Gardner is aimed toward the literary market (I assume from the tone), which leaves genre fiction where in his rhetoric?
Well, I doubt that this is relevant at that level of abstraction. Gardner is a literary critic who thinks that creative writing can be taught. He's also a writer of (mostly?) fantasy fiction. His
Grendel is a genre classic. The book (ETA:
The Art of Fiction - not
Grendel; thoughts leap all over the place; sorry) is essayistic in style. You can see that from the tone of the excerpt posted; it's rhetoric rather than enlightning (aimed to pursuade, rather than impart information).
I refreshed my knowledge of Gardner on his
Wikipedia page, and found a link to one of his books on Google books. I was curious how long I'd have to wait for the first participle clause. Turns out there's one in the very first non-dialogue sentence:
John Gardner; October Light said:
The old man glared into the flames in the fireplace and trembled all over, biting so hard on the stem of his pipe that it crackled once, sharply, like the fireplace log.
I didn't find any more on that page; there were two in close succession on page two. Then I stopped reading. (I like his prose.
)
My problem with Gardner's style is that it relies on the intuition of the author and the reader (and there may be a disconnect in what each means by "often", or "too much" - to the point that communication fails). If you treat participle phrases as "guilty until proven innocent" you will execute lots of innocents without ever realising. Don't take Gardner too seriously on that.
Browne/King are more practical and less essayistic, giving you a rule-of-thumb for editing (as that's their point), but they too single out a certain element and then list arguments against that. The second is an old, old bugbear (the simulaneity one), and you're better off ignoring it until you investigate further. Else you've just acquired a prejudice. The first argument, about foreground/background, is interesting, but you're better off thinking about that in its own terms (using too much foreground, or failing to differentiate between the two is as dangerous as overloading the background).
As for "sloppy writing": I really, really wish people would stop making judgements of writers' dedication to their work from the text: they may disagree with you and like it that way. Then it's not sloppy. Call it bad writing. Call it boring writing. Call it sluggish writing. Or whatever. Use words that express the effect on you, the reader. Not words that make claims about the writer (if you know nothing about him/her). Then I have at least a hint of what you think is wrong with it. Otherwise I'd think you're just repeating prejudice.
