For Steinbeck Fans - Grammar Mistake on purpose?

Question

Good evening!I am reading Grapes of Wrath and compare it to the German translation. (I'm German.) I want to write a novel myself and studying the greatest is never wrong. I think that the German translator smoothed one sentence down and removed a bumpiness/grammar mistake. But I am not 100% sure if it really is a mistake in English. If you translate it 1:1 into German, there is clearly a break in the sentence but perhaps it's different in English?Now, first I would like to know if there is a mistake. Secondly, if it's true, then I am pretty sure that it happened on purpose since it's on page number one. And this would mean that he wanted to express something with it.The surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust, and as the sky became pale, so the earth became pale, pink in the red country and white in the gray country.

Khoff · Accepted Answer

What do you think is wrong with the sentence in English?

AnonymousThe surface of the earth crusted, a thin hard crust,

There seems to be something missing here, like "the surface of the earth crusted, forming a thin hard crust...", but it would not have bothered me if I hadn't been looking for something wrong. Stienbeck's style is often conversational, so I think the ellipsis is fine.

Anonymous · Answer

That's it! Thank you very much.

Interesting that you complete it after the comma with a PPP construction, I didn't think of it this way. I thought perhaps he breaks the sentence on purpose as if he wants to anticipate how the crust breaks a few sentences later.

This is what the translator made of it:
The surface of the earth formed a crust, a thin hard crust, ...

Anonymous · Answer

Regardless of how this particular sentence is actually written, I would disagree with your preparatory approach as an aspiring novelist. You're apparently trying to read Steinbeck and then pattern your writing after him - and the writing of other good writers. But I believe this may not be the best method. The problem with this, as I see it, is that the prose in even pulp fiction and novels for teens is already quite sophisticated in this own way, so trying to pattern your writing after it is too difficult for most writers.

Nevertheless, this is the advice given in how-to-write-fiction books: copy the good writers. For example: copy the first chapter of Moby Dic_, word for word, thereby absorbing the writer's technique, and then change the text to a new, more modern situation, etc. Again, the problem here, in my view, is that the prose is too sophisticated to manipulate like this to any advantage for a novice writer.

What I would suggest instead is - rather than trying to write novels or stories right off the bat (and moreover, trying to pattern them after the best writers' work) - that you write plays. Plays are the easiest kind of writing to do, even easier than regular prose composition. It's all dialog, and you can just dig in an spew out a play in no time flat, without any kind of experience at playwriting. No paragraphs to worry about, no sentences to link to each other, etc. You just write like you speak. And it's all original. Even a raw beginner could crank out 10 plays in a year from scratch. It's fiction, it's all written by you, and you get your feet wet in fiction writing quick, rather trying to laboriously copy Steinbeck, etc. And you get a feel for what fiction writing is all about. For example, in any play the basic plot is very simple: in Hamlet, Hamlet's father is secretly murdered by his brother who then marries Hamlet's mother. The ghost of Hamlet's father informs Hamlet of the murder and then Hamlet kills his uncle. This basic story wouldn't fill even a page or text and so much "filler" has to be added to make up a 5 act play. By "filler" I mean basically meaningless chatter. Take a look at the beginning of Hamlet: "Halt who goes there. Nay, stand and unfold yourself. Etc." And this is considered the premier play in literature. It's the same in novels or stories: the basic plot is relatively simple and the rest is filler. And you'll learn this by writing plays.

Enoon · Answer

There is no mistake. English is that flexible. Grammar is just along for the ride; it doesn't drive.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Thank you for the interesting and thoughtful post.
I want to offer just a couple of very brief and broad comments.

I would hesitate to advise a budding writer to model him/herself on existing writers. But not because it is difficult to do so. Instead, a writer should concentrate on trying to develop his own unique voice and style.

I don't agree at all that writing plays is easy at all. Have you tried? I find it much harder than prose. Just as one example, the novelist can explain what is happening in a way that the playwright can't. To do everything through dialogue and movement is incredibly challenging. As for writing 10 plays in a year, even rubbish, good luck.

Clive

Anonymous · Answer

Thank you for all your answers!

Don't worry, I certainly won't copy Steinbeck. LOL I am just studying the best authors to understand how they express things. I wrote too many texts as a journalist, I am afraid I lost some of my sensitivity.

Thank you, I think enoon gave the answer that tells me all. But any comment is still appreciated.
Have a nice day!

For Steinbeck Fans - Grammar Mistake on purpose?

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions