BRAINPAN LEAKAGE

It’s interesting what you can find when you are randomly surfing the net.

Say, for instance, you are running down something that someone told you about, so you type in some logical, key search phrases. You don’t necessarily find the thing said individual was talking about, but you might just find something equally interesting (or disturbing, as the case may be).

That would be what happened to me today.

You see, I was chasing down something I had been told about a movie someone had seen. They told me that in the credits it has said “Based on the Rowan Gant Investigations Series by M. R. Sellars.” Well, having never received any sort of royalty check for such I was interested in finding out if this was true. As it turns out, I have been unable to find this movie (the person couldn’t remember the title), nor have I been able to find anything remotely indicating that such exists. What I did find, however, was a rather interesting blog.

Now… In the interest of not getting sued for unauthorized linking, I will simply put the URL here and if you are so inclined you can cut and paste it.

taac.us//blogs/Jennings/2007/06/13/wiccan-truths-can-be-found-closer-to-home

You will, of course, want to preface that with a www.

I suppose I found this particular blog interesting because it is about me, and the Rowan Gant Investigations. On top of that, it is written by Father Jennings of The Ancient Apostolic Communion, that being a new Independent denomination in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ.

First off, I was surprised to find that Father Jennings had taken the time to read a book in the RGI series. He comments about the particular antagonist being featured in two books, however his commentary starts with something on the order of “Reading THE book in M. R. Sellars’…” (I capped the THE, not him…However, I am left wondering at the choice of THE over A, or even the and the plural, BOOKS…Oh well, in his blog he wonders about me as well, so I guess we are even.)

So…Father Jennings first seems to have a bit of an issue with my departure from “standard” literary conventions– those mentioned being punctuation and capitalization. I have no problem with that. It puts me in a category with one of my favorite, recently deceased authors, Kurt Vonnegut. He eschewed standard literary convention as well, choosing to create punctuation (such as I sometimes do with the ?! found in my books) and to use non-standard capitalization for emphasis (this is the item that seemed to set Father Jennings on edge the most). As a side note to Father Jennings, I hate to burst your bubble, but most novelists do take license with some of the conventions. And, we have these things called style sheets…

The first MAJOR thing Father Jennings takes issue with, however, is that I never explain “why” Rowan is Wiccan. He goes on to outline that if Rowan were Catholic, it wouldn’t be a problem since it is so close to Protestant Christianity that it would simply be accepted by the reader without question. However, since he is Wiccan, apparently the reader is owed an explanation as to what drove him to that faith.

I thought that to be just a bit amusing.

No, I am not poking fun at Father Jennings. I actually enjoyed his blog. It is well thought out and intelligent. However, I still find this observation of his amusing. Why? Because I don’t make a habit of asking people “why” they became Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Asatru, Secular Humanist, Agnostic, Atheist, or even Wiccan. I simply accept the fact that they are (if I happen to find out, because I don’t make a habit of asking a persons religion either). I also simply accept that they chose the path which best enlightened them spiritually. Perhaps I am a bit behind the curve with that, but the truth is I believe all religions should co-exist in some sort of harmony. I don’t hold any belief that such will happen in my lifetime, but for some of us we look upon religion as a personal quest, and our faith as something which bears no explaining to anyone but ourselves.

However, the good Father points out that one reason it is easy to accept someone being Christian is that they are born into it. Well, in the very first book of the RGI series, Harm None, Rowan points out that his Mother was a Witch. So, following his logic, it has been explained. Of course, I suppose that means I need to write a prequel explaining WHY Rowan’s Mother was drawn to the Craft, but I won’t go there…

Secondly, Father Jennings points out that the Christians portrayed in my books are all so narrow minded they can look through a keyhole with both eyes. Father, I love that metaphor! Reminds me of some of my own. Either way, this is not something I take issue with either. Truth is, he probably hasn’t read ALL of the books, because not EVERY Christian is portrayed as such. However, YES, some of them are. The one he points out most prominently is the ANTAGONIST. Well, you know, there is this thing called CONFLICT. Conflict makes a story and drives a book. Since the antagonist in the volume he references is Christian, and bent on reviving the Inquisition, it simply wouldn’t do for him to be generally accepting of other faiths, IMHO. It should also be noted that the antagonist is NOT portrayed as a typical Christian, but as a very disturbed sociopath. I also seem to recall Rowan  (remember him – the Wiccan?) points out far more benign meanings behind scripture than what the antagonist skews it to be.

Sooooo…this leads me to Father Jennings question of my personal open-mindedness where religion is concerned. To that I say, rest easy. I don’t hate Christians, Father Jennings. I take people on an individual basis, regardless of religion, race, politics, or personal philosophy. I treat everyone with respect until they treat me otherwise. Once they have shown ME disrespect, then I have no use for them.

However, since you have questioned my “broadmindedness,” I will pose this question to you– Did you ever think that perhaps I created the characters based on personal experiences? Like maybe the time my house was covered with banners in the middle of the night, all of them reading “Witches Live Here – Burn In Hell”… Or, the Christian Charity that refused to accept a sizeable donation from me because, and I quote that which was said to my face, “Thou Shalt Not Suffer A Witch To Live…”

But, I’d rather jump down from the soapbox. I am not here to preach hate. As I said, I take people on an individual basis and many, MANY of my good, close friends are Christians who adhere to the philosophy of live and let live, just as I do.

We ALL have things to learn, and we all have our crosses (pentacles, thor’s hammers, etc) to bear. That is just part of life.

So, lest anyone think otherwise, I took no offense at Father Jennings blog. I found it interesting and entertaining. As I said, it was intelligent and well thought out. However, the comment section was closed so I couldn’t reply there, so I thought I’d just write my own little diatribe for the masses in my own blog…

Oh, and by the way, like it says in the front of my books–

The are FICTION…

More to come…

Murv

Of course, you know me…Don’t I always?

So, anyway, pull up a chair, because this is going to take a couple of minutes.

My issue is with the self-appointed style police. Now, when I say style police I’m not talking about the folks who give grief over what you happen to be wearing that day. Although, given that I just returned home from doing my morning running about in public (post office and the like), and I was wearing a pair of denim shorts, a black t-shirt, and a pair of brown, generic “Crocs,” I suppose they would be up in arms too. (Let me tell you, those Crocs the most comfortable shoes I’ve ever owned, so don’t be surprised if you see me wearing them at a book signing or a festival when I am going to be on my feet all day.)

Nope. I’m talking about the Literary Style Police… And, remember, I said self-appointed, because believe you me, I never once saw them on any ballot I’ve cast in my lifetime.

So, what has triggered this for me? Well, not what you might expect. You see, I received a friend request from another writer yesterday. So, what did I do? I went and checked out her site, just like I do whenever anyone else sends me a friend request, or before I send one to someone.

I bet you thought I was just saying that on my main page, didn’t you? Nope. No joke. I really do go check people out before I approve the request, or be so bold as to send one.

But, anyway, I approved her request and then took a moment to read some of her blog. One of the entries was of particular interest. It was a list of words (tags) you should NEVER use when writing dialogue, because as everyone knows you should only use the word “said.”

Now…this writer noted that she was being somewhat facetious about this list, and I have no doubt that she was. In fact, to her credit, she does point out that she doesn’t completely agree with the list with the exception that it is a good rule of thumb to follow if you haven’t yet honed your craft and learned not to overuse the tags. I actually agree with her on that point, and I also applaud her effort at educating new writers. However, I would also caution that the tag “said” not be overused either. It is nowhere near as invisible, or unobtrosive as the style police would have you believe. In fact, it is downright clumsy and halting. Not only does it make for very dry, boring, dialogue, it often provides a bigger stumbling block than some of the words on “the list” simply because it doesn’t agree with the punctuation in the dialogue.

In addition, once written dialogue is flowing properly, tags need only be inserted here and there. Not on every line of speech. And then, they should be inserted to enhance, not to merely “point out that s/he SAID something.” The only other reason would be for the purpose of identifying the speaker, but again, if you have properly established the flow, the reader will already know who is speaking without it.

However, let me add that this is MY opinion on writing. We will get into why I just “said” that in a moment.

What interested me most about her blog entry was that some of the comments (not all, but some) she received about her blog came from writers/editors who wholeheartedly agreed with this no-no list. I secretly suspect they are a part of that bizarre little group of staunch supporters who cling for dear life to that rule about using only the dialogue tag “said”, and no other, as if it were a life preserver. I’ve had occasion to meet a few of these people, and while they may not ALL be this way, the handful I have experienced are no less than zealots. They love to cite rules about what they call “saidisms.” No, I did NOT say sadism, I said “saidisms.” The word said with an ism added to the end for maximum effect. One of my favorite things to ask these people is that since they are so caught up in following their so called “rules,” then why are they breaking them by making up a word? You see, the word “saidism” doesn’t exist. They made it up in order to sound like they were some sort of expert. So, when greeted by that word being thrown in my face, rather than “say” what I said above, I grunt it with amusement.

But, I don’t want to sound like an ass here. I do have to cut them some slack. Some of these folks are highly educated–some of them impressively so. I just think they have made the mistake of hitching their carts to a big, steaming bucket of stagnant thinking.

Time for some anecdotal fun…

I once had an editor insist that I replace every dialogue tag in one of my manuscripts with the word “said.” All of them. Even when someone asked a question and the line would read something on the order of:

“Where did you put the screaming howler monkeys?” he asked.

Apparently, according to “the rules” I wasn’t supposed to say, “he asked.” I was supposed to say, “he said.” But, he didn’t just say it. He asked it.

Said, the past participle of say, means to state, utter, speak, etc.

Asked means to put a question to, or make an inquiry.

Since the character in this instance actually “put a question to” another character, rather than simply make a statement, doesn’t putting “said” there seem a little odd to you? It does to me.

So, I had to ask. And, when I asked (or should that be said?) “why”, I was told that it was the rule.

Well, you know me, always stirring the pot…I wanted to know who made that rule. The response I got was that Elmore Leonard made the rule. Indeed, Mr. Leonard did say this. In fact, he has a list of 10 rules about writing and that is #3 on his hit list. #4, by the way, is to never use adverbs to modify the verb said. Poor adverbs. I don’t know what they ever did to him but it must have been bad. I feel sorry for “said” too, because Mr. Leonard has now forbidden it from playing with its good friends the adverbs. It’s a regular Romeo and Juilet looking for a place to happen…

So, I have another question, (I said.) Who died and appointed Elmore Leonard God Almighty of the writing community, thereby giving him the authority to lay down rules that I am somehow bound to follow?

The editor got mad at me and proceeded to call me names. Yes. Really. Apparently Elmore Leonard is some sort of personal deity to her and I had just committed the grave sin of blasphemy by questioning his Godhood. How the hell was I suppose to know?

Now, before you get your panties up your crack, I’m not aiming that comment at Mr. Leonard himself, and I am not trying to be vicious about it. What I am saying is very simply this: the man gave some advice based on how he does things and how he views his job as an author. That’s wonderful. More power to him. I’m all about advice and that sort of thing. Hell, I’ve even given out a bit of it myself. However, just because Elmore Leonard said “this is the way it must be done” this suddenly means that anyone who does it differently is wrong? I don’t know about you, but that seems just a little ridiculous to me. (BTW, rule #6 on Mr. Leonard’s list is never use the word “suddenly”… Looks to me that simply by writing this blog I am damning myself to author hell…Oh well, as long as they have beer I’m all good.)

I had yet another question (I said) Just like me, isn’t it? All these questions? I must have driven my parents nuts… Anyway, for sake of argument I will pose this question to you here now (I said)…If we aren’t supposed to use all of these words we have accumulated in the English language over the years, then exactly why do we have them? If said is the same as asked, replied, acknowledged, grunted, spewed, or any other verb, then why don’t we just get rid of all those other words and save some space in the dictionary? Obviously we don’t need them, correct? It would save paper, thereby saving trees and reducing pollution. Everybody wins. And, maybe then the style police could even go ahead and petition to have saidism added because there would now be room for it…Of course, if we got rid of all of the so-called saidisms there wouldn’t really be a need for the word saidism then, would there? (I said). Of course, that would mean we wouldn’t have a need for style police either…

Nahhhh. They’d find something else to complain about. On the heels of their victory they would probably start some sort of movement to change all nouns to pronouns, because he and she are far less intrusive than a character’s actual name when reading text…I can see it now…I’ll need to change all of the current titles in my series. Harm None: A He Investigation…Never Burn A Witch: A He Investigation…

Silly, yes. But, in my opinion, it really isn’t any more silly than telling me I can’t use any dialogue tag other than said. If writers are supposed to use the language to convey thoughts and emotions then why in the world would you restrict the language they are allowed to use? I don’t know about you, but to me that makes about as much sense as repeatedly hitting yourself on the thumb with a ball peen hammer. (Of course, if you are into that sort of thing, more power to you. But, I don’t wanna hear about it…)

Okay, so let’s think about this for a minute…And, while you are thinking, I will jump in my “wayback machine,” set it for 1903, then go back and tell the Wright brothers that they can’t fly. Wait…I think they got told that by other people didn’t they? But, they did it anyway. Hmmmm…Funny how that works. I get told I can’t use a dialogue tag other than said, but I ignore that “rule” (as do countless other writers), and yet we still have loyal fans and readers.

Hmmmm….guess all of our fans and readers are big nasty rule breakers too, eh?

I’m sure by now you are saying to yourself, “Holy crap! Murv must have had someone complain about him using a saidism.” Well, if that is what you are saying to yourself, you would be correct. However, it hasn’t happened recently. Not for quite some time actually. But, I am sure I will get more. The hate mail tends to come in waves. Now that I’m writing this blog, I’ll probably get several in the immediate future. Oh well… The style police are always on the prowl, it gives them something to do…

However, to validate what you are mumbling (I’m sorry, saying) to yourself, yes, throughout the years I have received a dozen or so scathing mails/emails from anti-fans telling me that I am a hack because I don’t follow “the rules.” My favorite vilification came from a particular lady who went on about how even a first time “fanfic” writer knew better than to break the rules I have broken throughout my novels. Actually, that “argument” has been tossed at me two or three times. I personally think it is funny. However, what made her particular letter my personal favorite was the fact that she was so caught up in chastising me for having the unmitigated gall to use a dialogue tag other than “said” that she neglected to proof her own work which was filled with misspellings, misused words, and several grammar issues.

I was amused. A couple of typos I can understand. I’m good for those myself. But, these weren’t typos. Trust me.

Now, back to Mr. Leonard. No offense intended, but I must be honest– I don’t much care for his writing, but that’s just my opinion. It doesn’t make his writing bad…or, dare I say “wrong.” Although, several of the things HE does break MY 10 rules…But, so what. That isn’t the point. Those are MY rules, just like his rules are HIS rules. The basic fact is, I just don’t particularly like his style.

And, yes. There it is again. That word…Style.

How we write is a matter of style. In fact, many authors submit their manuscripts along with something called a “style sheet”…For those of you who may not know what that is, a “style sheet” is something that shows your editor how YOU do things. i.e. which rules you plan to break, and why. For instance, non-standard capitalization, intentional grammatical anomalies, non-standard spellings, and so on….

So, that covers the specifics. But what about the basics? The basic style elements get dictated by who? The editors in the industry? Other writers? English teachers? Society? Actually, all of the above. But, guess what? (I said) Unlike the speed of light these “rules” are not a universal constant. They change. Constantly. So, I guess in a way they are constant…by that I mean constantly changing, not constantly remaining constant. Make sense? Yeah, I know. Just read it again slowly.

Anyway, If you don’t believe me, then here is an example. If you are my age, or anywhere near, then you remember that when we were in school we were taught that it was an absolute taboo to end a sentence with a preposition. Guess what?The rule changed. It’s okay to do that now. Really. I’m not kidding. Go ahead and end a sentence with the word “for” if you are so inclined. It is now grammatically correct, no matter what Mr. Golden or Ms. Ackman taught me all those years ago.

So, why do rules change? Because they become antiquated and no longer work for a given situation or era. And, here’s a news flash. Rules dictating writing style are in an even greater state of flux, because while you have all of the folks listed above dictating the elements of style, each of us dictate our own as well. — Remember the style sheet? And, a breaking news update to go with the one above: Style rules can be broken without anyone getting hurt or going to jail. I know…sounds crazy doesn’t it? (I said) But let me clue you in on a little secret. The style police actually have no authority. Really. They can’t even write tickets. No. I’m not kidding. All they can do is play with their sirens (by that I mean, whine and complain.)

So, what is the deal with all of these “rules” then? To paraphrase the popular movie pirates–They are more like a set of suggested guidelines.

So, there you have it. Just like I’m not going to let someone else dictate which shoes I wear when I go to the post office (except my wife, and well, you know how that is…) I’m not going to let anyone else dictate my writing style.

You shouldn’t either.

Okay…Now I am off to write some stuff and use all of the wrong words while doing it. Wish me luck.

MR

PS. Oh, and there are probably some typos in this…so sue me. 😉