Grammar verses Dialogue.

[Carousel]

Grammar verses Dialogue.

I freely admit that I am not anywhere near the top when it comes to perfect grammar, I tend to shower commas around like confetti, most in the wrong places; so I’ve recently started to use a grammar checker. The question I have is the use of grammar when writing dialogue.

Most don’t use perfect grammar in speech. It varies of course depending on the character we are portraying. One extreme example is Rudyard Kipling’s poems the Barrack Room Ballads, which captures the speech pattern of the common British soldier serving in India at the time of the Raj. Many of these soldiers were illiterate or semi illiterate but the effect of these poems have are relevant in many ways to the universal soldier of today.

Example.

Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy, 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll,
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll.

If Kipling had avoided the vernacular I suggest the poem would have lost its structure and power. So my question is how the writer equates grammar with dialogue?

[WyattGwyon]

Realistic dialogue always trumps grammar in my book. If one is overly fastidious about grammar, I have the antidote: William Gaddis's JR, a novel that is 98% dialogue. Few of the characters are consistently capable of constructing a coherent sentence, or willing to do so, let alone a grammatical one. It is either excruciating or hilarious depending on how one balances the demands of grammar versus (realistic) dialogue.

[sandy14]

Kipling is missing out words to keep the syllable count so that the lines scan.

Ellipsis, contractions and reversal of the word order are quite common to keep the syllable count or the stress pattern.

[Carousel]

I can’t see where Kipling is missing out words, there are missing letters but that’s in keeping with the vernacular i.e. London slang.

[ennison]

Very few of us speak our mother tongue or second language with perfect grammar and if a writer wants to represent ordinary speech then he has to be aware of that - but being accidentally inaccurate in writing is a different-kettle-of-fish altogether. Kipling's use of vernacular and demotic language was brilliant because he had a good ear and he was very able but he has been castigated for his Imperialist views to the extent that his artistry and ability are often ignored or just not accorded the respect they deserve.

[Carousel]

Yes that’s very true and though he did write a number of jingoistic poems he had a family to support by his writing alone and had to give in some degree what his readers of the 1880s demanded of him; though, if you care to search there are still many gems to be found.

Personally I think that we have sanitised language today so much that we have squeezed much of the colour from it and paradoxically the language you now hear in pubs would have never been acceptable in Kipling’s times.

[108 fountains]

I don't know anyone who uses perfect grammar when they speak except perhaps professional speakers on formal occasions. When writing dialogue, it's best to go with the natural flow of speech of the particular character speaking including all his/her flaws. But the writer should still be careful and correct in the use of punctuation in the dialogue; otherwise, it will appear that it is the writer, and not the character speaking, who is making the errors.

Everyone makes mistakes now and again, but if a piece is so riddled with grammatical errors that the reader's attention is diverted from the story or essay, then the writer has no one to blame but him/herself. It's really worthwhile to go back over what you've written two or three or more times - the first time to check for punctuation, spelling and simple grammatical errors. The second time to look for more subtle grammatical errors such as tense inconsistencies and pronoun-antecedent confusion. The third time to look more at matters of style such as taking out all the "There was's" and "There is's," changing passive for active voice, exchanging adverb-verb phrases for better verbs, etc. Once you get in the habit of revising for grammar, it gets easier and easier. Use of good grammar places the writer in the background so that the reader gives all his/her attention to the subject of the story or essay.

And yet - be prepared - no matter how careful you are that every thing is correct, the moment you post somethingt, you'll notice a typo or a misspelling, often in the very first line.,

[Calidore]

^ Very well said. One more rule of proofreading is to have someone else do it, as your brain will tend to see what you meant to type rather than what you actually did. That's why others can spot things in seconds that you missed on three read-throughs.

[108 fountains]

And yet - be prepared - no matter how careful you are that every thing is correct, the moment you post somethingt, you'll notice a typo or a misspelling, often in the very first line.,

...or the very last line - somethingt - Geez! :redface:

[Vota]

Dialogue all the way.

[Vota]

Good grammar does not a good book make.

[Carousel]

I would be surprised if every published author was anyway near grammatically sound and isn’t every book proof read before going to press? However that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t give our grammar our best shot.