Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
As a gay man who loves science fiction, I have been thoroughly delighted to find a plethora of gay-themed science fiction (some fan-fiction, some original) out in the land of the interwebs. There is one particular writer whose work I am enthralled with, some of which is loosely based around Star Trek (TOS) and some which focuses on original characters in other parts of that same fictional world. He has a wonderful writing style, very descriptive and expressive, without being profuse. However, there is one element of word choice that always strikes me as odd. He will often describe a character as looking at someone "with question" instead of "questioningly", as I have always heard and read. After listening to this show for a few years, I've come to realize that many phrases and word usages are part of regional dialects, so I was wondering, is this difference based on that, or is he just phrasing it incorrectly?
Thanks!
The expression 'with question' doesn't exist as an adverbial phrase. I can only think how to modify it so it might make sense : with questions in his eyes, come to someone with questions/a question, go mad with questions ...
If your author means 'questioningly,' he must've purposely chose to create a style of his own- which is his right.
Using Google's Ngram Viewer searching for with question does not quickly find anything related. But, look with question gives this. The actual texts can be viewed with the links below the graph and many of them actually seem a little better than look questioningly. You might try some other phrases to see if you can get a better fit to the structure/meaning you are seeking.
BruciferTX said
After listening to this show for a few years, I've come to realize that many phrases and word usages are part of regional dialects, so I was wondering, is this difference based on that, or is he just phrasing it incorrectly?
We're not in 8th-grade grammar any morre. The purpose of language is to convey information, so if what he intended and what you understood were the same, one really can't say it's incorrect.
And our language is an Erector Set. There's no phrase "with a cube of crystallized mercury in his hand" in the English language, either, but that's a matter of metallurgy, as much as anything, for at any temperature a human hand can stand, mercury is liquid.
In general, writing should be transparent; if the reader is thinking about your word choice, he's not thinking about the ideas you're trying to convey. There are exceptions to this, however. Some flowery poetry is meant to be studied, admired, as one might walk around a restored '30s touring sedan, admiring every angle of it, instead of climbing in and admiring the countryside one is passing through. That's not my pigeon, but surely somebody must like Edna St. Vincent Millay, or none of us would recognize the name. Words that halt the reader in his tracks are inadvisable for many weriters, even if they are not incorrect. You did stop reading long enough to post here, right?
Your notion of "gay-themed" science fiction brings me up short, though. The definition of science fiction as defined by Hugo Gernsbach and John W. Campbell proposed that that one law of science be changed, the story detailing the logical consequences of that change. The characters in the stories were pretty generic. Certainly, there was the erotic - Barbarella, for instance, and the writings of Philip Jose Farmer, but those were fantasy, rather than science fiction. And if someone were to categorize my sexuality as either science fiction or fantasy, I might take offense. Call me a pervert? I'm not crazy about that, but it's better than being told my sexuality is a fiction. Ben Bova, who later edited Analog (which was hardest-core of the SF magazines), had at least one gay character in his writings, but that character was defined by his meteorology, not his sexuality. Spider Robinson had some gay characters, but his stories tended to appear in Fantasy & Science Fiction, not in "straight SF "magazines, and even so, the sexuality was pretty low-key, expressed more as the characters being highly creative in aesthetic endeavors. But a lot of people, not SF enthusiasts, have described Barbarella as science fiction. As I said before, if the reader understands the writer, it's hard to call it "incorrect."
Good question, Brucifer! Thanks for posting it!
deaconB, thank you for your helpful and interesting take on the matter. I will try to broach the topic with the author, but if he is not willing to change, I will endeavor to get more comfortable with unusual turn of phrase.
Regarding your last comments,
Your notion of "gay-themed" science fiction brings me up short, though. The definition of science fiction as defined by Hugo Gernsbach and John W. Campbell proposed that that one law of science be changed, the story detailing the logical consequences of that change. The characters in the stories were pretty generic. Certainly, there was the erotic - Barbarella, for instance, and the writings of Philip Jose Farmer, but those were fantasy, rather than science fiction. And if someone were to categorize my sexuality as either science fiction or fantasy, I might take offense. Call me a pervert? I'm not crazy about that, but it's better than being told my sexuality is a fiction. Ben Bova, who later edited Analog (which was hardest-core of the SF magazines), had at least one gay character in his writings, but that character was defined by his meteorology, not his sexuality. Spider Robinson had some gay characters, but his stories tended to appear in Fantasy & Science Fiction, not in "straight SF "magazines, and even so, the sexuality was pretty low-key, expressed more as the characters being highly creative in aesthetic endeavors. But a lot of people, not SF enthusiasts, have described Barbarella as science fiction. As I said before, if the reader understands the writer, it's hard to call it "incorrect."
I understand your points about categorizing sexuality as fiction, but that's not really what it is. It's more the case of it being primarily science fiction, but most, if not all, of the main characters are gay. In some cases the sexuality is not even overt, just an open and honest presentation of gay characters, including many same-sex couples, often in a future setting where they no longer face the oppression and persecution still widespread in today's society. That is the primary reason I enjoy it - good SF about characters I can identify with, usually in a setting free of homophobic attitudes. In case your curious, Mel Keegan's NARC series is probably one of the best examples of excellently written, gripping and exciting, science fiction that focuses on such characters in that sort of setting.
A little off topic, but I always felt that the Star Trek (TNG) episode "The Outcast" was an interesting an compelling treatment of GLBT themes in a integrated scifi plot, and made for a great story to boot!
The Outcast
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)