Does this sentence work?!

I don't know that I'm the definitive authority on what works and what doesn't, but I like the scene as set. You could put a period instead of a comma between "small table" and "the low evening sun" and it would retain its effect and break it up some, if it niggles you.

As an aside, I never minded the smell of a cigarette out in the open. (Kinda hate it in a closed space.) You're not supposed to think that, as a non-smoker, but I do.

MarkEsq said:

Five minutes later, Hugo exchanged Bonjours with a waiter and settled behind a small table. The low evening sun cast long shadows on the street ahead of him.

Click to expand...

Split it up even more. IMO, split something into as many sentences as you can, as long as it doesn't lose meaning or require too many extra words.

My issue here is pragmatic, not grammatical. How are shadows cast in front of him, when his back is likely to a building (the cafe). If the sun were that low, the whole street would be in shadow. Or are the shadows laying in front of him, but being cast in a different direction (along the street or toward him)?

The not-unpleasant waft of a cigarette a few tables away reminded him that yes, he was still in Europe where one’s pleasures may tend to the wicked,[/QUOTE]

This sounds like it means catering to the wicked [people]. Either change "tend" to "lean" or other synonym, "to" to "toward", or both, or rewrite the entirely.

but are rarely indulged in guiltily.

Click to expand...

The passive voice was trouble enough, but te dangling participle put it over the edge.

Also, "but" is confusing me. It seems not being guilty is consistent with being wicked. I think all the negatives are throwing things off here. I think you're doing it for a reason with "not unpleasant", but "rarely ... guilty" is unnecessary. Instead, say "frequently indulged in [whatever the antonym of guilty is]".

Or maybe the "but" is there because you're emphasizing the rarity? In that case, "occasionally" is probably a better choice than "rarely". "Rarely" is used as a sort of negative like "hardly"

MarkEsq said:

...

Five minutes later, Hugo exchanged Bonjours with a waiter and settled behind a small table, the low evening sun casting long shadows on the street ahead of him. The not-unpleasant waft of a cigarette a few tables away reminded him that yes, he was still in Europe where one’s pleasures may tend to the wicked, but are rarely indulged in guiltily.

Click to expand...

The subject isn't related in your first two sentence halves, that's the reason to split that one up.

Splitting the second sentence is a cadence/style choice.

The whole thing might work depending on your writing style, but isolated like this, it's a bit too purple for my taste.


Weighing in on the cigarette smell, it's unpleasant to me even outside.

morngnstar said:

Also, "but" is confusing me. It seems not being guilty is consistent with being wicked. I think all the negatives are throwing things off here. I think you're doing it for a reason with "not unpleasant", but "rarely ... guilty" is unnecessary. Instead, say "frequently indulged in [whatever the antonym of guilty is]".

Or maybe the "but" is there because you're emphasizing the rarity? In that case, "occasionally" is probably a better choice than "rarely". "Rarely" is used as a sort of negative like "hardly"

Click to expand...

I took it to mean that Europeans were more accepting of what could be argued, in more puritan cultures, for "wicked" as merely pleasurably human.

Worked for me. Felt the rhythm, definitely seemed like relief from action. One personal/subjective nit: the not-unpleasant waft. Maybe it's just me, but that phrase sounded less lyrical and I'd rather hear what the character experienced vs. what he didn't. (Agreeable waft? Satisfying aroma? Gratifying scent?)

Good luck!

The sentence works fine. If you want to split it up, I like Jamie's suggestion.

I do not find the language or description purple.

morngnstar said:

My issue here is pragmatic, not grammatical. How are shadows cast in front of him, when his back is likely to a building (the cafe). If the sun were that low, the whole street would be in shadow. Or are the shadows laying in front of him, but being cast in a different direction (along the street or toward him)?

Click to expand...

I see him at a table near the street, with the sun coming from down the street, not from behind buildings.

The passive voice was trouble enough, but te dangling participle put it over the edge

Click to expand...

.

Passive is not always bad. It doesn't bother me here.

pdichellis said:

Worked for me. Felt the rhythm, definitely seemed like relief from action. One personal/subjective nit: the not-unpleasant waft. Maybe it's just me, but that phrase sounded less lyrical and I'd rather hear what the character experienced vs. what he didn't. (Agreeable waft? Satisfying aroma? Gratifying scent?)

Good luck!

Click to expand...

"Not unpleasant" is not the same as "agreeable" or "satisfying." It's perfect here, in my opinion.

MarkEsq said:

Five minutes later, Hugo exchanged Bonjours with a waiter and settled behind a small table, the low evening sun casting long shadows on the street ahead of him. The not-unpleasant waft of a cigarette a few tables away reminded him that yes, he was still in Europe where one’s pleasures may tend to the wicked, but are rarely indulged in guiltily.

Click to expand...

Five minutes later, Hugo exchanged Bonjours with a waiter and settled behind a small table, the low evening sun casting long shadows on the street ahead of him. Perfect. I don't mind long sentences, especially after a string of short ones. No need for a comma after waiter 'cause a main clause doesn't follow the conjunction.

The not-unpleasant waft of a cigarette a few tables away reminded him that yes, he was still in Europe where one’s pleasures may tend to the wicked[No comma]but are rarely indulged in guiltily. I like 'em. Necessary commas are for structure, not to break up good sentences like these.

I like the sentences the way you drafted them. I get the sense of a slightly finicky narrator who likes things to be just so, because damnit, that's what he wants. I would not reduce it or make the cuts that have been suggested. It works perfectly well as you have it.

Good writing. I'd happily read more like that.