Sci-Fi, fantasy and speculative Indie Authors Review discussion

"In 1954, an advertising campaign for Winston cigarettes brought the debate into the public eye. Winston said their cigarettes tasted good “like a cigarette should,” and language lovers were outraged because the ad should have said, their cigarettes tasted good “as a cigarette should.”

I remember this controversy, and that Winston loved it. I think it sparked an entire genre of ad designed to catch the eye of the Grammar Police. But should writers avoid using "like" as a conjunction (because it isn't), or should we all just accept that bad grammar sometimes becomes standard practice and that "like" may by now indeed be considered a conjunction? Two recent books I've read by major novelists (Dan Brown and Elmore Leonard) used it as a conjunction. Elmore Leonard went one step further with "different than" instead of "different from"—also bad grammar.

I'll never use these things in my writing except possibly in dialogue, but should we all just accept these usages and move on? To this point in my book reviews I've called it bad grammar, but am I just being picky? What are your thoughts?

D.R. wrote: "Language is a living, growing creature. What determines good grammar and how long does it last?"

I've long been under the impression (maybe I'm mistaken?) that language had to have grammar rules or it becomes unintelligible. Good grammar is grammar that follows those rules. How long it lasts, or how long certain parts of it last, is what I'm trying to determine with my question.

There are certain aspects of our morphing language that I can tolerate. 'Like' as a conjunction? Fine, whatever. Like as a filler word that appears before every verb? Not so much.

I also can't tolerate that literally now means figuratively AND literally.

...Or that reiterate or proactive are even words, but those battles are lost.

If you want to take the bad grammar to the extreme, read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Better yet, try reading it aloud - it will drive you nuts. But the 1st person perspective is from a man raised on Luna where the language is a gutterspeak mish-mash of English and Spanish and who knows what.

Brilliant book, however.

Ken wrote: "D.R. wrote: "I've long been under the impression (maybe I'm mistaken?) that language had to have grammar rules or it becomes unintelligible."

I actually agree with that to an extent. However the test would be...did anyone ever really not understand “like a cigarette should" or "different than?"

In the former case it is technically grammatically incorrect. Yet that form has become very common in actual usage, which indicates that language is changing and eventually it will probably be seen as OK.

In the latter case, ("different than" vs "different from") I have yet to see any criticism of the deviant forms, for lack of a better word, other than "different from is the preferred form." That doesn't sound like a rule, it sounds like a preference.

And anyway, if the rules of grammar were ever so hard and fast (they weren't) we'd have only one style guide, rather than the multiple ones in use today.

Ken wrote: "I've read by major novelists (Dan Brown and Elmore Leonard) used it as a conjunction. Elmore Leonard went one step further with "different than" instead of "different from"—also bad grammar."

This too makes me believe both of the listed issues aren't considered huge mistakes these days. Both of these authors will have used professional editors. Elmore Leonard, in particular, is lauded as something of a saint of proper form. His clean, unembellished, minimalism and his own list of rules of writing are legendary.

Micah wrote: "This too makes me believe both of the listed issues aren't considered huge mistakes these days. Both of these authors will have used professional editors. Elmore Leonard, in particular, is lauded as something of a saint of proper form. His clean, unembellished, minimalism and his own list of rules of writing are legendary...."

That's basically why I asked the question. My own writing will continue to be as grammatically correct as I can make it, but maybe I should stop calling other writers on it when I do reviews. Still not sure.

W. wrote: "If you want to take the bad grammar to the extreme, read Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Better yet, try reading it aloud - it will drive you nuts. But the 1st person ..."

I did read that book. It takes awhile to get used to, but I liked it even though I'm not that big of a Heinlein fan.

W. wrote: "...Or that reiterate or proactive are even words, but those battles are lost..."

I'll second that proactive atrocity. When one of my co-workers used it, I asked him what it meant (being facetious). He said "active." I said something like, "Should've said that instead" He wasn't happy.

A point I think is often lost in discussions of "good grammar" is that grammatical speech is often a pretty lousy way to express things. It's great for writing technical reports, since these reports serve no purpose but to convey technical info clearly and succinctly. But it's pretty useless for poetry. So to argue that fiction should (always) be grammatical is to argue that poetry is (more or less) without worth.

There are many things fiction can (and should) express for which "good grammar" is ill-suited, and at such times, the grammatical rules need to get booted out the window.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpEEK...

Reminds me of Carol Pilbasian from Lat Man on Earth. Not appropriate for kids, but the show is hilarious and she is a grammar fascist.

Ken wrote: "I'll second that proactive atrocity. When one of my co-workers used it, I asked him what it meant (being facetious). He said "active." I said something like, "Should've said that instead" He wasn't happy."

That sounds more to me like your coworker didn't fully explain the meaning of proactive. It may be a new word, but I've always taken it to mean taking action to prevent or expedite an effect, or simply,the opposite of reactive. I would argue that while you can get your point across with active, proactive drives it home.

Besides, adding pro, de, re, post, retro, semi, etc to any word to change the meaning is kind of the main function of these 'words.'

Literally making my head explode in frustration drives home a point too, but it doesn't make it right. :)

Christina wrote: " I would argue that while you can get your point across with active, proactive drives it home.
..."

"Irregardless" drives the point home, too. Sorry, ain't using it.

Christina wrote: " I would argue that while you can get your point across with active, proactive drives it home."

I agree that the co-worker example is just a case of someone using the word incorrectly. Active and proactive are very different things.

Active is simply participating in an action or activity.

Proactive is "controlling a situation by making things happen or by preparing for possible future problems."

The difference is the intent of the action. If it is mere participation, it's "active;" if it's an action performed in order to force an outcome or prevent a less desirable reactive action, then it's "proactive."

Another that's used improperly a lot is "moot."

Moot is often used to mean irrelevant or a closed matter, when it actually means debatable.

A moot point is one that is open to argument, not one where the matter is closed.

Though the OED does also give the most common American usage of the word, too: "2. N. Amer. (orig. Law). Of a case, issue, etc.: having no practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic. Now the usual sense in North America."

So...just don't use it to mean a settled matter.

Micah wrote: "Another that's used improperly a lot is "moot."

Moot is often used to mean irrelevant or a closed matter, when it actually means debatable.

A moot point is one that is open to argument, not one w..."

And then some thoroughly confused individual will always tell you it's a mute point.

I prefer a moo point. As Joey said on Friends, "A moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter."

Ken wrote: "And then some thoroughly confused individual will always tell you it's a mute point."

At which point civilized society ends.

Christina wrote: "I prefer a moo point. As Joey said on Friends, "A moo point. It's like a cow's opinion. It doesn't matter.""

LOL I totally forgot about that.

Micah wrote: "Ken wrote: "And then some thoroughly confused individual will always tell you it's a mute point."

At which point civilized society ends."

HA!

I had a boss who told me I had to get my reports done before the end of the physical year, instead of the fiscal year. He also pronounced the name Gonzales with the accent on the first syllable.

Micah wrote: "At which point civilized society ends."

As Seinfeld said to George, "Hey! We're trying to have a civilization here!" I'm pretty sure that if we ever had one it peaked sometime around 1964, and we've been coasting downhill ever since.

I had a boss that shouted "Viola!" when something went right for him. I never told him it should have been "Voila!". I got a kick from it. I think quirky things people say are fun.

Viola! I'm going to start using that.

A friend of mine who came to the US from Boliva when he was like 13 could never say the word harpsichord. He pronounced it "harp-is-chord." Come to think of it he also said "Back" instead of "Bach."

In his Bolivian accent it was pretty cute.

Roger wrote: "I had a boss that shouted "Viola!" when something went right for him. I never told him it should have been "Voila!". I got a kick from it. I think quirky things people say are fun."

I know that's from a movie, but darned if I can remember which one now. So it's likely that was intentional. Spelling it Walla, however, is not acceptable.

The misuse of "prodigal" drives me crazy. It's definition is "recklessly wasteful." Because of the parable of the Prodigal Son, so many people think it means a person who leaves and then comes back. But he was a prodigal son because he demanded his inheritance early and spent it all.

True story: I had no idea what prodigal meant, but being raised Catholic, I'd heard the parable at a very early age. I heard it as the Prodigal's son and assumed the father in the story was a Prodigal, which was *clearly* (to my five or six year old self) one of those other religions, like Protestant or Episcopalian.

That's awesome.

The prodigal story reminds me of my English prof who recalled his childhood misunderstanding of a Christian prayer. The way he heard it made a lot of sense to him, given the noise and confusion there: and lead us not into Penn Station

Ah yes! The same prayer in which I learned god's name was Howard:

Our father, who art in heaven. Howard be thy name.

Ken wrote: "Irregardless" drives the point home, too. Sorry, ain't using it."

As much as I dislike proactive, Christina and Micah are correct: it has a perfectly valid and distinct meaning. I don't like it because it's a buzzword, hence people (like that co-worker) don't actually know what it means.

"Irregardless" has no such virtue. At best, it's a bit like people piling negatives into a sentence to make it "more" negative, unaware of the logical consequences.

Micah wrote: "Another that's used improperly a lot is "moot."

As a historical note (if I recall correctly), the Moot (or moots?) was an Anglo-Saxon assembly that foregathered to debate items of law or policy. After the Norman conquest, the Moot was still allowed to meet and debate, but the Norman overlords, of course, paid no attention to the outcome. In time, a debatable matter that had become irrelevant was said to be "mooted": debate might still be possible, but pointless. So yes, not closed or settled.

I do, however, very much like "moo point".

Ken wrote: " I'm pretty sure that if we ever had one it peaked sometime around 1964, and we've been coasting downhill ever since."

Personally, I tend to think it's been sliding ever since they poisoned Socrates.

Proactive to me means "preemptive action." And it's the lazy, pop-culture way of saying it. I would probably have accepted the word if it hadn't been so overused by people who try so hard to be cool so you won't notice how worthless they are so society, like TV journalists and news anchor-persons. Every person I saw using it seemed to be fake.

To me, there are two sets of standards. In my narrative voice, I'm trying to reflect the language I myself use, British 20th-century, nothing trendy. I believe that attempts to write a future sci-fi voice (like in Clockwork Orange, or the aforementioned TMIAHM) fail horribly. So I wouldn't use "different from" or its ilk, because they are at best American, or at worst wrong. Dialog(ue) is tougher though. My characters are probably speaking something derived from Euro-English, spoken today in northern Europe, but developed over decades in space.
If I truly tried to predict what that would be like, I'd be totally incomprehensible to readers (even more than I already am), so I try to introduce a minimum of differences from my narrative voice, make it a little more informal, but use the same standards of "correctness."
One of my problems is in referring to acceleration, something we seldom do on Earth. The convention in sci-fi and science writing is to use "gee" - a unit based on the gravity of Earth. I'm thinking my characters are deliberately distancing themselves from Earth, so they wouldn't like that. The alternative is metres per second squared, which is so ponderous as to be unusable, and (like gee) too large a unit to be practical in the low gravity fields of asteroids. So I end up using "millimetres," a contraction of millimetres per second squared, and explaining it in the glossary. Similarly, I refer to all forms of acceleration as "gravity," regardless of whether it comes from spin, drive or real gravity. People just wouldn't care about the difference.
I'm rambling, I know. But the point for me is that grammar must not stand out for my readers, because I'm hitting them with so much more worrying stuff.
Oddly, most of my readers are in the States, and I'm probably puzzling them because my British English looks wrong. Too late to re-educate, I think.

Richard wrote: "I believe that attempts to write a future sci-fi voice (like in Clockwork Orange..."

Oh, thems is fightin' words. I take umbrage. No, I take Umbridge. Dolores Umbridge.

I'm taking a stand on this proactive thing (as I sit here safely on my duff). Action is preemptive in nature. Action and reaction are opposites. To say that there is a difference between active and proactive is to say there is something other than acting or reacting. There is: it's called doing nothing.

When somebody goes into a business to shoot up his former colleagues, they call it an ACTIVE shooter, not a proactive shooter. When directors are shooting movies, they don't call for PROaction; they call 'action'. You don't make a call to proaction, or do physical proactivity.

Proactive is a buzzword for the boardroom, that's all. It gets legitimacy from overuse, like reiterating statements instead of iterating them.

W. wrote: "Proactive is a buzzword for the boardroom, that's all. It gets legitimacy from overuse, like reiterating statements instead of iterating them. ..."

In my experience it;s the opposite: it's overuse that makes it a buzzword, which leads to the word being misused and ignored. This happens all the time. They they delegitimized "empowerment" so the new buzzword is "agency". "Agency" will likely go the way of "empowerment" here in time.

I'm afraid I have to disagree about reiterating vs iterating. They have different senses and "reiterate" may enjoy primacy -- they both date from the 14-15th century, and reiterate may be older.

You looked that up. :)

Thinking of God as a 'Howard' changes so many things.

Thinking of God as a 'Howard' changes so many things.

W. wrote: "When somebody goes into a business to shoot up his former colleagues, they call it an ACTIVE shooter, not a proactive shooter. When directors are shooting movies, they don't call for PROaction; they call 'action'. You don't make a call to proaction, or do physical proactivity."

Right. An active shooter is someone who is at that moment, in the act of shooting up an office.

However...

Had management been proactive in taking measures to prevent an active shooter, they would not have had to react to the tragic situation.

Christina wrote: "Our father, who art in heaven. Howard be thy name."

Our father, who art in heaven, Howard be thy name.
Thy King Dons come... (look it up if you don't know)

W. wrote: "You looked that up. :)"

Research is what I do... ; )

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Management could have easily taken actions to stop the shooter.

I can't help how you read it, I can only tell you logically and linguistically that you only have two words: active and reactive. The make-believe word "proactive" now gives you the option of conflating words like active and reactive in much the same way somebody conflates literally and figuratively, but it doesn't change the fact that, before there was proactive, there was active, and it worked!

Management took active steps to put in place security gates, metal detectors, and machine gun turret defense platforms to stop the shooter. There. It's the same thing, but with a real word.

I feel like I'm at a manager's meeting all over again. Of course, when my manager told me that, in addition to being proactive, I needed to have "omnipresence" at work (another office buzz word), I told him the only one who is omnipresent is GOD. That ended the discussion rather abruptly. :)

Every single word, in every single language, ever...

...is a made up word.

And to expand on my somewhat trollish post above:

The number of 'legitimate' words is not static. Back in the early days we had a couple of grunts that meant things like, "Ogg hunt." and "Groc gather." But then Ugg came along with the magic of fire and a new word was needed. This happens constantly. As we evolve and the world around us becomes more complex, we require more words and sometimes it's just easier to give a new definition to a word we already have.

Like, for example, may be incorrect as a comparison, but it is now acceptable. What is also acceptable is the use of like as a noun. I gave you a 'like' on Facebook. Is it proper, no, technically not, but it is accepted and widely used.

Arguing against the evolution of language seems especially silly when we all stop and realize we are arguing against change on a board for SCIFI, SPEC, and FANTASY authors. Think about that for a moment.

Good point. I still hate it and refuse to use it. :)

Hostile toward a word is fine. Hostile toward somebody you don't know on a thread? I think this is where I say have a good night.

Christina's comments about the evolution of language were spot on, in my opinion. The only 'incorrect' English is where it is misleading or unintentionally offensive.

Here's the occurrence graph for 'proactive' - from Collins. It's had a couple of generations in use.

Richard wrote: "Christina's comments about the evolution of language were spot on, in my opinion. The only 'incorrect' English is where it is misleading or unintentionally offensive.

Here's the occurrence graph f..."

Didn't realize that longevity was the critical factor for establishing a word as authentic. So now we can use "y'all" and "ain't" in the Ominiscent Author's voice? And what will that do to the sterling reputation of indy authors? If "like" can now be used as a conjunction, it still sounds amateurish if overused. I'm sorry, but "different from" is correct, wherever you were born. I wouldn't use "different than" even in dialogue. And "different to" is in another world altogether. http://dictionary.reference.com/help/...