Dangling Modifiers

[dannyne330]

We have discussions on lots of grammar issues, so i thought i'd bring up one that hasn't been covered in awhile, and that is giving me a problem at the moment.

Dangling modifiers.
Definition: A word or phrase that modifies a word not clearly stated in the sentence. A modifier describes, clarifies, or gives more detail about a concept. At worst, a dangling modifier confuses the reader and snaps them out of your story. At best, it can make the writer look incompetent.

Example: After hitting the power button, the TV cut on.

For anyone unfamiliar with dangling modifiers, in this example, it appears that the TV hit the power button and turned itself on, which likely isn't the case.

The saying goes, you have to know the rules before you break them, and lots of writers do so all the time.

So here's my question for the experts: When writing prose for a novel, would you use a dangling modifier in place of proper construction for the sake of your rhythm or tone?

Here's the example that's currently pestering me: (the pov character hears screeching tires, and looks up to see a little boy frozen in the street)

The black Sedan plowed into the child. The boy ricocheted off its windshield, too fragile to crack the glass. He landed on the trunk and rolled off into smoking rubber...

In the second sentence, it appears that the windshield is too fragile to crack itself (What? exactly.)
However, i think the meaning, that the child is the one who's too fragile, is pretty clear on first reading.

Now the simple way to grammify it is this:
The black Sedan plowed into the child. Too fragile to crack its windshield, the boy ricocheted off the glass. He landed on the trunk and rolled off into smoking rubber.

Maybe it's just my over-analysis (and please clue me in if that's the case), but i feel that the first version flows better and is more dramatic. Only after he flies off the glass do we learn that he was too delicate to even dent it! How sad.
Also, i'm not wild about the two "off"'s being so close together.

So, my question stands: would you sacrifice the grammar for flow? How would you tackle my example? Feel free to totally rework it if you've got a suggestion. All feedback, on my problem, or on D.M.'s in general, would be appreciated.

And i'm sure some of you have examples of dangling modifiers that come out sounding hilarious, much like the pathetic fallacies Uncle Jim showed us in his learn writing thread. Do share.

Thanks for reading a long post.
Cheers

Danny

[anatole ghio]

The black Sedan plowed into the child. The boy ricocheted off its windshield, too fragile to crack the glass. He landed on the trunk and rolled off into smoking rubber...

I would write: The child struck the black sedan and ricocheted off it's windshield. He was light... too light to crack the glass and he instead landed on the trunk before rolling off into the smoking rubber.

I avoid passive subjects: both your first original sentence and your second modified one had them.

- Anatole

[raffaella]

I don't think you have a problem there. In the TV example the subject hitting the button is not expressed but it's obviously different from the TV cutting on, whereas in your sentence you clearly state the subject in the first part and it remains the protagonist of the second part. I was not confused in the least by reading it, but you might want to consider the fact that English is not my first language, so despite a lifetime of grammar studies I may not grasp such subtleties ...

[James D Macdonald]

The black Sedan plowed into the child. The boy ricocheted off its windshield, too fragile to crack the glass. He landed on the trunk and rolled off into smoking rubber...

Before I worried about the modifier, I'd worry about the action. When a car strikes a child, the child is more likely to go down and beneath the car.

Adults will more likely hit the windshield, because their center of mass is higher.

(I'd also worry about the use of 'ricocheted.')

Any time an antecedent is unclear, clarify: The boy ricocheted off its windshield, his body too fragile to crack the glass.

[maestrowork]

Jim hit it with a nail on the head. Adding "his body" fixes the problem while keeping your rhythm.

[SRHowen]

the reason adults go over a car is that the car strikes their legs vs on a child it strikes their body, pulling them under it. Thus children often have more chest and head injuries and an adult will almost always have broken legs.

Shawn

[Gala]

I never thought of it that way!
:eek

I started a book late last night by a Famous Author who's also won a Guggenheim and PEN/Faulkner. I couldn't finger one of the qualities of his writing that bugs me. It's not the misused verbals, disruptive dialogue tags, and oversuse of commas. It's danglying modifiers. I read a book like this and for a sec wonder why I try; I couldn't write such lousy grammar, constently, if I tried.

Dangle dangle.

[James D Macdonald]

More on grammar:

You're allowed to do anything in dialog.

[Gala]

Indeed. That's why I adore the first pages of The Sound and the Fury. A friend told me when she first read it she thought it sounded like an idiot was talking, but she couldn't put it down.

sidenote:
In Our Lady of the Forest author Guterson (Snow Falling on Cedars) doesn't use quotation marks. Yet I always know when someone is talking, and who is speaking. His danglers are nice too.

I am prone to dangle, so thanks for the discussion. I've wondered if dyslexia carries over to grammar, because I naturally reverse parts of sentences. I once thought it was proof of stupidity, for no amount of study and practice cured this tendancy. As a more mature writer, on a good day I can use reversal in style.

[aka eraser]

What was the rubber smoking?

Hey! If it occurred to me....

[wurdwise]

Gala, I do the same thing. I didn't realize it till I started writing stories. Sometimes, I sound like Yoda. It is good, yes.;)

[reph]

The black Sedan plowed into the child. The boy ricocheted off its windshield, too fragile to crack the glass.

This is grammatically acceptable even though it's the "before" version in your before-and-after pair. It's like "I collapsed onto the bed, too tired to take off my shoes."

Just don't cap "sedan" (it's not a brand or model name), and attend to what others said about "ricocheted" and the likely physical action.

[dannyne330]

THanks for all the help and insight guys.
Uncle Jim, Ray, everyone, your wisdom shines through and made it so simple. THank you.

AKA Eraser= There was smoking rubber b/c the car slammed on the brakes when it saw the boy. It just didn't come to a complete stop before hitting him. (It's described earlier in the prose, but I only included the briefest excerpt needed to understand my particular issue)

Uncle Jim= Thanks for considering the makeup of my scene. Good points. I think that since the car is slamming on the brakes (which may not have been clear here), and front ends of cars tend to go way down when that happens, in this scenario the boy would bounce off the hood/windshield. I wonder if you could tell me why you take issue with the word 'ricochet?' My reason for using it was only b/c i thought it was a stronger verb than 'bounce,' so I'm more than willing to change it based on your recommendation, i'm just curious as to why.

Once again, thank you all.
Cheers!

[cwfgal]

Uncle Jim= Thanks for considering the makeup of my scene. Good points. I think that since the car is slamming on the brakes (which may not have been clear here), and front ends of cars tend to go way down when that happens, in this scenario the boy would bounce off the hood/windshield.

The boy would have to be very tall and very, very skinny for him to be big enough to go up over the hood of the car rather than under it but still be too light to crack the windshield. Hard braking would not lower the front end of the car enough to make a difference.

One thought: if the boy was on a bicycle he might be high enough to go over the hood and into the windshield rather than under.

Beth