Paragraphs Regained

If I’d been clever enough to think of the title ‘Paragraphs Lost’ for the previous posting, putting the two titles together would have shown how brilliant and cultured I am. As it is, I didn’t, so you’ll just have to take my word for it.

Anyway, whatever its title, the said posting obviously turned out to be considerably less than gripping. That shouldn’t have surprised me. I drone on so often about absurdity being the norm that I should acknowledge that all attempts to impose structure imply meaning and so, by definition, are futile. Before we leave it, however, here’s the ‘correct’ version and some quick thoughts on why I still think it’s a valid exercise.

By ‘correct’, I mean the paragraph in its original form, which means that it’s ‘correct’ for what we wanted it to say rather than being the only possible version. Anyway, the number sequence is 7, 10, 8, 6, 1, 3, 2, 9, 4, 5, which gives you the following paragraph:

Propaganda is seen by some as a necessary evil but by others as just lies. Writers use language to expose the hypocrisy of politicians. The fact that they see themselves as having a higher goal still does not separate them from those they seek to criticize. Politicians use language to manipulate people. But the writer is just as guilty of manipulation. He has an agenda, he shapes his words to create a specific effect and, as a result, he is responsible for distorting the vision of his reader. He claims that his aims are those of society. The politicians say exactly the same thing. It would seem, therefore, that words are dangerous, whoever is using them. Language is a very powerful tool.

The specific ‘clues’ to the ‘correct’ sequencing are:

• If there’s a plural noun or pronoun – ‘writers’, ‘they’ – it can’t be followed by a sentence referring to the same set of people in the singular. (Politicians use language to manipulate people. He has an agenda.) And vice versa (The writer is just as guilty. The fact that they see themselves as having a higher goal…)
• Stylistically, repeating a word in successive sentences is awkward. (Language is a very powerful tool. Politicians use language to manipulate people.) This would obviously be better if the second occurrence was replaced by ‘it’ and the two sentences were made into one and separated by a semi-colon.

But the real object of the exercise was to suggest that, just as a novel or chapter is structured for maximum impact (you hope), so paragraphs and sentences need just as much in the way of shaping. The essence of the ‘test’ is to focus on how each sentence links with the one before it and prepares for the one after it.

Technically, a paragraph should deal with one major point. If the emphasis changes, you need to start a new one. The opening sentence establishes the theme, those which follow develop it in more detail and, you hope, lead to a powerful concluding sentence. It should do two things:

1. Present thoughts in a logical sequence
2. Link them smoothly to make your argument/narrative coherent.

If anything in a paragraph makes you lose your way or wonder what’s being referred to, it’s failed. Surprises are fine when they’re effects designed deliberately to disorientate the reader, but not when they’re the result of  lack of clarity or stylistic ugliness.

So there, and after all that, just think yourselves lucky you don’t live in Aberdeen because I’m giving two workshops there next month on creative writing and I may well do more of this sort of thing with them. But, for now, I’m going to slip out of this teacher mode and into something more comfortable. Maybe a chiffon negligee, or perhaps the story of how my weekend visit to grandsons in Glasgow added to the population of Italy a six feet two inch 6-year-old called Dib Grinch who plays basketball and sleeps upright in a cupboard.

Share |

The paragraph assembly line

I intended to write a blog about the importance of rhythms in both poetry and prose but time is pressing as usual and I need to find some good examples before I start. So this is another cop-out blog. Having just subjected you to an exercise that has probably lost me several followers, I'm going to do it again. No, the idea isn't to alienate everybody so that I can close down the blog, but some of you said you liked it, so I'm risking another one. Like the first, it's adapted from Just Write, the book I co-wrote with my friend and colleague Kathleen MacMillan and I think it's less likely than the previous one to hurt heads, sting your eyes, induce lethargy and make euthanasia seem attractive, etc. .

It's also shorter than the last one and it's writing-connected, so that's my excuse. Anyway, we wrote a paragraph which made sense, then broke it apart and listed its sentences in alphabetical order according to the initial letter of the first word in each. All you have to do this time is put them back in the right order to restore the original paragraph. I've numbered the sentences so you don't need to write them all out. If you want to make a comment you can restrict yourself to jotting down a numerical sequence that works for you. I haven't tested it to see if it's possible to produce variations of the original which still make sense and are grammatically and stylistically coherent. There may be more than one; I don't know.

So, here's the paragraph:

But the writer is just as guilty of manipulation. He claims that his aims are those of society. He has an agenda, he shapes his words to create a specific effect and, as a result, he is responsible for distorting the vision of his reader. It would seem, therefore, that words are dangerous, whoever is using them. Language is a very powerful tool. Politicians use language to manipulate people. Propaganda is seen by some as a necessary evil but by others as just lies. The fact that they see themselves as having a higher goal still does not separate them from those they seek to criticize. The politicians say exactly the same thing. Writers use language to expose the hypocrisy of politicians.

And here's the same sequence, with the sentences numbered:

1. But the writer is just as guilty of manipulation.
2. He claims that his aims are those of society.
3. He has an agenda, he shapes his words to create a specific effect and, as a result, he is responsible for distorting the vision of his reader.
4. It would seem, therefore, that words are dangerous, whoever is using them.
5. Language is a very powerful tool.
6. Politicians use language to manipulate people.
7. Propaganda is seen by some as a necessary evil but by others as just lies.
8. The fact that they see themselves as having a higher goal still does not separate them from those they seek to criticize.
9. The politicians say exactly the same thing.
10. Writers use language to expose the hypocrisy of politicians.

Share |

All is revealed

This time, the illustration shows the book I co-wrote with a friend. It has lots of examples of the sort of things I've highlighted in the awful passage I concocted for the last posting. And here’s the passage again, with the mistakes highlighted and ‘explained’ – some obvious, some less so.

Health issues in humans have always been compared with animals in the wild[1] and the balance between activity and reward, in the way of nutrition, is a vital part of the equation. It was those factors that’s[2] behind the establishment of the fitness and health survey of January 2011. As a consequence of collecting data from various social groups on their eating habits and the amount of exercise they do each week, and taking age and other fitness-related factors into account.[3] Researchers got a clearer picture of the overall population’s general attitudes to health. Less[4] people said they feel[5] satisfied with their skill sets and general fitness levels. The amount[6] of middle-aged women joining health clubs has almost doubled and much[7] of the current research projects are showing unexpected results. There’s less obesity and less[8] sweets and chocolates on the average shopping list. If we keep on seeing that much[9] more changes are being made, we’ll all need to look again at what we mean by ‘normal’. The leader of the research team, not being really sure of how effective their results would be in persuading groups and individuals in all the towns which had taken part in the survey to change their eating habits, were[10] ready to repeat the process across a wider area. Her team was[11] preparing to send out the questionnaires and, indeed, were[12] already drawing up lists of target groups. The person that[13] represented their sponsors was satisfied that the findings of the researchers were more reliable indicators of the current state of affairs than the leader of the town council[14] and the sponsors themselves were convinced that their products would soon eliminate variations in obesity levels, age-related survival rates and increasing the use of health facilities[15] by a wider range of people. Speaking at[16] the launch of the report, it was obvious that their financial director was prepared to invest even more in the project. ‘Between you and I,’[17] he told the team leader, ‘I think it’s fair to assume that your contract will certainly be extended for another year and perhaps even beyond that.’ However, none of the team were[18] surprised by his words. They knew they’d done a good job. The general consensus of opinion[19] was that thorough preparations, careful cross-checking, and a meticulous observation of research etiquette always leads[20] to client satisfaction

Don't worry, we'll get back to normal human trivial absurd things next time.

---

[1] False comparison – ‘health issues’ with ‘animals’. The correct version would be ‘compared with those of animals in the wild’.

[2] Plural subject needs a plural verb ‘Those factors that were’

[3] This isn’t a sentence. It doesn’t have a verb in it. Change the full stop after ‘account’ to a comma and ‘Researchers’ to ‘researchers’.

[4] ‘Fewer’ for things you can count, ‘less’ for things you can’t – ‘fewer people’ but ‘less obesity’.

[5] ‘said’ is past tense, so this should be too – ‘felt’.

[6] ‘Number’ for things you can count, ‘amount’ for things you can’t – ‘number of women’ but ‘amount of exercise’.

[7] ‘Many’ for things you can count, ‘much’ for things you can’t – ‘many more changes’ but ‘much more success’.

[8] See 4 above.

[9] See 4 above.

[10] The subject of this verb is ‘The leader of the research team’ so it should be singular ‘was’.

[11] See 12 below.

[12] These verbs both have the same subject ‘Her team’ should they should both be either singular or plural.

[13] If it’s a person, the pronoun should be ‘who’.

[14] False comparison as in 1 above.

[15] This is similar to the comparison errors. All the things that ‘variations in’ covers should be the same part of speech. Here, the first two are nouns – ‘obesity levels’ and ‘survival rates’ but the third is a verb. The correct version would end with ‘increases in the use of health facilities’ – another noun.

[16] This is called an unrelated (or hanging) participle. It’s a common fault. When you start a sentence with a participle (in this case, ‘speaking’), it must relate to the subject of the sentence. So this should be ‘Speaking at the launch of the report, their financial director made it obvious that he was prepared… etc.’

[17] Very, very common fault. ‘Between you and me’ is the correct form. You wouldn’t say ‘he was standing behind I’, would you? If it’s governed by a preposition, it’s always ‘me’.

[18] Another common error. Expressions such as ‘neither of them’, ‘none of them’, each of them’, etc. are singular so the verb should be singular, too – ‘none of the team was’. (That’s the correct form but, as Gilly said, it sounds wrong.)

[19] ‘Consensus’ means ‘general or widespread agreement’, so there’s no need for ‘general’ or ‘of opinion’ – ‘The consensus was that…’ is enough.

[20] This verb has a plural subject – ‘preparations… cross-checking… observation’ so it should be ‘lead’.

Share |

Your starter for 20

(The picture has nothing to do with what follows. It's just the latest of Sessha Batto's brilliant cover designs for my books - this one for the new Pfoxchase edition of The Darkness, which is available on Smashwords now. I'll write more about it soon.)

OK then, a little piece of anal retention this week. I’ve often spoken of how some writers don’t actually respect the tools of our trade. It’s OK to break grammatical and other linguistic rules AS LONG AS YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. But far too many stories, not to mention newspaper articles by people (and their sub-editors) who should definitely know better, are littered with careless errors. Most respectable agents and reviewers stress the need to make sure your copy’s been thoroughly checked before you submit it. Sending stuff that’s grammatically crude, mis-spelled and the rest is the equivalent of submitting a manuscript with coffee stains on every other page.

But some errors occur so frequently that they somehow go unnoticed. That’s why I’m offering this as a wee game. I wrote the next paragraph to illustrate some of them. As (or if) you read it, you’ll sense how ugly it is but, rather than analyse its style, I’m suggesting you identify the mistakes. There are at least 20 of them. I say ‘at least’ because typos have a way of creeping through so there may still be more than I realise. If so, my preaching is worthless and I’ll be hoist with my own petard. I’m not expecting you to write long comments about what you’ve found but it would be nice to know that you’ve had a look at it. If anyone’s interested, I’ll identify them in a future blog. (Who said I can’t do cliff-hangers?) So here it is.

Health issues in humans have always been compared with animals in the wild and the balance between activity and reward, in the way of nutrition, is a vital part of the equation. It was those factors that’s behind the establishment of the fitness and health survey of January 2011. As a consequence of collecting data from various social groups on their eating habits and the amount of exercise they do each week, and taking age and other fitness-related factors into account. Researchers got a clearer picture of the overall population’s general attitudes to health. Less people said they feel satisfied with their skill sets and general fitness levels. The amount of middle-aged women joining health clubs has almost doubled and much of the current research projects are showing unexpected results. There’s less obesity and less sweets and chocolates on the average shopping list. If we keep on seeing that much more changes are being made, we’ll all need to look again at what we mean by ‘normal’. The leader of the research team, not being really sure of how effective their results would be in persuading groups and individuals in all the towns which had taken part in the survey to change their eating habits, were ready to repeat the process across a wider area. Her team was preparing to send out the questionnaires and, indeed, were already drawing up lists of target groups. The person that represented their sponsors was satisfied that the findings of the researchers were more reliable indicators of the current state of affairs than the leader of the town council and the sponsors themselves were convinced that their products would soon eliminate variations in obesity levels, age-related survival rates and increasing the use of health facilities by a wider range of people. Speaking at the launch of the report, it was obvious that their financial director was prepared to invest even more in the project. ‘Between you and I,’ he told the team leader, ‘I think it’s fair to assume that your contract will certainly be extended for another year and perhaps even beyond that.’ However, none of the team were surprised by his words. They knew they’d done a good job. The general consensus of opinion was that thorough preparations, careful cross-checking, and a meticulous observation of research etiquette always leads to client satisfaction.

(God, that was awful.)

Share |