I can't get away with this, can I?

backslashbaby · Aug 20, 2011

Excited, his shoulders did something I explain in the story.

I would really like to avoid having to unpack excited, but I do, don't I? Excited shoulders are no good?

It is possibly clear enough that the dude is the excited one, or would this bug you to no end?

amyashley · Aug 20, 2011

Can you add the rest of the sentence? I think I would read it and understand it well, but some people might stumble.

It's one of those things I'd edit out, but if it fit well with the voice and meshed with the rest of the paragraph I might leave it. In heightened spots of emotion I do things like this, because people tend to alter their thought patterns and it makes sense. Not everything needs to flow off the brain/tongue like buttah.

JMO.

backslashbaby · Aug 20, 2011

I can add it, but it sounds odd out of context, lol.

Here's what I have, but I wish I could just use excited at the beginning.

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He was excited; his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...[/FONT]

amyashley · Aug 20, 2011

No, leave it the first way. It reads perfectly.

The "he was" makes it sound all grade-school appropriate. Because the rest of the sentence is well-formatted, it is very clear that it is HIM the is excited and that the movement is a result of the emotion and generated by the shoulders, yada yada.

Well done. I like it.

Stacia Kane · Aug 20, 2011

It would bug me to no end, sorry. I would read it as his shoulders being excited and just think it was a bad sentence. Now, excitement can tense his shoulders, or excitement can make his shoulders shake, but that's still HIM being excited and not his shoulders.

I agree scenes with lots of action or emotion can--and do--change sentence structure etc., but I just can't see myself getting past that one (but then I'm extra nitpicky about stuff like that).

ETA: just saw your follow-ups with the sentence. The problem is that "He was excited" is telling, and I don't see the connection between excitement and his shoulders and waist moving (I also don't understand "before he seemed to want them to," sorry, or how shoulders and hips can move forward and leave a head behind, but on that last point I'll trust you know what you're doing).

Instead of telling us like that, why not something like "His overeager hips and shoulders jerked forward, leaving his head alert and socket-eyed. It was repulsive, a horrible insect movement." Skip telling us he was excited at all. His overeager hips and the fact that they're jerking forward shows us excitement.

amyashley · Aug 20, 2011

LOL.

See I told you, some people will like it and some people won't.

Stacia, would it be better if it were "Exictedly," ? Then the word refers to the action.

That may be a better grammatical fix while retaining the simpler beginning.

Stacia Kane · Aug 20, 2011

Lol, I was editing my post while you were writing. I don't think "excited" is necessary at all, and I'd skip it.

Christine N. · Aug 20, 2011

Excitedly is such a clunky word. An an ebil adverb. Dey is EBIL!

Perhaps,"He was so excited that his shoulders and waist seemed to move..."

Lil · Aug 20, 2011

"Excited, his shoulders did something I explain in the story."

Unless there is some way his shoulders could be excited, leaving the rest of his body indifferent, this makes no sense. It's a classic misplaced modifier.

Don't try to fix it by making it "excitedly." Just rewrite the whole sentence.

JSDR · Aug 20, 2011

backslashbaby said:
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]He was excited; his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...[/FONT]

I like it the way it is. The way the sentence is written looks like an awkward insect, which you reference later on.
"He was excited" is the head. "his shoulders... socket-eyed" is the segmented body, separated by that comma.

*shrugs* if that's the style in which the piece is written, it'll flow with the story.

absitinvidia · Aug 20, 2011

A dangling modifier is a dangling modifier, and no amount of "but it's obvious what I meant" will make it grammatically correct.

pdr · Aug 20, 2011

Sigh!

You can grammar out and render bland a voice and a style.

If that's the narrator's voice throughout the novel/story then it works. It might not be perfectly correct, and it isn't, but it works as the POV voice.

RobJ · Aug 21, 2011

backslashbaby said:
[FONT=&quot]He was excited; his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...[/FONT]

There doesn't appear to be an obvious connection between 'he was excited' and what follows.

For the rest:

backslashbaby said:
[FONT=&quot]His shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...[/FONT]

I'd probably switch it around so that the shoulder/waist movement comes after the aloof head, and bring the insect movement into the sentence:

backslashbaby said:
[FONT=&quot]His head remained aloof and socket-eyed, but his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, in a repulsive insect movement...[/FONT]

bonitakale · Aug 21, 2011

If I came upon, "Excited, his shoulders...." I'd growl and read the sentence to my husband. "So stop reading it," he'd say, but I probably wouldn't.

I like Stacia's way.

Jamesaritchie · Aug 21, 2011

"Excited" would bug me either way. If you show his excitement, you don't need to explain it. Trust your writing, and trust your readers.

I know he's excited if I read, His shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive, insect movement.

There's no need to show and tell.

Stacia Kane · Aug 21, 2011

pdr said:
You can grammar out and render bland a voice and a style.

If that's the narrator's voice throughout the novel/story then it works. It might not be perfectly correct, and it isn't, but it works as the POV voice.

Yes, you definitely can "grammar out" voice and style, I totally agree. I've seen it happen; I've had to deal with copyeditors trying to do it to me, in the past. But I don't think a sentence which is badly written and nonsensical is a style issue; it's just a badly written, nonsensical sentence.

I'm a firm believer in the quote that the only rule of grammar that must be followed is to make oneself understood. In this case I don't think the sentence as originally written is understandable, frankly. It sounds like the writer doesn't know what s/he is trying to say, or doesn't understand what s/he is actually saying.

"Bad writing" is not really a style.* If the main characteristic of your voice is that it's badly written...

You know what I mean?

*Note: That's a general comment. I'm not saying or implying that the OP is a bad writer or that her voice is just a badly written jumble of words. I don't believe that at all. So please don't take it that way, OP; it's not about you, it's a generalization.

backslashbaby · Aug 21, 2011

Such good stuff, y'all! This one was driving me crazy.

I am going to lose the dangling modifier. I would let it slide if I read it, but it would stick out enough that I'd notice, and I want folks to notice the boy, not the writing

amyashley · Aug 21, 2011

Stacia Kane said:
I'm a firm believer in the quote that the only rule of grammar that must be followed is to make oneself understood.

FTW

My favorite fix in the end is elimination of excited altogether. It's a weighty sentence. Any other wrangling might damage the voice.

BSB, you may have come up with something in the interim though. I always seem to hit on inspiration once I post here, lol.

Cassiopeia · Aug 21, 2011

I'm just wondering what socket-eyed is. :tongue

I think you can keep it the way it was or just leave off, "he was excited."

Because as you know that's telling not showing.

I'll just run along now.

backslashbaby · Aug 21, 2011

Socket-eyed is clear to the reader by that point, I promise

Stacia Kane · Aug 21, 2011

I thought "socket-eyed" was a lovely image, actually (well, not "lovely" as in lovely, "lovely" as in clear and well-written).

Dawnstorm · Aug 21, 2011

[FONT=&quot]He was excited; his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...

vs.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Excited, his shoulders and waist moved before he seemed to want them to, but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...

[/FONT]

1. The first sentence doesn't really work, as it messes up the structure.

You have: [He was excited]-->[[Clause 1] - but -> [Clause 2]], when the excitement is really only part of clause 1, and the incongruity between body and head is what looks eerie.

2. There are two ways to read the "excited" in the second sentence:

2. a) (unlikely) People make the connection between "him" and "excited". In that case, it depends on the reader if they're okay with it or not. The more "theory-polluted" the reader, the more likely they'll mind. Thus, you'll get a disproportionate number of "no"s on a writing site. It can be an acquired aversion (though, it can also be a natural aversion).

2. b) People read "excited" as referring to the shoulders. In that case, we have figure of speech: a metonymy. It's clear that he is excited, but it's the shoulders that express it. Since you have contrast with the head, that actually works pretty well for me. Shoulder = excited; head =/= excited. Watcher = grossed out.

3. Something is off in the sentence. "seemed to want them to" - here you're explicitly referring to what a watcher infers about the motivation, and that interferes with the image. So, rather than getting rid of the "Excited", I'd get rid of the "before he seemed to want them to" line, focussing on the image. Both, "excited" and "before he seemed to want them to" pretty much refer to the same state, but only the former is - via metonymy - tied into the image. The latter is also more wordy. So my suggestion:

[FONT=&quot]Excited, his shoulders and waist moved [forward; or any other phrase that indicates a direction; if he's standing still, how about "quivered" or some such word?], but his head remained aloof and socket-eyed. It was a repulsive insect movement...

[/FONT]

Deleted member 42 · Aug 21, 2011

No; sorry. It's just vile English. It's not a matter of style, it's a matter of murky writing.

More show, less tell.

Deleted member 42 · Aug 21, 2011

backslashbaby said:
Socket-eyed is clear to the reader by that point, I promise

And that's a keeper.

backslashbaby · Aug 21, 2011

Thank you both! I agree with too many people, though. Arggh

This is what I'll put

:

"Shoulder = excited; head =/= excited. Watcher = grossed out."

Perfect!

I can't get away with this, can I?

~~~~*~~~~

Stunt-Writer

~~~~*~~~~

Stunt-Writer

Girl Detective

Stunt-Writer

Girl Detective

haz a shiny new book cover

wants moar baddassery.

A bit of a wallflower

Girl Detective

~~~~*~~~~

Stunt-Writer

Otherwise Occupied

~~~~*~~~~

Girl Detective

punny user title, here

Deleted member 42

Deleted member 42

~~~~*~~~~

*

*

*

*

*