Quick grammar one

[Jo Zebedee]

Okay, I have this. Now, my Northern Irish stuff is supposed to be quite conversational, but I'm not sure about using you rather than he in the -- bit. To my ear, if sounds right, but to my eye it looks wrong. Thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cautiously, he turned his head but there was no other bed in this cavern and no other humans. The lad was – probably, but you could never be sure – keeping his head down, waiting for a pickup that might never come.

 

[The Judge]

To be the colloquialism, it's got to be "you" unless you go up-class and make it "but one could never be sure". The only alternative is to move it from the idiomatic into the actual with "he couldn't be sure" which to my mind loses the vernacular, talkative feel of it.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Funnily enough I used the same on my writing today, wondered about it, but then eventually stuck with ‘you’ so I’m with you on this one.

pH

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Okay, good. NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE!!!

Thanks, both. @The Judge I think you explained perfectly where I was at - and using one instead of you really wouldn't work.

 

[HareBrain]

NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE!!!

 

[Ursa major]

NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE!!!

One will do one's best....

 

[Cory Swanson]

Okay, good. NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE!!!

[/USER]

Here I go trying to ruin things.

Someone I respect told me this, and I'm inclined to agree. The use of "you" tries to force thoughts into the reader's head. It generally feels invasive to a reader, especially if it's a break in the consistency of your tone. I, as the reader, tend to ask back, "How do you know how I feel or what I would do?"

Now, I'm a total nube, and you're a thousand times more successful with your writing than I am. So take it with a grain of salt. But I do feel it has strengthened my writing to try to avoid it. Your use of "you" seems to be within the voice of the narrator, and I would generally be fine with it as a reader if it is consistent with the voice.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Here I go trying to ruin things.

Someone I respect told me this, and I'm inclined to agree. The use of "you" tries to force thoughts into the reader's head. It generally feels invasive to a reader, especially if it's a break in the consistency of your tone. I, as the reader, tend to ask back, "How do you know how I feel or what I would do?"

Now, I'm a total nube, and you're a thousand times more successful with your writing than I am. So take it with a grain of salt. But I do feel it has strengthened my writing to try to avoid it. Your use of "you" seems to be within the voice of the narrator, and I would generally be fine with it as a reader if it is consistent with the voice.

Mostly I agree with you (see what I did there? ) and your thoughts were exactly my concern (thank you for putting it so well) - but I think the Judge has the nail on the head. Since this is already a colloquialism the You isn’t a second person reference but part of a known statement.

Also - I am terrible at grammar. For a published writer I should be ashamed of myself

And I salute the Bunny’s silence. I should try this more often

 

[Brian G Turner]

to my eye it looks wrong

It's might be because you go from a very distant "the lad" to the very close "you". I suspect it wouldn't look so odd if you started that clause with the character's name.

Just thinking aloud.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Someone I respect told me this, and I'm inclined to agree. The use of "you" tries to force thoughts into the reader's head. It generally feels invasive to a reader, especially if it's a break in the consistency of your tone. I, as the reader, tend to ask back, "How do you know how I feel or what I would do?"

That’s hilarious. Do they read with no sense of self? When I hear those kind of assertions it reminds me of a bunch of academics sitting around a boardroom thrashing out things that don’t bother the rest of us muggles.

I have never been so unsure of my own existence (or enjoyment of a text) that I’ve questioned the author’s knowledge of my life.

However.... I think you is a colloquial term that would be grossly out of place if used in academic papers or technical text.

pH

 

[Ursa major]

The whole purpose of a book (give or take colouring-in books) is to put thoughts into its readers' heads.

 

[Parson]

Okay, good. NO ONE SAY ANYTHING ELSE!!!

One couldn't resist.

 

[Cathbad]

To be the colloquialism, it's got to be "you" unless you go up-class and make it "but one could never be sure". The only alternative is to move it from the idiomatic into the actual with "he couldn't be sure" which to my mind loses the vernacular, talkative feel of it.

Glad I read this before posting!

Fully agree.

 

[Cathbad]

That’s hilarious. Do they read with no sense of self? When I hear those kind of assertions it reminds me of a bunch of academics sitting around a boardroom thrashing out things that don’t bother the rest of us muggles.

I have never been so unsure of my own existence (or enjoyment of a text) that I’ve questioned the author’s knowledge of my life.

However.... I think you is a colloquial term that would be grossly out of place if used in academic papers or technical text.

pH

I'm not so sure. When I read, I tend to think of myself as a bystander in the story... a witness to the action! Anything that would disturb that assertion is off-putting.

In this case, however, that wouldn't be an issue.

 

[farntfar]

I'm not going to disagree with anything anyone has said, but I would like to suggest it reads "non other human." rather than "no other humans.".