semi colons

[Jo Zebedee]

I use too many. There, I've admitted it. I specifically use too many for a particular function, which is joining an action to internal thoughts. So, eg:


He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square.





I like that it reads quite smooth, and I like that I can go easily in and out of povs but still keep action flowing. But I also know that semis are not currently in vogue. I think a dash would be jerky, especially given how often I do this, and a full stop would make it staccato, and crucially not link the action and the thought, but a comma wouldn't delineate between them enough.

Any other devices I could use?

 

[Abernovo]

The only thing I can think of with this example is something like this:

He looked behind, thinking his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look: it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square.

But then, that uses the colon, which is equally out of vogue (re vogue: as I like to say in supermarkets: of course it won't sell if you don't put it on the blooming* shelves!)

* I might once have used a different adjective.

 

[prizzley]

I'd use a full stop to separate the action from the thought. Which comes first? How old is he? The younger he is, the more likely IMO he will rationalise the action after the event.

Veering off the query, I'm not a fan of like in this situation, I prefer likely or as if, or rephrase to something like (um) . . . and he wouldn't be . . .

Sorry to be picky.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I use too many. There, I've admitted it. I specifically use too many for a particular function, which is joining an action to internal thoughts. So, eg:


He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square.





I like that it reads quite smooth, and I like that I can go easily in and out of povs but still keep action flowing. But I also know that semis are not currently in vogue. I think a dash would be jerky, especially given how often I do this, and a full stop would make it staccato, and crucially not link the action and the thought, but a comma wouldn't delineate between them enough.

Any other devices I could use?

I actually like the semi-colon in this.

However, I have been known to over-use them. too!

 

[Bowler1]

I quite like the use of a semi just after the action, Springs. It links the two, we all move about thinking all the time and in the example above, for me works well.

Dashes for me, are more than a pause so I'd not use one here - and as above, dashes don't create a links but a break in the line.

Open tool box, adds new tool to the many I've picked up here.

 

[allmywires]

*raises hand* Fellow semi-colon abuser here!

I think you have to pick your battles with them. imo, that reads well and can't see why there would be a problem with it. Other times, as Aber suggested, you just have to restructure a bit or use other punctuation instead. I just try and make sure that if I have long paragraphs, not to overload them with semis.

 

[chrispenycate]

I use too many. There, I've admitted it. I specifically use too many for a particular function, which is joining an action to internal thoughts. So, eg:


He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t likeas if he’d be far from the square.





I like that

Semicolon (I'd put "comma splice", but you didn't even put a comma, and besides, this is a semicolon thread.

it reads quite smoothly, and I like that I can go easily in and out of povs but still keep action flowing. But I also know that semis are not currently in vogue. I think a dash would be jerky, especially given how often I do this, and a full stop would make it staccato, and crucially not link the action and the thought, but a comma wouldn't delineate between them enough.

Any other devices I could use?

If your thought organisation works in semicolon style (that is, paired concepts which are too closely related to be separated by full stops, but are essentially separate) I can't see how anybody can complain about use of a punctuation device, albeit unfashionable.

It's almost a question of insisting that you write in American, or not using the letter "k"; forcing stylistic choices for fashion reasons. Certainly one can restructure one's writing to avoid semicolons, but this changes your rhythm, the basic flow; why should you be obliged to reject a perfectly honourable figure of speech just for political correctness (or whatever the argument is)?

 

[RJM Corbet]

Here's what Strunk says about it:

http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html

Scroll down to section 5: 'Do not join independent clauses by a comma' ...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

* I might once have used a different adjective.

Do tell.

Veering off the query, I'm not a fan of like in this situation, I prefer likely or as if, or rephrase to something like (um) . . . and he wouldn't be . . .

Sorry to be picky.

Picky is cool. i think like suits the character, though.

And now as well as abusing semis, i am corrupting...

Semicolon (I'd put "comma splice", but you didn't even put a comma, and besides, this is a semicolon thread.

This is one of those instances that fascinate me. to me, it was a single statement, without a break, but i can see how the break changes it.


It's almost a question of insisting that you write in American, or not using the letter "k"; forcing stylistic choices for fashion reasons. Certainly one can restructure one's writing to avoid semicolons, but this changes your rhythm, the basic flow; why should you be obliged to reject a perfectly honourable figure of speech just for political correctness (or whatever the argument is)?

It is one i read by a leading editor, but no matter how i try to excise them, you are right, the rhythm feels all wrong.

Here's what Strunk says about it:

http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk.html

Scroll down to section 5: 'Do not join independent clauses by a comma' ...

Yey! I can keep them! Ty all!

 

[Warren_Paul]

He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square.

There is nothing wrong with the example above. It's not really the use of the semi-colon that's the problem, but what action you are connecting to what thought. Sometimes the actions you're using aren't matching the thoughts that go with them.

In this case, the looking behind is directly related to the thought. Other times you've used this device, it hasn't been the case.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

She scuffed her shoe; Mama wouldn’t let her play with children other than those from the great families or her brother.


Ok, so this one, which is a less straightforward example. Given this is a child, I see the action as a link, it's that dragging moment of non expression a child has, the time when they have to rely on an action and here it is intended to show discomfort/ an annoyance they have no control over. But is it too much of a stretch for the reader?

 

[Mouse]

I'd have used full stops in both of those examples. But then, I don't really see the point in semi-colons. Sorry, semi-colon fans! I only use them when Word or a beta tells me to!

 

[Bowler1]

She scuffed her shoe; Mama wouldn’t let her play with children other than those from the great families or her brother.


Ok, so this one, which is a less straightforward example. Given this is a child, I see the action as a link, it's that dragging moment of non expression a child has, the time when they have to rely on an action and here it is intended to show discomfort/ an annoyance they have no control over. But is it too much of a stretch for the reader?

Not a stretch for the reader at all and another good example. The "or her brother" upsets the flow and ending of the line for me, and I'd have zapped that bit. Assumption being siblings are of course allowed, but in your worlds, Springs, that's not a safe bet.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

From the handy-dandy Chicago Manual of Style...

Semicolon
Use of the semicolon. The semicolon, stronger than a comma but weaker than a period, can assume either role, though its function is usually closer to that of a period. Its most common use is between two independent clauses not joined by a conjunction.

For example:
The controversial portrait had been removed from the entrance hall; in its place had been hung a realistic landscape.

Mildred intends to go to Europe; her plans, however, are still quite vague.

For me it doesn't work for a different reason.

"He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square."

He looked behind what? A couch, a tree, the poodle taking a squat? He's looking for his mother. In a crowd, on the bench, where he left her, what? To me there's no need for a semicolon here, unless you rewrote a bit.

"He peeked round the tree. His mother wouldn't miss him if he wandered down (down where) and had a quick look (at what); besides, it wasn't like he'd be far from the square."

To me the perspective is off. If he's a kid this certainly isn't written from his point of view. Mother? Who calls their mom their mother? Maybe when speaking to her as a sign of respect, but in their own thoughts, as their about to do something he knows he's not supposed to? If this is supposed to be from a kid's pov, he'd make much shorter and less formal justification to himself about wandering off. And depending on age, completely ignore the mom's reaction, or simply not think of it at all.

Really young kid: "What's that?" Then wanders off with no thought at all about his mom.

Youngish kid: "That looks fun." Looks over at his mom, who's looking the other way, then darts off "down there".

Teenager: "She told me I couldn't go down there again. Screw that." Then proceeds to go "down there".

 

[Warren_Paul]

Those are more like present day examples, Fishbowl. In say a victorian setting, the child would be more likely to use Mother, or Mamma/Momma - sometimes that's still used today. In a sci-fi setting who knows what it could be, but if from the perspective of a royal family it is likely to be more formal than the average child.

I got from the looking behind that it wasn't from behind anything other than himself, which I think is what Springs was intending. He's walking down a path looking backwards to make sure his Mother isn't watching him. The wondered down where? would be answered in context I believe.

Maybe use backwards instead of behind? Or over his shoulder?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

From the handy-dandy Chicago Manual of Style...

"He peeked round the tree. His mother wouldn't miss him if he wandered down (down where) and had a quick look (at what); besides, it wasn't like he'd be far from the square."

To me the perspective is off. If he's a kid this certainly isn't written from his point of view. Mother? Who calls their mom their mother? Maybe when speaking to her as a sign of respect, but in their own thoughts, as their about to do something he knows he's not supposed to?
Teenager: "She told me I couldn't go down there again. Screw that." Then proceeds to go "down there".

I think the placement is answered by the context: this is the couple of sentences before it:

He walked around, kicking stones, getting closer and closer to Spacejunk Alley, with its supply shops for the yards. He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square....

In terms of the point of view, he's supposed to be twelve in this, and the formal use of Mother reflects that he's a little posh, and also beyond the point where he might want to call her Mum. I think provided it's consistent and that is the name he'd use for her (and his sister, as these things are family things), then it's fine. And if Mother is the term he uses for her, then I think it's the term he'd use in his pov as well*. I think. I can't use she, which would be tidier, as there is a sister in the scene who it could be confused with.

*I'm still getting used to this close pov, so maybe I'm wrong.

@WP, cheers. The spellchecker on my computer won't boot into this document for some reason, so I think I'll have to use Schrivener for a final edit. Grr.

 

[Warren_Paul]

He walked around, kicking stones, getting closer and clower to Spacejunk Alley, with its supply shops for the yards. He looked behind; his mother wouldn’t miss him if he wandered down and had a quick look, and it wasn’t like he’d be far from the square....

I think you're right with using the proper reference to Mother in his PoV. He would refer to her exactly the same as he does in dialogue. Unless the emotional situation of the scene provoked him to do otherwise.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

No worries Springs, if that's the context of the story and the character, i.e. not modern age and rather formal, then ignore what I said about pov. If that's how the character would think of his mum, then go for it.

What I'm getting at with "he looked behind" is that, while we can suss out the meaning, on first reading it appears grammatically incorrect.

"To look behind" is a prepositional phrasal verb which requires a prepositional object.

For example, "She takes after her mother," after is the preposition which introduces the prepositional phrase "after her mother". It would be grammatically incorrect to say "she takes after," because the reader is forced to ask, who does she take after? So too with "he looked behind." Behind what?

But here you're using behind as an adverb to mean back or backwards. The reader's first reaction to looked behind would be to ask: behind what? For clarity you should likely change "behind" to back or backwards or around.

 

[Warren_Paul]

@WP, cheers. The spellchecker on my computer won't boot into this document for some reason, so I think I'll have to use Schrivener for a final edit. Grr.

Word can be fickle like that sometimes. The spellchecker in my copy of Word 2007 stopped working altogether. It prompted me to try out the preview for Word 2013 - have no trouble with its spellchecker. Haven't looked back. Apart from the horrible new colour scheme, I like the new version.

 

[Bowler1]

The latest version of word which I have has had a right old strop with me. I'm about 70k words into my WIP with lots of alien names it never liked. I had a pop up warning, along the lines of - "you muppet, you can't spell and if you're not going to take my corrections, I'm not helping anymore".

Since then, in this document only (to my great relief), my automatic spell check is off. If I run a spell check it will correct, but no more friendly green lines under typo errors. Word, so helpful...