←back to thread

Sentence Structure for Writers (2017)

(blog.oup.com)
84 points onemind | 3 comments | 13 Nov 24 22:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
motohagiography ◴[17 Nov 24 15:16 UTC] No.42164590[source]▶
In the comparison of these two, they say the former is more natural:

> The trouble began suddenly on the thirty-first of October 1998.

> The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998 suddenly.

sure, but natural isn't what a writer who is trying to persuade is going for. 'suddenly' in this example has a polarized value. as an adverb observation it inserts the writer into the story, which either has tremendous meaning, or literally none at all. I would even say that the second example has a more masculine voice than the first because the "trouble began suddenly" usage is careless, non-commital, and low risk.

A lot of what makes reading satisfying is pushing values onto the readers mental stack and popping them off in surprising ways, not unlike comedy setups or waiting for the drop. while I can be a bit turgid, I would have written this as:

"The trouble began on the thirty-first of October 1998, suddenly."

Adding the comma gives you suspense to resolve by popping it off with an example of suddenness. e.g.

"The doctors said it was a possible side effect of the seizure medication, but it was as though a resevoir of something stable and forgotten had breached. Victims in collisions with head injuries often have behavioural changes, they said, but he was not a victim, or even a perpetrator. what is the opposite, a protagonist? 'shopping cart jousting' was the line in his file adjacent to a generic billing code reserved for cases of decidedly other. Not a victim, but perhaps, a Champion."

the comma pushes us down into the story, and the whole stack can be popped by the champion punchline.

replies(5): >>42164640 #>>42164651 #>>42164692 #>>42164744 #>>42164855 #
1. dahart ◴[17 Nov 24 15:42 UTC] No.42164744[source]▶
You can get the stack effect in your story, if that’s what you want, without imposing it on your sentences. There is a strong and not always correct belief that saving surprises to the end is both fun and clear to the reader, that everything should be written as though it’s the big reveal climax of a mystery. However, unless you’re a professional writer, that easily can (and often does) come off as muddy and forced.

I used to feel the same way, that surprises should be saved to the end, for general non-mystery-thriller writing — including technical writing. I’ve changed my mind and agree with the author now. I think it’s better, in both writing and conversation, to put what you want to say up front, to start with the punchline, and let the reader drill down rather than pulling them down. It’s better to use fewer clauses, and make sentences more straightforward. I often don’t succeed at this, so don’t take my comment as an example of practicing what I preach. ;)

Forcing little surprises everywhere to me feels like one of those curved sidewalks in a park. They’re maybe cute once, the first time, and then forever after, especially when you’re trying to get somewhere, they are obnoxious and slow me down.

Personally I prefer ‘the trouble began suddenly’ because putting suddenly at the end is splitting the verb and adverb apart and shoving a long subject in the middle. To me it feels much better to place suddenly next to the verb began that it applies to. I do not agree with the claim that either sentence feels more meaningful or that there’s a gendered voice. That’s completely subjective and power of suggestion. You could argue exactly the opposite, and it wouldn’t be any more right or wrong.

replies(1): >>42165052 #
2. motohagiography ◴[17 Nov 24 16:33 UTC] No.42165052[source]▶
using the adverb at all is weak, as either it contains a critical idea or it doesn't, and I'd never use one in a business context because it's bargaining. the aesthetic qualities of a masculine voice aren't zero sum either, and we know it when we read it. many men write and speak effeminately or like boys, and some women use a more masculine voice beautifully. sex absolutely yields an aesthetic value. people can't draw a little heart above it when they dot an 'i' anymore so they use an exclamation point. instead of bubble letters they use rote phrases that signal their in-group status. e.g. someone who uses the word problematic may be nominally, but is probably not persuasively a heterosexual man as the jargon is an artifact of academic polari. these are aesthetic effects that are downstream of the writers experience.

otherwise, I agree with you for anything that isn't fictional or witful.

replies(1): >>42165325 #
3. ◴[17 Nov 24 17:08 UTC] No.42165325[source]▶