Category Archives: Editing & Revision

Overcoming Passive-Aggressive Writing

9 Replies

The feedback I received on my first submission to my friends in the Deadwood Writers group included many comments about my use of passive voice. Make that many, many, MANY comments.  After I highlighted every instance of the verb ‘to be,’ my pages lit up in yellow.  If I owned a color printer at the time, I could easily have used up an entire yellow ink cartridge.  I had a problem – a passive-aggressive writing problem.

As my first step toward using an active voice instead of passive, I looked up the grammar rules. In its most basic form, passive sentence structure is Object-Verb-Subject: The bear was chased by Tom.  Ho hum.  Yawn.  The sentence sounds like the action is over.  Often the stories we write don’t happen in the present moment and this is where the passive voice snares the writer.  We use past tense forms of the verb ‘to be’ to give the sense of things happening in the past.  Active voice can do the same thing, but in a more compelling way.

Consider the active sentence structure of Subject-Verb-Object: Tom chased the bear. Even though events are still happening in the past, there’s more immediacy and drama.  Comparing the two sentences, you can see the verb ‘chased’ already shows past tense.  Adding the word ‘was,’ as in the passive sentence, is redundant and slows down the pace.

I got a lot of mileage toward improving my writing from this simple sentence conversion method. Here are three examples taken from that first submission:

 

Angela was bombarded with questions from the team.

The team bombarded Angela with questions. 

 

She tried to get an explanation from Fred, but was brushed aside.

She tried to get an explanation from Fred, but he brushed her aside. 

 

Cindy’s fresh coat of nail polish was ruined when she jumped from the surprise.

Cindy ruined her fresh coat of nail polish when she jumped from the surprise.

 

These fixes to sentences using simple past (-ed) versions of verbs were my first round of corrections and cut the amount of yellow highlights down by half. In the second round, I tackled the past progressive sentences that used the –ing version of verbs: Tom was chasing the bear.  I revised these sentences with conversions to the simple past structure:

 

Gladys was now hurling packages of paper at him.

Gladys hurled packages of paper at him.

 

Tom was opening an email from Todd.

Tom opened an email from Todd.

 

The document was making its way to dozens of fax machines around the company and the city.

The document made its way to dozens of fax machines around the company and the city.

 

By this point, I cut the amount of yellow by three-quarters. The highlights remaining required less obvious, more thoughtful changes to achieve an active voice.  In picking out examples for this blog post, I realized the common theme involved adjectives used in conjunction with a form of the verb ‘to be.’  One way to fix the problem is to get rid of the verb ‘to be’ and select another verb that is similar in meaning to the original verb/adjective combination.

 

Tom was a little concerned that someone did something to his cube.

Tom worried that someone did something to his cube.

 

Todd was openly vocal about the lack of work Tom did.

Todd complained openly about the lack of work Tom did.

 

Another fix is to move the adjective to a place in the sentence where the verb ‘to be’ is not necessary.

 

If his hard drive was damaged, it would set back the Granger project even further.

A damaged hard drive would set back the Granger project even further.

 

When these adjustments don’t seem to work, you may have to rethink and rewrite the sentence.

 

That thought was enough for Sylvia.

“No way!” thought Sylvia.

 

Tom opened the file and was not treated to erotic images.

Tom opened the file but did not find the erotic images he hoped to see.

 

Did I eliminate all use of passive voice? No.  A few passive sentences are not going to make or break an entire piece.  In fact, trying to eliminate all instances may bring you to a point of crafting sentences that sound pretentious, flowery, or verbose.

When assessing your use of passive voice, the problem is one of numbers. For example, ten instances of the word ‘was’ in a paragraph is passive-aggressive and clearly needs to be fixed.  A page with ten occurrences is passive-assertive and still requires reduction efforts.  Ten passive sentences scattered across ten pages is mildly passive.  Though not likely to raise eyebrows, it’s worth taking a look to see if you can change some sentences from passive to active.  If you have ten cases in a hundred pages, not only are you in control of your passive-aggressive writing tendencies, you’re also saving a lot of money on yellow printer cartridges.

Clarity

7 Replies

When I dream of becoming a published author, I see myself as a stand out amongst a large populous of romance authors. My books sit alongside those written by authors I’ve admired and learned from by reading and being absorbed by the characters they’ve created and the stories they continue to roll out year after year. I want people to get thrilled when they see a new release date, from author ,Wendi Knape, and automatically click the to read category on their goodreads.com account, so I keep moving forward. Nonetheless, in my writer’s life, there are days when things weigh me down, a little voice whispering I won’t succeed no matter how many edits. However, I never let myself forget my end goal and always remember that I have a lot of encouragement from writer friends, plus all the resources in books and blogs regarding the writing craft.

With my first manuscript I didn’t stop writing to try to publish, I jumped to the next manuscript, and the next, and so on. In my experience, through writing and wise words from other authors, it’s best to leave a completed manuscript alone and come back to it to see what needs fixing.

When I moved on and was about halfway through writing book two, I went back to my first manuscript and tackled editing it several times so I could enter the RWA Golden Heart contest. All along, I’ve felt there’s been something missing from its pages, even after several edits. That I didn’t place in the contest let me know it still needed work, but now I had scores to lead me in the right direction. But still, it wasn’t a decisive critique it was just numbers relating to content.

I kept asking myself, where’s the spark that encourages the reader to turn the page? The spark was elusive, as if it was a living thing, hiding in the dark, just waiting for me to come to its rescue. I was becoming more and more frustrated each time I sat down to edit, mired in words that had gone blurry, lost in a sea of plot. The characters got what they wanted with little conflict. I couldn’t find my way out of the editing fog. Until reading, Make a Sceneby Jordan E. Rosenfeld, and nearly at the same time, a blog piece titled, The Difference between Idea, Premise and Plot, by Janice Hardy on Janice Hardy’s Fiction University website, things didn’t click. When I combined the two ideas, I got excited. Now I held the flickering spark and watched it dance on my fingertips. Fixing problems wasn’t going to be easy but it also wasn’t going to be like Atlas holding up the celestial sphere.

First, let’s look at The Difference between Idea, Premise and Plot. My idea was a good one, the premise was simple and strong, the plot was tagging along like a good pet, but it wasn’t quite pulling me forward like an excited puppy. When I got to story–which Janice Hardy added after a comment from a reader–the emotional element, the internal conflicts my characters would have to overcome, they easily overcame the problems. When I say easy, my hunky hero quickly decided he wasn’t afraid to take on the vampire protagonist–really an alien that needed to feed off human blood–to his home where he would help her find her mentor. Not only in the beginning did the protagonists acquiesce to circumstance, it was throughout that they jumped in feet first and fell in love in a blink. Usually, the reader is at the halfway point before the first love scene. Three quarters through, the protagonists discover they love each and still are keeping it from each other. The declaration of love is a highlight near the end.

If readers know what happens so soon, why should they turn pages?

What was missing?

Janice Hardy’s article allowed me to see that, though my idea was a good one, it wasn’t a complete story. Her break down from Idea, to Premise, Plot and finally her addition of Story, gave me a clearer vision as each consecutive step built on the other leading me to a stronger story concept. I even went on to develop other story ideas that I want in the series based on characters I love. When I got my hands on Rosenfeld’s book, Janice Hardy’s article only enhanced my start-up thoughts as each story came to life.

Half way through Make a Scene, I can tell you that I’ll re-read this book. It’s that good. I’m not saying this is the only book out there to help improve my writing, but Rosenfeld has a way of telling the reader, through examples and clear explanation, how to take my writing to the next level. Butterflies were flitting around in my stomach, my excitement palpable again. What Rosenfeld reiterates throughout is, “plot and character cannot be separated”[1]. I saw the holes in my story, now I could fill them.

The fixes came to me like magic causing me to write like the Mad Hatter at teatime. Narrative and dialogue I wrote, that included thoughts and actions of my protagonists meeting in opposition, help push the plot forward while still building a crescendo as the two characters come together and fall in love, simultaneously dealing with outside forces pulling them apart. Without tension, the reader will put the book down, and I definitely don’t want that to happen.

In my first draft and up until my latest draft of, A New Life, I was telling the reader some of Miseeka’s, my female protagonist’s, back-story. She already knew she would need to drink human blood. Here is an excerpt.

Her parents were blinded by their need to place her on the throne, to pass down their legacy to her. They thought him a wonderful influence on her and the Liti people. But Miseeka knew what a twisted soul he harbored. He was evil. She wouldn’t be beaten or manipulated by him again. So, her plan to flee Liti had formed and she looked for help from Healer Bacchius and other’s he trusted still on Liti.

The problem with the plan was that she would have to feed on humans. He said that Earth’s atmosphere was made up of oxygen, which the Liti could not breathe. Therefore, to survive, any Liti that resided on Earth would have to consume the blood of humans directly from, based on a human’s anatomy, the carotid artery.

It repulsed Miseeka to think she would have to feed off humans. She feared consuming all the human’s life blood. Would she have to kill to survive? She had to contact Bacchius as soon as she landed, if she survived. There were few canisters of Liti air, and it wouldn’t last for long.

While Miseeka dreamed, she could barely get her lungs to work as the escape pod, programmed for Earth, moved through the vast silence of space.

Being a first draft, this is a mess. I use passive voice, I’m telling instead of showing and the tension is nonexistent.

Now look at my latest draft, the one I wrote after reading Make a Scene. I’ll let the section of manuscript speak for itself. Just know that Miseeka has crashed on Earth and realizes she’s no longer near her ship.

Miseeka came awake, blinking and confused.

She slowly got up, swaying in the darkness, as if she was drunk. Looking down to take stock of her form, she saw a sticky wetness smeared over her hibernation suit. What happened?

More aware of her surroundings, she noticed her lungs working efficiently. Miseeka took another breath and suddenly the most delicious aroma filled her renewed lungs and her hands automatically lifted to her mouth as her nose followed the scent to meet them. She swiped at her chin and mouth, and began to lick the unfamiliar treat from her fingers without conscious thought. At one point, she groaned aloud. There was an instant reaction to the liquid she consumed, making her heart pump faster and her desire for more reach a new high. What was this ambrosia, she wondered? She moved to find the source, stumbling, losing her balance toppling onto something.

Miseeka’s mind screamed at the horror of what she had fallen upon. Dear goddess! A human. She scrambled off the male, caught in his limbs, kicking out to get away. “Let me go, let me go?” She screamed, falling over on her belly. She clawed at the undergrowth, the pine needles pricking her hands, digging into her knees, the earth turning over to reveal it’s pungent smell, when she proceeded to vomit onto the forest floor everything she had stolen, until she felt hallow and her breaths became labored once again. Her stomach cramped with the emptiness.

What is happing to me?

Her mouth gapped and sucked in the atmosphere as she tried to remain on her hands and knees, but her lungs continued to burn and her surroundings started to darken as she became lightheaded. Why couldn’t she breathe?

She fell to her side and rolled to her back. Miseeka turned her head toward the human. The man was dead. I am a killer. Her mind went wild with the repercussions; the line of thinking that suddenly came upon her caused the shakes to start riddling her body deep within. She had torn the man’s neck out and fed on him. She was a monster.

Miseeka wanted to laugh. She was now the monster she was trying to escape. She lifted her red hands blackened by the night and realized the only source for her survival, human blood.

With that painful truth, she gave in to the darkness and passed out.

Can you see the difference? By withholding information that I had given Miseeka in the first draft–she would need to feed on human blood–I’ve added a slice of heart pounding tension that ups her internal and external conflicts. Now Miseeka is worried about killing the next human she encounters plus becoming a monster, adding complications. This also bumps up Miseeka’s character development letting the reader know that she has good morals and doesn’t want to hurt anyone. I want the reader to care about her so they’ll keep reading.[2] To complicate her life even further, Kyle, my leading man, comes upon Miseeka just as she stirs from unconsciousness needing to feed. That adds even more tension. What will she do next? The reader will have to turn the page.

Between my first draft and the latest one, a lot had to change. I still want to change more. The lesson? Staring at my own work can leave me hitting my head against a brick wall with an impression of said wall on my forehead. We as writers’ sometimes need to take a step back and reevaluate, so we can get our book on bookstore shelves next to our favorite authors. If we need to find help to see how, the good, the bad, and the downright ugly really look in our manuscripts, a book about writing might do the trick. All writers’ occasionally need is a refresher course in their writing life. So why not find it in one of your favorite books on writing.

What’s your favorite go-to book on writing?

Happy writing!

 

[1]Jordan E. Rosenfeld, MAKE A SCENE Crafting a Powerful Story One Scene at a Time, (Writer’s Digest Books 2008) 106.

[2] Jordan E. Rosenfeld, MAKE A SCENE Crafting a Powerful Story One Scene at a Time, (Writer’s Digest Books 2008)21-28,63

Curse-ive Writing

12 Replies

Have you ever been reading a book and been jarred by the use of a curse word?  While I believe that swearing is something to avoid as a matter of personal virtue, I understand the dramatic effect and occasional necessity to a storyline.  However, sometimes the use of curse words doesn’t fit with the story, or character, making it come across as more out of place than your maiden aunt in a mosh pit.

When deciding if a curse word is appropriate, try thinking about two things.  One is the background of the character.  For instance, how would the character’s mother react upon hearing her child swearing?  Would ‘conniption fit’ describe her as she got out a bar of soap to teach the kid a lesson?  If so, your character is not likely to use swear words easily, even as an adult, with the taste of Ivory soap lingering in his memory.  Is the mother not around or doesn’t she care what the child said?  In this case, it’s quite possible that using expletives has become second nature to your character.

The other thing to think about is the situation.  Even a character living with flashbacks of soap dinners can be in a circumstance where a curse word will slip out.  Someone pushed to an emotional breaking point can let loose words she never thought she could.

There’s a great scene in the movie Speed (1994, screenplay by Graham Yost) where you can see this playing out.  Keanu Reeves, as Officer Jack Traven, is hanging through an access panel of the floor of a bus to check out a bomb that could blow him and the passengers up if the vehicle falls below 50 miles per hour.  Alan Ruck is Stephens, a passenger using a cell phone to act as the relay for a conversation between Traven and another officer.  After describing several aspects of the bomb, Traven reacts with a phrase that includes the ‘F’ word.  Stephens’ reaction is hesitation and then to translate it as “Oh darn.”

Traven’s outburst is situational from seeing “enough C4 on this thing to put a hole in the world.”  In light of this, any resistance he may have to swearing has broken down.  On the other hand, Stephens doesn’t know about the C4 and hasn’t reached that point.  He grapples with repeating the phrase then settles for something more compatible with his state of mind.

As people ‘mind their manners’ in everyday life, it’s up to you as an author to mind the manners of your characters.  Making the dialog realistic to their temperament and situation is important when using curse words.  Considering the impact of these expressions, tread carefully.  Your character’s mother may be watching.

Perfect Endings Belong to the Quotation Mark

5 Replies

Picky Penny said, “I’m studying The Chicago Manual of Style.”

Misplaced Mark replied, “I hope I never have to read that”.

Penny is attracted to Mark because of his gifted story-telling. He’s prolific with his ideas. Mark thinks Penny is really cute, and he likes that she always seems to know how to spell words without having to look them up in a dictionary. He notices that she’s good at applying the rules of grammar, too. Their common interest in writing is what first brought them together. Each realizes that, if they were to blend their talents, they would have a beautiful marriage in which they create compelling stories through clear, consistent communication.

Before they can live happily ever after, however, our two lovebirds have some issues to overcome. Penny is a stickler for the rules that she studies so well. In her quest for perfection, she corrects punctuation errors, fixes parallel construction flaws, and battles to avoid inconsistent verb tense while she’s composing first drafts. Her compulsion to be exact gets in the way of production. She would notice the mistake in the opening dialogue above and abruptly stop to fix it before moving on with another thought. Heaven help her; she can’t let anything go.

Mark is overly distracted by his surroundings. He keeps a notebook on hand to jot down tidbits from the conversations he hears, peculiar behavior he sees, and story lines that come to him. When he writes, he knows what he wants to say and how he wants to say it, but he has little patience for Penny’s nagging about following the rules. In his opinion, those are really just suggestions that slow down his creative process. To Penny’s horror, he finds revision to be cumbersome. He wouldn’t care to change anything in the same opening sentences above.

KellyDeadwood-20147July-PrincePrincessPhoto

Penny and Mark’s relationship is complicated. Both have strong opinions and skills in different areas. Is there a way to help the couple get along despite their individual styles and abilities?

I relate to both of them. As a writer, I admire Mark. He is comfortable with his craft. He’s confident, capable, and inspiring in his creativity. He knows how to set a scene, develop characters, and engage audiences. He paints entertaining images, even with discrepancies in protocol. From him, I’m learning to let the rules go for awhile, write what I need to write, and fix the grammatical issues later.

At least I try to fix them later. When I’m revising, I’m aware that I’ll never master all of the idiosyncrasies that pertain to good writing. There’s just too much information to remember. But certain things pop out to me. Either I know how to make those items conform better to the rules, or I have to look up advice in a style guide. Taking a cue from Penny, I most often rely on The Chicago Manual of Style for three main reasons. First, it’s widely recognized by writing professionals as a reputable, Standard English resource. Second, each subsequent edition evolves to keep up with changes in the writing industry. Third, through my online subscription, I can get answers to questions that stump me.

Generally, I’ve heard it said that once you know the rules, it’s okay to break them. This applies to writing. For instance, consider the difference between conversational language and more formal communication. Suppose you draft the following e-mail to the high school composition teacher: “I am wondering to whom I should forward the paper.” Doesn’t it just feel a little awkward? It sure sounds that way to me. Few people, often not even the English teacher, talk like that. In relaxed, everyday conversations, I think most people simply bend long-standing rules and ask, “Who should I send the paper to?” It may not be perfect grammar, according to Penny, but it’s perfectly acceptable, as Mark will point out.

While I’m okay with text that reflects the way people naturally talk, I’m increasingly concerned about certain grammatical mistakes that are making their way into e-mails, messages, and online articles. One of the most common offenses I’ve noticed is misplaced quotation marks. Having seen so many, I started to doubt my understanding of the basic punctuation rules.

I went back to the books to brush up, and I’m relieved to say that some things never change. We still only have three rules to consider when determining where to place our ever popular quotation marks: inside, outside, and sometimes inside/sometimes outside.

Of those three, the rule I wish Americans would agree with and apply is: periods and commas always go inside quotation marks. The Chicago Manual of Style, Associated Press Stylebook, and MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers say so. Purdue University’s Online Writing Lab (OWL) concurs and further notes that this punctuation is standard in the United States but not necessarily in other countries.

For many reasons, we just don’t do things the same all throughout the world. Consider the following ways we in the US differ from the English. Here we write gray versus their grey, and practice instead of practise. We go on vacation, and they go on holiday. We can try to emulate the accent in their speech. But we don’t follow a king or queen and we shouldn’t follow foreign punctuation rules. We simply don’t want to confuse our American audience.

If you look back at Mark’s statement to Penny, you may notice that it’s improperly punctuated for those of us in the US. I should have written: “I hope I never have to read that.” The ending quotation mark is now correctly placed outside the period. Whew! Hopefully, I’m not the only one breathing a sigh of relief.

I recognize that it’s difficult for us writers to come to consensus over all the little details we face. Even within our own U.S. borders, we are bombarded with inconsistencies in how things are done. For instance, I used to cringe every time I read an article on Wikipedia that looked to me to be incorrectly punctuated. That organization has American roots and computer servers located in the US. So, why are its articles littered with periods and commas flagrantly outside quotation marks?

After a little research, I realized that the mistakes weren’t due to inexperienced contributors. The errors weren’t missed during half-hearted attempts at revision. They weren’t accidents at all. Wikipedia had established its own style and its own rules—which, as noted, are unconventional for us Yanks.

My Picky Penny tendency pushed me to get an explanation from Wikipedia itself. Why was a basic standard compromised? In an e-mail response, I was told that, “All of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines are developed by community consensus…Wikipedia’s users are all over the globe, not just in American-English speaking places.” Yikes! That seems like a pretty big compromise to me, but I suppose if you make up your own rules, then you can rightfully claim that you’re really not breaking any.

I do concede some flexibility in what we’ll consider guiding principles. Remember my favorite resource, The Chicago Manual of Style? It discourages the use of italics for emphasizing words placed at the end of sentences, like I did in Mark’s statement to his betrothed. I could have written, “I hope I never have to read that.” The prevailing thought is that my readers would have naturally put emphasis on the last word, without a prompt from me. Was I wrong or breaking a rule to help the readers by forcing the emphasis and putting the final word in italics? Not exactly. The rule that applies is a pliable one. Not a hard and fast rule, like where to place an ending quotation mark. In this example, I was given flexibility to exercise a preference.

The hard part for writers is discerning between unbendable rules and suggested guidelines. It’s a daunting task. I’ve counted 35 different style guides used by just as many different groups of people. Lawyers, librarians, journalists, musicians, government officials, students, scientists, researchers, geologists, businessmen and editors all have their own style guides. No wonder writers struggle in deciding what to do under specific circumstances. Every industry, even every company, has the potential to do things differently.

If you pay attention, you’ll see how other writers address grammar issues. Be forewarned that they bring their own knowledge and personal choice—right, wrong, or just different—to their work. Personally, I have quite a bit of fun discussing fundamental principles with my father-in-law. He’s known to have a quirky way of punctuating sentences. Eventually, he convinces me of his unique logic, and I in turn try to persuade him to find a style guide that supports his view. (I’m beginning to think he’s British.) Picky Me suggests that if he can’t find one, then it’s time to conform to some published criterion. Heaven help me if he chooses Wikipedia or writes his own!

Let’s think back to Penny and Mark. In trying to help them blend their different writing worlds, I suggest that they, too, agree on one basic style guide. It’s less distracting to readers if there is uniformity amongst us writers. That’s one reason publishers and online sites post submission guidelines or indicate the manual of style they would like writers to comply with. At the very least, we don’t want to alienate or irritate their editors by ignoring the very tool they want us to utilize. We want our submissions to work for us, not against us.

Following the rules can be considered one of writers’ most basic job requirements. Consistency in applying them will make us look credible. Accuracy will generate respect; compliance may generate a paycheck. And Mark and Penny will have one less thing to argue about on their way to a fairy tale ending.

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flow

10 Replies

When did you first know that you were a writer? I can trace it back to saying the Pledge of Allegiance in elementary school. Whenever we got to the line “one Nation under God” I thought it sounded awkward. Now mind you, I had no knowledge of the political forces and controversies surrounding the words “under God” in the Pledge. My reaction stemmed purely from the writer’s sense of something being wrong with the flow.

When a piece has good flow the words and sentences have a smooth, unbroken rhythm. Think of reading a passage and following the words with your finger as you read. If at any point your finger pauses too long or stops completely, you have a potential problem with the flow. It means your brain is either working harder to process the written words, or it has come completely out of the story.

In fiction, good flow requires such things as: no logic problems in the plot; no out of character behaviors that are incongruent with the plot; and no inconsistencies like the color of a car being red on one page and blue five pages later. Any of these things may draw the reader’s brain away from the story and off on a tangent saying, “That’s not right.”

Good flow also means there are no awkward pauses or phrasing, no irregular word usage, and no sentences long enough to make you winded if reading it out loud. The reasons behind these problems are usually much harder to articulate. Authors and readers can often tell good flow from bad, but the mechanics are not easy to define.

It would be years later before I learned that “under God” came about through government editing of author Francis Bellamy’s original work. As it turns out, there have been five editing jobs on the Pledge since being published in the September 8th, 1892, edition of The Youth’s Companion. Each change either improves or disrupts the flow and I decided to try and figure out the reasons why. Let’s start at the beginning with the Pledge as it first appeared in The Youth’s Companion:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

The first editing on this piece came from the hand of Francis Bellamy himself. He inserted the word ‘to’ before “the Republic”:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

What does the alteration do for the statement? In the original form, “the Republic for which it stands” has only a passing relationship to the earlier subject/predicate “I pledge allegiance.” By adding the word ‘to’ in front of the phrase, the connection is made stronger thus improving the flow. The change also helps reduce some slight ambiguity of the word ‘it’ which could refer back to either ‘allegiance’ or ‘Flag.’ In the new form of the sentence, I not only pledge allegiance to my flag, but also to the republic for which my flag stands.

At some point in time, the colon in the Pledge gets changed to a comma. Since I couldn’t find exactly when this change happened, I’m going to take some license and examine what the change does while the sentence is in a simpler form:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

While use of either a colon or comma is grammatically correct, the tone is different depending on the choice. Read the version with the colon and then the one with the comma. Did you give a little more emphasis to the words “one nation” when reading the version with the colon? Was the flow a little more monotone when reciting the version with the comma? A colon adds some drama to the sentence while a comma is more casual. In this case, I think the colon is the better option because it fits in with the ceremonial nature of the Pledge. When grammar rules give you a choice, take care that the tone imparted by a colon is in line with the character and tempo of the overall piece.

In 1923, the National Flag Conference released a new version of the Pledge designed to take away any confusion immigrants might have about which flag they were honoring. The words “my flag” became “the flag of the United States”:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The following year, the conference added the words “of America”:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Before adding “of America” the flow is choppy. Is it just coincidence or luck that using the full name of the country improves the flow? I don’t think so. Referring to our country as “the United States” is the common way of speaking. It’s only in formal situations that we add “of America.” The flow of the 1923 version is uneven because the casual usage of the name is at odds with the formal nature of the Pledge.

Congress adopted the Pledge as part of the national flag code in 1942 and it remained unchanged until 1954 when the words “under God” were added:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So what did I hear that made the flow sound off to my young mind? The phrase “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” is complex with no verb or conjunction to help the brain process what is written. Even without the addition of “under God” the statement is hard to interpret. However, the extra words make it more difficult. The complexity becomes more apparent when you see the translation the brain has to do to understand both statements:

Before: one nation standing indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

After: one nation standing under God and indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

The difference may seem subtle, but it is important. I’ve never heard the Pledge spoken without a pause before the words “under God” even though there is no grammatical reason (e.g. a comma) to hesitate there. That stop in the flow is the brain doing a synaptic two-step trying to process the sentence. Tough enough for an adult to figure out let alone my grade school self!