The play challenge is now closed.

The new challenge is shelf space.

One of my CPs keeps rapping my wrists over a pronoun issue that I don't think is a real issue. (She's one of the most grammatically precise people I've ever met.)

According to the CP, a pronoun must ALWAYS refer to the last person of that gender named in the text. E.g., I had the following snippet of dialogue in the excerpt I sent for critique this week:

Wilcox snorted. “Better you than me, sir.”

“Corporal,” he chided mildly, “you must show respect for him as an officer.”

Leaving aside whether this is well-written or not (it's rough draft, and one of the things I always do on rewrite is make my dialogue attribution a bit more subtle and artful), in my mind it's sufficiently clear that the speaker in the second paragraph is not Wilcox, but someone who's having a conversation with him. And since there are only two people in the scene, I think the pronoun stands alone. But my CP disagrees and says I really need the second character's name. I can see her point, technically, but stylistically something seems awkward about naming characters over and over again. In a scene with two men or two women interacting, I feel like I have to use their names so much just for clarity. So when I can use a pronoun without confusing the reader, I feel like I should do so even when it's technically incorrect.

Thoughts? This is an ongoing issue, and I'm starting to get snarly when I open her critiques and see all those pronouns replaced with names.

Since dialogue breaks a line every time there's a new speaker, to me it seems pretty obvious that it's the second speaker.

Thanks, Ailleann. I think I'll just ignore her on that issue unless other CPs have problems with specific instances.

In other writing news, I've been blogging my notes from the workshops at PNWC: [link]

I think sometimes people forget that you're writing dialogue that has to make sense for the people involved in the scene who are actually speaking. Of course you don't want to confuse a reader, but the reader will also be distracted by reading names in a situation where the speakers wouldn't use proper names.

Actually I agree with CP here. Susan, do you even need a pronoun at all?

Wilcox snorted. “Better you than me, sir.”

“Corporal, you must show respect for him as an officer.”

Although you lose the mild chiding, I think it's picked up in context.

I like Wolfram's idea there, Susan. Also, I feel as long as a name (or title, something to help us differentiate) is used every 3-4 statements, I'd be good with that. Just so I'm not left counting the paragraphs to try and figure out who said what.

I find myself counting the paragraphs fairly often, so you can never attribute quotes by name too much for me!

Well, it's not so much about this specific instance as the general principle of the thing. She thinks there's a Rule of Pronouns where any pronoun has to belong to the last person of that gender referred to by name; I think it doesn't matter as long as the context makes it clear who the pronoun refers to.

I'm so not grammar-rule guy, but I can see why that whole pronoun thing is a good rule of thumb. When I read, pronouns whose attribution are not completely obvious throw me out of the story.

Of course I think context and literary license trump any and all grammar rules.