Struggling With A Sentence

SquareSails said:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

The whole thing reads better if you deep-six the 'who(m)' altogether.

I believe 'who' as the subject of the verb 'needed'. But grammarians have waterboarded people like me for less.

Sometimes it helps to eliminate excess phrases to see the underlying structure.
...he'd plucked from a Norseman who no longer needed it.

"He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it."

You cannot gathered tighter. You cannot also secure a elaborate. Don't use plucked, it's a quick action not a descriptive one. Whom was correct.

But rewrite is all together and then into 2 sentences.

He secured his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck with a silver brooch. He (proper name) had pulled the brooch out of a deadman's fingers yesterday.

or

(Proper name) admired the detail on the silver brooch in his hand. The deadman who last held it must have looked at it in the same way. But tonight, it was (proper)'s, and it was going to secure his mantle laden with winter-fox fir.

SquareSails said:

Thanks so much. So, the only part of the sentence I got right was the thing I was most worried about. And the rest is crap. Great. LOL.

Just so I know for future reference:

Could I tighten the mantle? He tightened his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck.
So, no comma between "elaborate" and "silver" ?
I guess I thought "plucked" was appropriate because I wanted the reader to see a quick action. My character was enraged when he killed the Norseman.

Click to expand...

Cut elaborate and the comma. It's worthless to try to describe something that doesn't need to be described.

If the story of the deadman is part of the main story, then speak of it a bit. But if not, leave it out.

My idea is to have the man speak about how he came into contact with the brooch to someone else. Have him tell the story to them as he places the brooch on.

Mantles are loose clothing, so it's hard to tighten a loose cloth. You can wear one, but tightening or loosing it would be a problem. Just have him wear it and use the brooch to attach it.

Then I think you should summarize the brooch story. Don't elude to it, but bring it up to the reader.

But later. The first 1000 words should throw the reader to the story and not in-depth characterization.

Show the reader how ruthless the character can be while the story is developing. It would be best to stay away from smaller stories on small time items that won't effect the story itself.

So have the character take a brooch later on in the story and wear it. Have him wear it with the man's blood stood encrusted and whatnot. But don't start or eluding to stories in the introduction.

Books aren't like a rollercoaster, don't start on the climb to the fall, but start the story on the start of the freefall and so on.

SquareSails said:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

Some great advice I once got was to cut down on multiple adjectives. Choose the best one and go with that. This will usually help your sentences pop:

He gathered his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck, and secured it with a silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

He’d plucked from… is a great concept, but its impact is lost in the middle here. So you can try giving it its own sentence:

He gathered his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck, and secured it with the silver brooch; A little something he had plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

I assume the reader doesn’t know that your hero killed the Norseman, because you say A Norseman not THE Norseman

With that in mind you can plump it up a little:

He gathered his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck, and secured it with the silver brooch; A little something he had plucked from the body of a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

You could make the last part his thoughts. You know- show don’t tell. And once again it will shine a light on the final thought, which deserves its own solo:

He gathered his fur-trimmed mantle around his neck, and secured it with the silver brooch; A little something he had plucked from the body of a Norseman. Well, its not like the man had any more use for it.

Click to expand...

And because I'm a compulsive editor I'll force myself to stop here.

SquareSails said:

I guess I thought "plucked" was appropriate because I wanted the reader to see a quick action. My character was enraged when he killed the Norseman.

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
I actually like “plucked“, although, I’m getting a different vibe. I almost see him standing there admiring a piece of jewellery over the body a dead man. This is a little psychotic.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

I agree with Bill -- just delete the 'whom' and leave the rest -- the sentence works just fine. I like it, in fact.

Some of the quibblers seem to think that "dead man" is a single word. I would not trust them.

SquareSails said:

I've struggled with this sentence for a while now. First, it was the whole "who vs. whom" thing, which always trips me up. Then, I wanted to make sure it was implied why the Norseman no longer needed the brooch. But, the more I look at it, the more I am thinking about just backspacing over the entire sentence.

Is it "whom," and do you think the rest of it is just too wordy? Thanks for any help. It's driving me batty.

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

It's whom. There are a lot of tricks to remembering which, but generally if a subject comes between who/whom and the verb, then you use whom.

The sentence does have a lot of adjective/description going on. Is there a place prior you that you can describe his mantle is fur-trimmed and long so you don't need it here?

Hopefully that helps.

jodi

ETA: I personally like the info you have in the whom clause. It gives a hint of voice.

SquareSails said:

Is it "whom," and do you think the rest of it is just too wordy? Thanks for any help. It's driving me batty.

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman whom he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

I'd use neither who nor whom. I'd say "that." So what you have is:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman that he was certain no longer needed it.

Seems the easiest way to go.

BotByte said:

You cannot gathered tighter. You cannot also secure a elaborate. Don't use plucked, it's a quick action not a descriptive one. Whom was correct.

Click to expand...

Not to be contrary, but I didn't read the sentence as he was securing an elaborate, but that he was securing a brooch (one that was specifically described).

BotByte said:

Don't use plucked, it's a quick action not a descriptive one.

Click to expand...

Also, again, not to be contrary, but to me plucked is a descriptive verb. Plucked implies more than pulled. It implies that he grabbed it quickly, maybe without another thought. Pulled gives a different tone.

Jodi

Night_Writer said:

I'd use neither who nor whom. I'd say "that." So what you have is:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman that he was certain no longer needed it.

Seems the easiest way to go.

Click to expand...

Problem is I still read it as needing who/whom (not that) because people (Norseman) take who/whom not that. Maybe you are using that in a different way?

Jodi

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman that he was certain no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

Here's the sentence I would have written, if the comparison helps you.

"He snugged the long fur mantle around his neck and secured it with an elaborate silver brooch he'd taken from a Norseman that he was sure no longer needed it."

or

"He snugged the fur mantle around his neck and pinned it with the elaborate silver brooch he'd taken from the Norseman, who certainly no longer needed it."

FIRST: Take out all the commas except the one before "long".

SECOND: Take out tighter. Replace with tightly or more tightly.

THIRD: Take out whom. Replace with who, he was certain, no longer needed it. (Note commas inserted.)

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle more tightly around his neck and secured it with an elaborate silver brooch he'd plucked from a Norseman who, he was certain, no longer needed it.

FWIW, your sentence scores a 12 on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level.

Also, I like "plucked." Historical sounding.

I disagree with the above. If you can find a single word that does the job of two or even three (gathered, more tightly) then use that instead. Snugged counts for three.

Is this argument of mine better supported by A or B.

A. Generally speaking, you should strive to use shorter and simpler sentences to make your writing more emphatic and easier to read.

B. Concise is better.

I choose B.

I vote for using the type of sentence that you, the writer, feel conveys the tone, information and style you wish to convey. Concise is good for news articles, but not necessarily good for historical fantasy.

I respectfully disagree with Orange above. If I read the word "snugged" I would think of a bear on a bottle of fabric softener.

Karen Junker said:

I vote for using the type of sentence that you, the writer, feel conveys the tone, information and style you wish to convey. Concise is good for news articles, but not necessarily good for historical fantasy.

Click to expand...

Ya, poor squaresails isn't going to recover from this dogpile of advice for six months.

Chrissy said:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle more tightly around his neck and secured it with an elaborate silver brooch he'd plucked from a Norseman who, he was certain, no longer needed it.

Click to expand...

Chrissy for the win. I especially thank you for getting rid of the comma before "secured." (I, personally, would get rid of "long," but as the sentence is written, I think Chrissy's edits are correct. I rather like the sentence myself.)

dangerousbill said:

Ya, poor squaresails isn't going to recover from this dogpile of advice for six months.

Click to expand...

Why you gotta take away my fun, Bill?

If this is an opening paragraph, squeeze a little more information and some characterization out of the scene segment while keeping it moving within the overall scene. Also, calling the brooch elaborate doesn't alert the reader to the value of the object in the terms you intend.
The following is not a direct suggestion, but an example of how one could incorporate the original writing into what is presumed to be an action scene (battle?)

[POV character's name] wiped the smudge of blood from the brooch and admired the ... [give some brief physical detail that will identify it as coming from a person of importance]. The Norseman wouldn't need it now. [POV character] turned the prize to catch the light. He'd never seen [another chance to give another brief detail, but this also underlines that the POV character is of a lesser social standing].

[Have something else happen to get the character's attention and to keep the scene moving]. [POV character] gathered the fur-trimmed mantle tight around his neck and fastened it with the brooch. He felt a sense of awakening power, but was it from the brooch or from the kill? [Have something happen to him that immediately challenges the sensation he just experienced]


Now we know the POV character is a warrior who just defeated a Norseman of some social importance, and the reader has been alerted to how special and important the brooch is to the character. Presumably the brooch will play some important role later in the story, and the brief physical descriptions can be used in those later appearances. Also, the scene isn't a static description, but incorporated into a moving scene (if that is what was intended). Why keep the scene moving? If it's a battle scene, he won't have much time to admire a trinket, no matter how important or beautiful, so the challenge is to get that importance in the mind of the reader while keeping up the action of the scene. If the scene is the aftermath of a battle, there will be more time to dwell, but still no need to hit the description of the brooch much harder. The aftermath of a battle is a time to get into the mind and reactions of the warrior to set some serious characterization.

Night_Writer said:

I'd use neither who nor whom. I'd say "that." So what you have is:

He gathered his long, fur-trimmed mantle tighter around his neck, and secured it with an elaborate, silver brooch he’d plucked from a Norseman that he was certain no longer needed it.

Seems the easiest way to go.

Click to expand...

except that the Norseman is a person. "that" is for inanimate objects. I suppose you could argue that since he's a corpse he's inanimate, but the sentence is written with 'Norseman', and who(m) is the pronoun for people.