Another silly grammar question

miles · Nov 16, 2008

Hi! I'm having a disagreement with someone over the following passage. Please tell me what, if anything, is wrong with it:

A sharp pain screamed through Jack’s head. Sure enough, that was Timothy down there—only Tim called Ruth by that silly nickname. But those clothes! That beard! He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

Note: I edited the first sentence based on suggestions below.

Mr. Chuckletrousers · Nov 16, 2008

miles said:
Hi! I'm having a disagreement with someone over the following passage. Please tell me what, if anything, is wrong with it:

An almost disabling pain stole through Jack’s head. Sure enough, that was Timothy down there—only Tim called Ruth by that silly nickname. But those clothes! That beard! He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

The "almost" is a little ungainly, but it's not ungrammatical. I think there may be a possession problem with the phrase "his sheriff's uniform", which implies that 'Tim' owns a sheriff. Perhaps "his sheriff uniform" might be better. Otherwise, nothing pops out at me...

Chase · Nov 16, 2008

Good evaluation from Chuck. It's possible your other reader likes to play the "happy/glad" game. You say happy, he or she recommends glad, even though either might do in the case. I like your passage with the uniform thing tweaked.

dpaterso · Nov 16, 2008

An almost disabling pain "stole" through his head? Maybe "lanced" or similar sharp verb might fit.

-Derek

miles · Nov 16, 2008

Yes, I can't even explain what her problem is. I didn't even understand it. Something about the last sentence. Anyway, I'm glad I posted it because Chuck pointed out a couple of things I'll change.

Thanks!

miles · Nov 16, 2008

dpaterso said:
An almost disabling pain "stole" through his head? Maybe "lanced" or similar sharp verb might fit.

-Derek

Thanks. I edited the first sentence in the excerpt.

benbradley · Nov 16, 2008

miles said:
Hi! I'm having a disagreement with someone over the following passage. Please tell me what, if anything, is wrong with it:

An almost disabling pain stole through Jack’s head. Sure enough, that was Timothy down there—only Tim called Ruth by that silly nickname. But those clothes! That beard! He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

Might your reader be objecting to the things I bolded? They are not sentences, but in this context they appear to 'work' in context and I'd find this acceptable, unless you do this more than very 'occasionally' (I'm not sure how much that is, but I know it when I see it).

miles said:
Thanks. I edited the first sentence in the excerpt.

And re-reading the OP - Argh!!!

Please post an edited copy, or at least edit the original post like this so later readers will see what the original looked like and can make sense out of the earlier comments (I did see the unedited post, and Chuckle quotes it, but "revisionist" posts tend to bug me):

A~~n almost disabling~~ sharp pain ~~stole~~ screamed through Jack’s head. ...

miles · Nov 16, 2008

benbradley said:
Might your reader be objecting to the things I bolded? They are not sentences, but in this context they appear to 'work' in context and I'd find this acceptable, unless you do this more than very 'occasionally' (I'm not sure how much that is, but I know it when I see it).

No, her problem was with the last sentence. I cleared it up with her now. And as far as the exclamations, that's the first time I've ever used them in that fashion. It probably will be the only time in the novel.

benbradley said:
Please post an edited copy, or at least edit the original post like this so later readers will see what the original looked like and can make sense out of the earlier comments (I did see the unedited post, and Chuckle quotes it, but "revisionist" posts tend to bug me):

Ooops. Sorry. I added a note to the OP.

Ms Hollands · Nov 17, 2008

miles said:
But those clothes! That beard!

Is it just me having flashbacks to Kubla Khan?

That sunny dome! Those caves of ice!
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware! Beware!
His flashing eyes, his floating hair!

Click to expand...

miles · Nov 17, 2008

April Hollands said:
Is it just me having flashbacks to Kubla Khan?

Not sure if that's a good or bad thing, but the context might help.

Here are the preceding paragraphs. Please let me know if it works and if there are any grammar errors. BTW, I checked a few books and did some research and the uniform of a sheriff is almost always written as: "His sheriff's uniform." I agree that could imply that he owned a sheriff, but that's the way it's written ninety percent of the time.

Here's the excerpt:

A figure slipped through the veil opening. It was a priest, not Timothy. Atop a bearded face, he wore a turban with a gold plate anchored to its crown. A blue robe with bells attached to the hem adorned his body. Beneath the robe was a white tunic. And across his chest, strung to a colorful apron, a jewel-encrusted breastplate gleamed in the candlelight.

“Furby,” the preist said, hand trembling as he reached into his robe and pulled out a long-bladed knife. “Why did you lie to me?”

A sharp pain screamed through Jack’s head. My God, that was Timothy after all—only Tim called Ruth by that silly nickname. But those clothes! That beard! He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

Thanks for the comments!

Sargentodiaz · Nov 17, 2008

The first sentence gives me problems. I'm not certain exactly what it means and the wording seems wrong - but I can't explain why!

miles · Nov 17, 2008

lvcabbie said:
The first sentence gives me problems. I'm not certain exactly what it means and the wording seems wrong - but I can't explain why!

A figure slipped through the veil opening.

You mean that sentence? Perhaps it's the context again. Earlier in the scene, a veil is described. It's a curtain dividing the room. Does that help?

Duncan J Macdonald · Nov 17, 2008

miles said:
You mean that sentence? Perhaps it's the context again. Earlier in the scene, a veil is described. It's a curtain dividing the room. Does that help?

Yes, but then, I'd refer to the 'veiled' opening, or 'slipped past the veil'.

A figure slipped through the veil opening. It was a priest, not Timothy. Atop a bearded face, he wore a turban with a gold plate anchored to its crown. A blue robe with bells attached to the hem adorned his body. Beneath the robe was a white tunic. And across his chest, strung to a colorful apron, a jewel-encrusted breastplate gleamed in the candlelight.

“Furby,” the preist said, hand trembling as he reached into his robe and pulled out a long-bladed knife. “Why did you lie to me?”

A sharp pain screamed through Jack’s head. My God, that was Timothy after all—only Tim called Ruth by that silly nickname. But those clothes! That beard! He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

Here's another issue. When the figure first appears, it's identified as a priest. Generally, a priest is identifiable by their clothing, yet the passage goes on to list that clothing. Jack either already knows this, at which point it's redundant to repeat it, or he shouldn't be able to identify the figure.

If we've seen priests before, then drop the clothing description, if we haven't, drop the 'It was a Priest, not Timothy."

Laurie Champion · Nov 17, 2008

I think grammatically you have the morning wearing the shirt. Descriptions of Tim should come after his name. However, I see this type of "error" in fiction all the time, so it's not that big of deal.

miles · Nov 18, 2008

Duncan J Macdonald said:
Yes, but then, I'd refer to the 'veiled' opening, or 'slipped past the veil'.

Here's another issue. When the figure first appears, it's identified as a priest. Generally, a priest is identifiable by their clothing, yet the passage goes on to list that clothing. Jack either already knows this, at which point it's redundant to repeat it, or he shouldn't be able to identify the figure.

If we've seen priests before, then drop the clothing description, if we haven't, drop the 'It was a Priest, not Timothy."

Thanks. Both good points. I've changed it.

miles · Nov 18, 2008

Laurie Champion said:
Descriptions of Tim should come after his name. However, I see this type of "error" in fiction all the time, so it's not that big of deal.

In distant narration, that may be best. But this is written in close-limited third person. The MC processes how the clothes look before he realizes who's actually wearing them. To change it around wouldn't make sense, at least in this case.

FennelGiraffe · Nov 18, 2008

Laurie Champion said:
I think grammatically you have the morning wearing the shirt.

He’d seen Tim just that morning, wearing his sheriff’s uniform without so much as stubble on his face.

Without a comma, the participial phrase, "wearing his sheriff's uniform", would refer to the immediately preceding noun, "morning". With a comma, it refers to the subject of the sentence, "he". Neither one is Tim.

I'm also concerned about why a uniform not having stubble is remarkable.

The meaning is clear in context, of course, so there's no risk of real confusion. Still, it's better to avoid even a momentary flicker of uncertainty in the reader's mind.

Laurie Champion said:
Descriptions of Tim should come after his name.

It depends on the sequence in which the POV character sees things. There are circumstances in which it's reasonable to notice what someone is wearing before you recognize their identity.

The sequence here, as I understand it:
1. Someone's coming. I can't see who it is yet.
2. I'm expecting Tim, so I assume it's Tim. (Even so, the sentence "It was a priest, not Timothy" is misplaced.)
3. No, that man is wearing priest's garb, so he must be a priest.
4. Wait! That priest has Tim's voice, and he's saying things only Tim would say. He is Tim!
5. How can that be Tim? Tim didn't have a beard a few hours ago. And why would he be wearing priest's attire instead of his sheriff's uniform?

It's necessary here to describe the outfit before saying the man is a priest, not Tim. It's also necessary to describe the details revealing Tim's identity before saying it is Tim, after all.

miles · Nov 18, 2008

Without a comma, the participial phrase, "wearing his sheriff's uniform", would refer to the immediately preceding noun, "morning". With a comma, it refers to the subject of the sentence, "he". Neither one is Tim.

I'm also concerned about why a uniform not having stubble is remarkable.

The meaning is clear in context, of course, so there's no risk of real confusion. Still, it's better to avoid even a momentary flicker of uncertainty in the reader's mind.

Yes! That's the whole argument I was in and what prompted me to post this. I was having a back-and-forth with someone over this issue, and I finally decided to put it up here in order to straighten this out. But since nobody (until now) said anything about that sentence, I figured it was fine the way it was.

So, perhaps I should try to reword the sentence to be grammatically correct.

Thanks!

miles · Nov 18, 2008

Thanks for the replies. They really helped.

Another silly grammar question

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

Mr. Chuckletrousers

Sith happens.

Chase

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

dpaterso

Also in our Discord and IRC chat channels

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

Ms Hollands

Cow lover

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

Sargentodiaz

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

Duncan J Macdonald

Plotting! Not Plodding!

Laurie Champion

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say

miles

agent at The Knight Agency

miles

agent at The Knight Agency