a very long piece about writing in dialect that will come up later once I revise it for this audience, but that’s my anti-dialect statement for now.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 10:08 am (UTC)As for fanfic, I cannot tell you how many times I see it's and you're/your misused. Drives me batty, especially in fiction that is otherwise pretty good. Makes me think the writer needs a new beta.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-21 09:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 12:06 pm (UTC)Do you have quite a mild climate in Seattle -- does your garden survive the winter? (I keep thinking of your Heliotrope.)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-21 10:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 12:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 12:24 pm (UTC)And, I made an icon based on your I write pseudo-porn comment. It's yours if you want it ;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-03-21 10:12 am (UTC)re the apostrophe on things like CDs and such -- there are two things at work. One is sheer ignorance, because most people just don't understand how to use an apostrophe, and so they put it in places they *think* it should go, but normally may not. Let's face it, learning grammar and punctuation aren't easy, and we teach them so badly that it makes it even worse.
the other thing is that, as Unovis notes below, in some environments that started because there was no way to denote the lower-cased s (heads used to often be in all caps), so plurals of capital letters end up with an apostrophe (this is addressed in the main journalistic stylebook, the Associated Press). I think most people, too, got used to seeing that, and thought it was "correct" -- which is why I always try to focus on misunderstandings and confusion, because correct can really be in the eye of the beholder.
I won't say it doesn't make me nuts. But I know of someone who literally went nuts trying to correct those things on public signs, so... brrrr. Don't want to go there. The one that gets me every time though is years -- it's '70s, not 70's (mostly). The apostrophe stands in the the missing 19, but try to convince people of that. I hear Psycho violin music whenever I see that.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 01:19 pm (UTC)Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for mentioning the of/have thing. It makes me insane, and I see it all the time--including in professional stuff.
no subject
Date: 2004-03-21 10:17 am (UTC)I understand the temptation -- *they* know what's right and wrong, and they assume their audience does, but it adds dialect and speech pattern flavor, or something, so they do this to convey character. But I wish it wouldn't happen this way -- because most people *don't* know what's really going on here, and so they think it's correct or accurate, and then perpetuate it... and they told two friends...
How can newbie wannabe writers learn to be better if they can't trust the good literature writers out there?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 03:10 pm (UTC)You probably know that the apostrophe on a plural is sometimes called the grocer's apostrophe, because it shows up so often on things like "apple's, $2/lb." (or, as tiashome said, on "CD's 10% off")?
no subject
Date: 2004-03-20 05:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-21 10:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-03-22 09:55 am (UTC)So, um, ::bats eyelashes engagingly:: how would you feel about setting up a conversation at the Ford about grammar, and including your posts? All the writers there would be glad to talk about this sort of thing, and I think it would be a useful resource.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 02:22 pm (UTC)I wish I knew how valid the theory behind our old standard really is. If I had any kind of data to back up an argument, I'd lead a crusade for contractions.
Anyway, this is out of the blue, I realize, but hello and I hope you are well.
no subject
Date: 2004-04-09 04:20 pm (UTC)Because most people, I've found over the years doing localization for int'l printing, have enough English skills to understand and recognize contractions. They might not be able to make them themselves, but they seem to get them when they're written or spoken by others. Hmmm... if we can find data, you could ride up on a big horse in shining armor, and tell them you're leading the crusade for contractions.