Julian's question thread - the word 'however'

[Julian]

I decided to make one question thread about me as... I ask a crapton of them.



Question 1

Is it OK to constantly put the conjunctive 'however' in prose? I feel that the flow and character seem to seep out whenever I use any conjunctive as a starting word in a sentence.

[Majyk]

Well, using any word too often becomes annoying--it will stand out, so I would avoid using it too often. As for beginning a sentence with "however" (along with any the conjunction), I would limit that as well, unless you're going for the repetition. But it is up to you.

[Lykaios]

I was told in my first week of university that 'however' shouldn't ever be used to start a sentence unless you're doing it for some kind of emphasis on the previous one.

[Dabs]

Depends on if the sentence calls for it, and if it's right for the character. I don't like to use it too often. It has a very intellectual feel to it, not a natural, instinctive feel. It's fine for essays, but not short stories.

[Majyk]

I was told in my first week of university that 'however' shouldn't ever be used to start a sentence unless you're doing it for some kind of emphasis on the previous one.

Those are the people who tell you never ever start a sentence with "and" or "but" either, yet there's a point when you can break the rules if you have a good enough reason. Also, especially if it's dialogue, then I think starting a sentence with a conjunction or a conjunctive adverb is all right since it shows the way the character is speaking.

Plus, if you're not using "however" as a conjunctive adverb, then you definitely can start a sentence with it.

Ex: "However hard she tried, she couldn't find her jacket." vs "However, no matter how hard she tried, she couldn't find her jacket." See the difference? So, I'm still going with what I said before--that it's up to you--but here's it a bit clearer: if you want to stick with proper grammar and not break any of its rules, then don't write sentences like the second example, unless there's a semicolon before "however" and another complete sentence before that (ex: She glanced around the room, eyes even scanning the floor; however, no matter how hard she tried, she couldn't find her jacket.).
(Generally, you should use "however" with a semicolon when it's academic writing--or something that isn't a creative piece--if you're using the second example. That's what my professors said.)

Anyway, I could go on for way too long about grammar (hence even after I posted, I come back to post again xD), so I'm going to stop now, because I feel like I'm just repeating myself and going in circles with this. Hopefully it at least made a little sense.

[Julian]

Thanks guys! *Gives a shiny thanks to each one*


Ok

Questions Two


When is it good to be subtle and succinct, using one single word to depict something, as opposed to being overly descriptive, and vice-versa?

I know this is pretty stupid, but I feel that some people can't seem to follow when the prose is too 'compact'. In a sense.

Let me compare the two.

The clinking metallic sounds filled the room.


As opposed to:

The clinking sounds filled the room.


I mean, I don't know whether I should add 'metallic' as the notion becomes redundant, already explained by 'clinking'. However, some people might not perceive the word 'clinking''s full definition, and thus fail to grasp its subtle meaning. Help?

[Carraka]

If people can't perceive the full definition of a word, then that's just too bad for them. Only be redundant in academic writing. Or for literary reasons. Really. If they don't know exactly what clinking means, either they're reading the wrong book, or they're expanding their knowledge by reading the right book.

[Dabs]

Thanks guys! *Gives a shiny thanks to each one*


Ok

Questions Two


When is it good to be subtle and succinct, using one single word to depict something, as opposed to being overly descriptive, and vice-versa?

I know this is pretty stupid, but I feel that some people can't seem to follow when the prose is too 'compact'. In a sense.

Let me compare the two.



As opposed to:




I mean, I don't know whether I should add 'metallic' as the notion becomes redundant, already explained by 'clinking'. However, some people might not perceive the word 'clinking''s full definition, and thus fail to grasp its subtle meaning. Help?

Those sentences depend on context, really. If you've already established that there's metal in the room, then it should be obvious that the clinking has a metallic quality. If you haven't established that, then it needs to be stated.

In general, the more expansive descriptions are there for dramatic effect. Abundant description shows that there's something important about what's being described. Simple description fulfills the logical necessity of locating your character in space.

At least, that's how I'd view it. Abundant description could, of course, be used to describe a vast area as well, but your word choice can help differentiate between just describing something big and describing something important.

What I'm saying isn't general, FYI, but it's how I like to exert control over my stories.

[Carraka]

-blinks-

Oh yeah, I guess glass can clink too.

[lalodragon]

The clinking metallic sounds filled the room.

The clinking sounds filled the room.

I don't know about metallic (glass and metal both clink, so your context makes the difference). But what is clinking but a sound? So this--
The metallic clinking filled the room.
or--
The clinking filled the room.
or--
The [metallic] sound of clinking filled the room.

Because "the clinking sounds" is so... redundant. Or perhaps not redundant but clunky bordering on redundant.
I'm off topic here, but it's all about economy. :P

[Julian]

Ya, as shitty example, lalodragon, but meh. The message gets conveyed. And nah, if we erase the 'sounds', the phrase sounds very odd to me. Guess it's based on personal preference.