Topic: Contractions Conundrum

[Shelliep]

My editor emailed the copyedited version of my manuscript today. I've heard about the sea of red ink that comes with some of these, but thanks to some marvelous beta readers and critique partners, the manuscript held up pretty well. The one thing that I'm having trouble with is the copyeditor's issue with contractions. She says I use way too many of them. See, that's because I like contractions. That's how people talk. Unless you’re trying to emphasize a point, like, "I WILL NOT CHANGE A SINGLE ONE OF THESE CONTRACTIONS!" it’s how most Americans tend to speak.

She also had problems with my use of 'got', 'get', 'like', and 'but'. And I apparently employ a lot of fragmented sentences, but good news, she think my tendency to use the passive voice works in this story.

Overall, I agree with her, and she makes me laugh with the humor of some comments. I just have issues with her anti-contraction outlook. I'm wondering what your views are on the use of contractions.

[mrh]

In the dialogue, or in the narrative? Either way, it's about whether the voice calls for a lot of contractions or not, but it seems to me that there'd be more room for quibbling on this if it's the narrative. Maybe she feels the overall mood and style of the book call for a somewhat less breezy, informal tone than a boatload of contractions conveys?

As an aside, reading your post reminds me that I may well be taken to task for my "stylistic" use of fragments...

[Shelliep]

Right, her issue is more with the narrative. Dialogue is okay since the people talking are mostly teens. But even with the narrative, I'm telling the story from a teen's POV. So I'm thinking it's still all right to write the story with all the contractions a teen would use.

I have a non-American in the story whose dialogue contains no contractions and a very prim Whitney-type character ( A Different World) whose used of contractions is limited but the copyeditor takes it even further. I'm fine with that.

Overall, she says the contractions are actually distracting, which I find interesting. I don't think I even notice contractions at all.

[Joni]

ETA: I seem to have a mental issue where I'm leaving the negative out of sentences lately. This first line was supposed to say: Well, remember that you're NOT bound by law to make all of her changes. But you will probably need to justify those you don't, which means having (or coming up) with some logic along the lines of your "non-native speaker" one. (Which is good.)

I think that contractions are very much a personal/character trait thing and maybe few of us realizes what our own habits are, because I am exactly the opposite of you  -- I often use uncontracted, er... negatives? ... especially to emphasize the negative, e.g., "she would not do it" sounds much stronger against the idea to my ear than "she wouldn't do it."  But I *have* noticed before that some critiquers (and not others) mark up my two-word versions  to change them to contractions b/c they think it's more natural that way. Never had an issue with an editor either way, though.

I'll also add that editors have their quirks/pet peeves. I'm still working to get rid of habits that my first editor drilled into me with her copyedits -- I was trying to be a good student! -- and that my next editor subsequently hated. You could always talk to her about how strongly she feels, or which she feels most strongly about, and come to a compromise on how many you change...?

[AnneB]

And after you get the agent, and an editor's eye, AND get past Acquisitions AND a couple of rounds of editor notes, here be  :dragon: :dragon: Copy Editors!

How comfortable would you be sharing one of the disputed paragraphs here? We might be able to suggest you either have a heart-to-heart with your editor about this or send the copyeditor designer chocolates.

[Joni]

Had another thought here. There *are* contractions we use all the time in speech, such as, um.... "what're you doing?" -- that are not actually accepted as correct in writing. I'd imagine they'd want to eliminate all of those, period, and that'd be a tough battle (maybe even in speech).

[J.Ro]

And after you get the agent, and an editor's eye, AND get past Acquisitions AND a couple of rounds of editor notes, here be  :dragon: :dragon: Copy Editors!

I quake for my hopefully future self. Serial Stylistic Fragment Abusers Unite.

[sjkincaid]

Just stet them. That seems a bizarre, stylistic thing. Talk to your editor about it if further concerns are raised. I'm sure it's just a personal quirk of the copyeditor, because I agree with you-- lack of contractions are usually more significant than the presence of them.

[Shelliep]

Thanks for your comments everyone. We seem to have a split verdict here. Going over the manuscript again, I see that she doesn't change a ton of contractions, but the ones she has chosen to change feels awkward to me. I'm going to take AnneB suggestion and post a section of the manuscript here, with editor's suggested changes (contractions taken out is indicated with ' '). Am I being an over protective mom or does it actually read better without contractions?


The prayer must have worked because Nate glided all the way around to the passenger door before the bear moved toward the granola. A BMW between him and Smoky 'did not' make him feel any safer.
   The bear shook his enormous head and rose onto its hind legs, its massive bulk towered about eight feet into the air. The bear pawed a granola bar then used its sharp fangs to rip away the wrapping. It gulped down the bar in only a second then reached for the other one. Nate ditched the plan to run while the bear ate. The granola 'had not' bought enough time for an escape. The bear would be on him in a flash. He needed a way to put more distance between them. And then he remembered the peaches.

[JFriday]

In those two instances, I would have used the contractions. Particularly with the first one, writing out 'did not' slowed down the narrative for me. 'Had not' in the 2nd one made the lack of escape time more emphatic; if you weren't trying to do that, I'd say the contraction is more natural.

[Mrs. Jones]

I agree with JFriday. I would prefer a contraction in the first, not the second. But it depends on how you want that second one to read.

[Joni]

Ha ha! I would *definitely* follow her lead on the first one and think it would be easier to see your side on the second one. But you already know my stated bias.

[Artemesia]

yeah, I think the first one I personally would have written as did not, and the second one as hadn't.

For the first one, I get what JFriday said about how it slowed it down...but sometimes when you are living this type of situation it feels as if it's happening in slow motion, and it increases tension to not make it all happen boom boom boom...(now I've got Black Eyed Peas in my head...lol) but the big reason for me why I'd leave that one is to emphasize that's it's NOT SAFE. That just sounds so much more unsafe.

The second one, actually...I think works either way. It wouldn't bother me as a reader to see 'had not' (it just seems to be an emphasis of NOT ENOUGH TIME), and 'hadn't' would feel natural as well.

I would just stet the ones you feel strongly about. 

[mrh]

I'm with Joni and Artemesia. I read it over several times, and I'm fine with "did not" but keep tripping over "had not." I'd really prefer the contraction there.

I'd accept the ones I can, and stet the ones I can't.

[Shelliep]

Wow! A split decision again. Contractions do seem to be a matter of taste. I'm going to go over each of her suggestions and decide how it changes the sentence and work from there. Thanks so much ladies!

[217mom]

In the dialogue, or in the narrative? Either way, it's about whether the voice calls for a lot of contractions or not, but it seems to me that there'd be more room for quibbling on this if it's the narrative.

What Marcia said^. She knows her stuff.
I'd add that it is *your* writing, *your" narrative voice, *your* decision, and finally- *YOUR* name on the cover. But I'm of the school of letting it 'sit' for a while, and seriously considering a good editor's suggestions. It's impossible to know if your use of contractions in the narration is spot-on or distracting, since we haven't read the manuscript itself.

 ETA: I'm going to be the lone voice voting with your editor on both. But don't listen to me!

[LeslieG]

 ...except that from the subject line, I thought this thread was about labor pains   

[sjkincaid]

Also, consider reading the two different versions aloud and figure out which one sounds more natural to you. You are the ultimate authority here.

[Shelliep]

 "... from the subject line, I thought this thread was about labor pains." Ha! Funny, Leslie. Although, delivering this 'clean copy' feels a bit like labor.

S.J, great minds think alike. I'm playing the manuscript on my Mac. It does give me a sense of what sounds more natural.

[MegM]

Personally, I would keep the contractions if you think they're more in keeping with the voice. In the first example, I think 'didn't' and 'did not' carry quite different nuances. 'Did not' generates an emphasis that changes the balance of the sentence and weights that element quite differently. Either version reads fine but the tone of the line changes depending on which you choose. To me, that shift in emphasis should come into play in the decision.

As an aside, and with my pedantic copyediting hat on, it may just be your transcription but there's a comma splice in the first line of the second para. If it's like that in the ms, I hope she's caught that too?

[austen]

Shellie,
I agree with the "did not," but not the "had not." The "did not" gives the "not" a little more emphasis, but the "had not" feels awkward to me.
You have such a strong voice that my initial take is that I'd be careful not to cut too many contractions.
But reading aloud and letting it sit is great advice.

[Shelliep]

Thanks Meg and Jenni! Will do, but it can only 'sit' till Friday, then it's off to be typeset or something like that.