Starting sentences with 'then'

[Mouse]

I just tried that with the book nearest me - a Jonathan Stroud book published in 2010 and couldn't find any 'then's. He seems fond of the comma instead.

 

[HareBrain]

I think you'd be surprised how often "then" occurs in published books. The trouble comes when there are so many that readers notice, and then they notice every single one. But of course you can never know how many that's going to be! So I'd suggest taking them out where it's easy to see how, but don't fret about them (or then).

 

[Ursa major]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread of mine...

You will be.

I started reading the thread from the beginning and found this post of yours:

Ok, this is how I've been using it:

“You carry on with Squirrel,” said Sorrel, “I’ll get him to move.”
“Right,” said Fagan, about to turn away. Then he stopped and looked at Sorrel. “Can you hear that?” he asked.
“Hear what?” asked Sorrel, still trying to get Enapay moving.

Which I've changed to:

"You carry on with Squirrel," said Sorrel, "I'll get him to move."
"Right," said Fagan. He was about to turn away when he stopped and looked at Sorrel. "Can you hear that?" he asked.

In the first sentence of either version, you have, in effect, two sentences joined by a comma. Taking out the speech attribution, you have:

“You carry on with Squirrel, I’ll get him to move.”
​

You should probably add an and after the attribution:

“You carry on with Squirrel,” said Sorrel, “and I’ll get him to move.”
​

or use a proper separator:

“You carry on with Squirrel,” said Sorrel. “I’ll get him to move.”
“You carry on with Squirrel,” said Sorrel; “I’ll get him to move.” (By the way, I don't really like this version.)
​

...but I'm having trouble with 'then' again. Not starting a sentence with 'then' I'm over that. This time, having them half-way through a sentence. Sort of... list like, I suppose.

Examples from my WiP:

I've suggested some alternatives:

She tapped her chin with the remote, then changed the channel again.

She tapped her chin with the remote before changing the channel again.

She spat toothpaste into the sink and then froze.

She spat toothpaste into the sink, then froze.

Ambrose rubbed his temples, glared briefly at Mercer, then flopped back onto the bed and folded his arms across his naked chest.

Ambrose rubbed his temples, glared briefly at Mercer, before flopping back onto the bed and folding his arms across his naked chest.

She peered down the lane, looked up at the light, then turned and carried on her way, walking just a little faster.

She turned to peer down the lane and looked up at the light. When she resumed her walk, it was with greater haste.

He straightened his clothes, fussed with his hair briefly, then headed down the stairs.

He straightened his clothes. After briefly fussing with his hair, he headed down the stairs.

 

[Mouse]

I'm just wondering if my then usage is what's making my chapters so short. Lazy writing.

Just seen Ursa's post. The Squirrel/Sorrel story is published and done, so I'm not changing that now!

I didn't think of using 'before'. I fancy I do do that though, in places.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Dog on It by Spencer Quinn (2009) doesn't either, but I have to say its descriptions were never as visual as Robert Neill's as much as I enjoyed the book I wasn't as enveloped in it.

 

[Hex]

It's interesting how much 'before' changes the feeling of the sentence, especially the channel-changing. The 'then' works like a list (which you said at the start) and there, I thought, it really summed up her evening (as in she's restless and bored, although I could be wrong). To me, 'before' is more premeditated. I'd never thought of this before -- thanks

 

[Mouse]

Maybe anti-then is a more modern thing, Anya. Seems to be.

I have some befores in my work:

She pushed her chair back and got to her feet, taking her cup out into the kitchen and leaving it in the sink to deal with later, before returning to her desk again

She unlocked the laundry cupboard and dragged the trolley out into the corridor, checking that it was fully stocked, before locking the cupboard back up and trundling down the hall

Which could've been 'then's. Is before as bad as then? Or not as bad? Am I over thinking this?![FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
Hex, I agree with that.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I know some friends have had, had editors ask them to remove before as well. They have also had them take the and a bunch of other useful words out. I figured I'd include what I felt was the right word.

EDIT I agree with you Hex - it gives a different feel. I got out of the habit of using before when I was writing in first-person, present tense.

 

[Ursa major]

Before, there were lots of thens. Then there were lots of befores.


You can't win, really.

 

[Mouse]

Nope! Ah, editing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I'm not anti then but here are your sentences without it:

She tapped her chin with the remote, pointed it at the TV and changed the channel again

She spat toothpaste into the sink and froze.

Ambrose rubbed his temples, glared briefly at Mercer and flopped back onto the bed with his arms folded across his naked chest.

She peered down the lane, looked up at the light, turned and carried on her way, walking just a little faster

He straightened his clothes, fussed with his hair briefly, and headed down the stairs.

This looks like a fallback to the concept Stephen King raises in "On Writing", that if you can remove a word from a sentence without changing its meaning, the word was not required in the first place.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

This looks like a fallback to the concept Stephen King raises in "On Writing", that if you can remove a word from a sentence without changing its meaning, the word was not required in the first place.

One day I'll get round to reading that blasted book -- it haunts me. I've never had such strong views on something I've never read before

I know what I think of his view on adverbs. I don't use them a huge amount myself in my first person, preset tense in the head of a teen they didn't work. However back to my favourite very unfashionable book, which is a rich historical based tome and a random page:

Unlikely
Deliberately
Slyly x 2
helplessly
steadily

He was actually very restrained on that page.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I mentioned adverbs to a friend of mine who has a couple of comedic books published.

He went into a rant that if you need an adverb to qualify a sentence, you're not writing it properly, ie, "he said excitedly" means the excitement needs to be conveyed in the saying in the first place, without having to refer to it as stated "excitedly".

King's "On Writing" is a fairly short easy read. The lesson about making sentences as short and concise as possible is one lesson that I remembered distinctly, and honed from his time as a student journalist.

 

[Arkose]

This looks like a fallback to the concept Stephen King raises in "On Writing", that if you can remove a word from a sentence without changing its meaning, the word was not required in the first place.

There are three things I keep taking away from that book. The first is what you said, the second being that I disagree with him on the idea that, you can't make a bad writer into a competent writer, or a good writer into a great writer, no matter how hard one works, and the third being “The road to hell is paved with adjectives.”

Gosh, how I hate the idea that anyone that is a great writer was just born that way. It also makes me wonder if I was just born a bad writer, and have no way of improving to a competent writer, no matter what I do.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

King's "On Writing" is a fairly short easy read. The lesson about making sentences as short and concise as possible is one lesson that I remembered distinctly, and honed from his time as a student journalist.

I think it is probably more the attitude of some of his followers I struggle with. I've just got a long list of other books I'd rather read. Right now I'm learning a lot from rereading Enid Blyton - her dialogue is stunning.

Concise I can do, because I did time writing museum labels. Thousand years of history in three sentences, no sweat. Summarising an entire medieval gothic cathedral in a sentence is a piece of cake. My writing had to learn to be more flowery and less concise when I started writing fiction.

Did you ever listen to the Ballad of Russell and Julie ? Classic comedic use of adverbs. My comedy is pretty traditional seaside Carry On film style so it makes use of adverbs sometimes.

Sparse and concise is great for horror, but it works less well with historical and certain forms of humour.

Personally I don't like Stephen King's writing style, there is nothing wrong with it, but I'd hate to think everybody else would start writing like him, it would make things very boring. Robert Neil with his wordy sentences, adverbs, frequent use of then, seriously lights my fire and I read him over and over again.

 

[Toby Frost]

Gosh, how I hate the idea that anyone that is a great writer was just born that way. It also makes me wonder if I was just born a bad writer, and have no way of improving to a competent writer, no matter what I do.

I remember Terry Goodkind saying much the same thing in an interview. Make of that what you will.

Actually, now I think of it, a lot of Kingsley Amis' comedy in Lucky Jim uses adjectives for the purposes of exaggeration.

 

[Arkose]

I remember Terry Goodkind saying much the same thing in an interview. Make of that what you will.

Actually, now I think of it, a lot of Kingsley Amis' comedy in Lucky Jim uses adjectives for the purposes of exaggeration.

I find it extremely demotivating.

 

[Boneman]

I remember Terry Goodkind saying much the same thing in an interview. Make of that what you will.

Actually, now I think of it, a lot of Kingsley Amis' comedy in Lucky Jim uses adjectives for the purposes of exaggeration.

If Terry Goodkind said it, I'd believe the opposite. (I put a 'then' in and then took it out again...!)

 

[Toby Frost]

I should probably add that Mr Goodkind added himself to the "born writer" category, in case anyone was wondering. Like I say, make of that what you will...

 

[AnyaKimlin]

For me I guess I'm not sure what makes Stephen-the ultimate fall before him god of writing over and above all else-King, because online in some writing forums the book seems to have gained almost a biblical status. Its been quoted less on here that on other forums. I understand he is a writer that has made his way into the heart of millions, so he is worth listening to, but ...

He isn't even the bestselling horror writer of the 20th/21st Century (that belongs to R.L.Stine and Agatha Christie wrote horror). Barbara Cartland and Danielle Steele both have comfortably outsold him - indicating romance, and flowery language have their place. His writing isn't bad, but nor as it acknowledged as being the best either.

Enid Blyton's dialogue is better, Agatha Christie for me writes suspense better than he does ... *OK gets off soapbox and contemplates asking the library if they have a copy.* Whereupon I may change my mind and fall at his feet, but right now reading this thread think the book may have some truth, some old cobblers and some that is relevant to what he writes and some genres. It seriously depresses me to think so many writers are working hard to be Stephen King clothes, especially if they are writing historicals, romance etc