myself ! ...when it replaces "me," that is.
I read two novels recently, which I enjoyed very
much. The first is The Crown, by Nancy Bilyeau. (2012) Ms. Bilyeau offers an historical novel
involving nice nuns, bad bishops, Henry VIII, and other engaging players. Instead
of endeavoring to write dialogue in sixteenth-century English, she allows her
characters to speak in a way that is sensible and just slightly formal. However, like their twenty-first century
counterparts, her young men and women frequently use a reflexive pronoun when a
nominative one needed. There are many
erring characters who say “myself” when they mean “me.” Here is my favorite:
“Tell everything you know
about myself.” Aagh! How do editors miss bloopers
like this?
The second book is The Lantern, by Deborah
H. Lawrenson. (2011) It is a captivating page-turner, well-written and nearly
grammar-goof free. The author creates a well-crafted mystery surrounding a
decaying property in the French countryside. Her descriptive writing enables
the reader to feel the sunshine, smell the lavender, sense the damp walls, and
fear the unbalanced brother. The writing is so good that I almost hate to
mention this mangled pronoun situation. Somehow, though, the editors failed to
see this:
"When you first meet someone and they tell you
stories about themselves, you have no reason to doubt these are true."
Someone linked with they and
themselves?
To make this sentence even more sinful, it is known to the reader that the someone in question is a male. There is
no justification not to write:
"When you first meet someone and he
tells you stories about himself, you have no reason to doubt
these are true."
Right?
Oh dear, you're quite right. Your edit would be much better and have the advantage of being grammatically correct! I agree wholeheartedly with your premise about grammar heard on TV (as well as appreciating your general comments about the writing in my book), so this has given me a shiver of embarrassment. The conversational use of "they" in this context - at least in the UK - is endemic, perhaps so much so that it slips far too easily into the written sentence. I will be more careful in future! Cheers - and I'm glad you enjoyed the novel as a whole.
ReplyDeleteDeborah, I am surprised, and honored, to receive your response to my post!
DeleteSpeakers in the US, too, routinely say “they” when referring to one person; “they” has become a default neuter version of “he” or “she.” I try to set a good example when speaking to children, especially, but it’s hard sometimes.
Do greater numbers of grammar mistakes make it into print, these days, because publishers rush books into publication without adequate proofing and editing? That’s where I’d put the blame.
I look forward to reading more of your books, Deborah— The Lantern was a satisfying treat!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHello again, Nancy. I honestly can't blame the publishers; The Lantern was meticulously edited by HarperCollins in New York and I'm sure if my editor were to see this she would be a red-faced as I am.
ReplyDeleteI was aiming for a conversational tone in the first-person narrative. The narrator is quite young and therefore perhaps a little sloppy in speech. Although as she is a linguist, there really is no excuse!
To deflect attention from my own shortcomings, I'll give you my pet grumble about grammar on TV. Clause confusion is especially prevalent among news reporters and documentary presenters. For example: "Long abandoned, neglected and unloved, I stepped into the old house." Sympathies to the poor unloved reporter, but we wanted to know about the old house!
(PS. Sorry about the disappearing comments. I was trying to correct another mistake!)
All the best.
"Long abandoned, neglected and unloved, I stepped into the old house." Sympathies to the poor unloved reporter, but we wanted to know about the old house!
ReplyDeleteWhat a great example, Deborah!
Those “lost clauses” drive me crazy, too. I’ve heard news people deliver lines such as:
“Thankfully, the house was still standing when the family returned.” If the house were capable of expressing relief, it might be thankful, but the reporter surely meant that family members to were the thankful ones. (“Thankfully” and “hopefully” have become so abused that grammar sticklers have largely given up on them.)
The best to you to, Deborah.