Good stuff

[slaymesoftly]

Fly by post of two urls that lead to some good advice on writing sex scenes and other action scenes with wandering body parts. It's good information, and I encourage you to read it, whether you write or beta. However, being the contrary person that I am, I would say to take some of it with a grain of salt. Now, the poor woman who wrote in to the

Comments

[diebirchen]

I'd never use it in any event. The character said something that sounded like "would've." The written word reproduces what they said, and both versions sound essentially the same. I take it back -- not never. If it was in a character's written note reproduced in the text, then yes, it should be reproduced as written. But as a representation of speech, uh-uh, or at least I wouldn't. That sort of character would be probably be more likely to say "woulda," and since it's distinct in sound, I'd write it that way. I do that sort of thing only to reproduce the sound of the speech: "Gol dern it! 'M jus' axing if'n yer comin' or not. I woulda waited fer ya."

Wha'cha think,
:-)

[slaymesoftly]

I admit, I'm more likely to see and notice it when it's written out that way, but I'm sure I've heard people say it in a way that makes it sound like two separate words. I'm not particular how it's written in dialogue as long it's appropriate for that character to not know to say it correctly. For instance, say the character was wanting to emphasize it for some reason: "If I'd known you wanted me to do that, I would of!" Xander said. Whereas, Giles, of course, would have used "would have" in that same sentence. Actually, Giles probably would say "..... I would have done so." LOL

[amyxaphania]

Something I've seen a few times lately, and not something that would ever have occurred to me... people using the phrase 'for all intensive purposes' in place of 'for all intents and purposes'. I've seen it on two separate forums and it left me wondering if it's a common misconception.

[slaymesoftly]

I believe it is. I think I did a post on it (and some other similar misconceptions), but it may be that I just linked to a site that listed things like that. I don't remember now. If you're seeing it a lot, maybe it's time for a repost. :) Feel free to make it a post. All members are welcome to post to the community when they have something to talk about.

[eowyn_315]

Hmmm, I agree with some of the examples but disagree with others, haha. "Her eyes flew across the room" sounds fine to me, because it's clear that it's metaphorical. I might use "her gaze" instead of eyes to make it clearer, but it's probably fine as is. Ditto for “Her fingers raked through the hair on his chest” and "His feet pounded the path

[slaymesoftly]

Those were the ones that bothered me too. Apparently "eyes across the room" is irritating to editors, but it seems perfectly fine to me and I don't think any would actually picture flying eyeballs. I wish the articles had more examples of impossibilities to help writers realize how often they should think twice about some of their more colorful writing. :)

[eowyn_315]

Heh, yeah. I've had authors do things like attributing feelings to body parts or making it sound like body parts are moving of their own accord. I'd post examples, but I don't want to embarrass anyone...

[petzipellepingo]

This is rather off topic but I would like to remind people that depending on SpellCheck isn't always the way to go. In the past two days I've run across articles published in established media with errors that SpellCheck just wouldn't notice.

For example : in a recipe the world "pealed" was used inside of "peeled" and since they are both spelled correctly, it wouldn't be caught. And yet a "pealed apple" doesn't exist but a "peeled apple" does. Ditto for a horse "cantor" instead of a horse "canter".

[slaymesoftly]

*nods* I think spell check is responsible for a lot of the mistakes that have become so common in published works. You'd think people would have noticed and learned not to count on it by now, but apparently not. I try to teach the kids I get not to take everything spell check or word's grammar advice as gospel, but it's a losing battle.

[alwaysjbj]

Ditto for a horse "cantor" instead of a horse "canter".

ROFL I'm now picturing a horse with its yarmulke on signing prayers.

[pensnest]

I remember having fun with the wandering body parts thing. Lemme see if I can find it.... Here we are:

Chris removed the large, eager hand from his own crotch, flung it back to Justin, [Author's Note #3:It would be narratively inconvenient to confirm at this point that the hand in question was indeed Justin Timberlake’s, and not a random severed limb left over from another, more sordid, story, but the reader may rest assured that this was indeed the case.] and swung himself out of the gigantic bed. “I’ll pass,” he hissed, and stomped towards the door.

It was, I should note, a somewhat cracked story with several authorial interpolations.

A firm ditto on the would've business. Harrumph.