• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

Contraction Pains

Status
Not open for further replies.

Paul Whybrow

Full Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Location
Cornwall, UK
LitBits
0
I’ve been pondering the use of contractions in how I write conversation. I recently spent five weeks editing my four completed novels, adding quite a few contractions to make how my characters talk sound more natural.

We all run words together in conversation—you’ve, she’s, hadn’t, I’ve—and not doing so, by pronouncing each word separately can make what’s said sound formal and the speaker stiff and pedantic. In formal business writing, scientific papers and for legal matters, contractions are not used.

In reading, some contractions are easily processed by the brain, but writing them down can look clumsy. People commonly say there’re, but to my eyes, in print, it looks a bit odd and pronouncing it (even mentally in my reading voice) sounds like a small dog growling!

Contractions have altered through the centuries, and I commonly use an archaic example—’tis—which is it and is combined, as Cornish people regularly say it. When I lived in Atlanta, most people said y’all instead of you all.

Expressing colloquialisms too closely can look clumsy, words such as she'd've, shouldn’t’ve and mightn’t’ve. Such contractions might ease the flow of conversation, but in writing they become obstructive.

How do you handle contractions? I wonder how tightly edited they are, by editors at a literary agency or publisher—being added or taken away...

92aff6a82c3920d9cb9cc207f16aea92.jpg
 
I've never had any taken away or added. I stick to more common ones - don't, can't, you're - for no particular reason other than they're what we're used to, and they are easier for me to type than the less common ones like they've, there're, etc. Sometimes I write them out like could not or will not, only so the manuscript isn't littered with apostrophes. But I don't obsess over them. Just type what feels natural for the narrative and for your character's dialogue.
 
For all the advice I have read I have never seen a novel which genuinely reflects everyday speech. Essentially we are writing summations of speech, if not full blown parodies. But that is not the point you were raising Paul. So in answer to your question, I would say this is one for advice from your editor when you get one - go with what they say and you shouldn't go far wrong.
 
For all the advice I have read I have never seen a novel which genuinely reflects everyday speech. Essentially we are writing summations of speech, if not full blown parodies. But that is not the point you were raising Paul. So in answer to your question, I would say this is one for advice from your editor when you get one - go with what they say and you shouldn't go far wrong.

You make an accurate observation, David. Linguists reckon that everyday conversation is largely chatter, with no real meaning, uttered to lubricate the relationship between the people talking. That can only be done in a stylised and truncated way in writing fiction. I sometimes fret that the interrogations my Cornish detective runs with suspects are too neat and orderly, but ever aware of the word count I need to move things along.

The same is true of other aspects of fictional life. Everything is so neat and orderly in the world of a novel. A place is never three-and-a-half miles away, it's always four miles distant. Experts, such as my forensic pathologist, utter clear and delineated opinions on the cause of death of a victim, never saying words like possibly, maybe or could. Fights are over in seconds, rather than becoming extended and messy brawls.

It's the way things have to be. Real life is messy and confusing; fiction offers solutions.
 
I read aloud to myself if I can't decide, and let my ear guide me as to when to use one. Sometimes the formality of 'I will' works better for the tone of the (first person) narrative, where I am more likely to use 'I'll' in dialogue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top