Present participial phrases
- Thread starter RemusShepherd
- Start date
- Status
Multitasking lithe limbs through eye-watering slots and holes, around corners and up hills, he escaped. Maybe.... 
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 660
- Reaction score
- 42
- Location
- Western Washington
- Website
- jonathandalar.blogspot.com
It's easier for the reader to understand a possibly foggy connection if the word in question applies to one but not the other noun. A word like "reassure" really isn't applicable to pockets, so it's clear the subject of the sentence was the modified.
The final sentence, however:
Is not. He (the subject of the sentence) could indicate danger. As could a warning light, gauge readout, or other such indicator (he saw).
Consider: He saw red, which indicated danger.
And: He saw red, and indicated danger.
It's not as clear if the modifier could ambiguously modify more than one subject. Once you're clear of any of those pesky ambiguous modifiers, your sentence clarity improves.
The final sentence, however:
Is not. He (the subject of the sentence) could indicate danger. As could a warning light, gauge readout, or other such indicator (he saw).
Consider: He saw red, which indicated danger.
And: He saw red, and indicated danger.
It's not as clear if the modifier could ambiguously modify more than one subject. Once you're clear of any of those pesky ambiguous modifiers, your sentence clarity improves.
Thank you Boni & Fallen! Your explanations really did penetrate this thick skull of mine! This forum is a lifeline for writers.
"Opening the door" would be the normal way, wouldn't it? Unless he got out through a window or by breaking down a wall, why not just say:
Fred let himself out..
Or, if the subsequent action takes place outside, or in his car, or anyplace other than the house, why even mention that he let himself out? Do you need to describe him walking across the living room to get to the door to let himself out? Do you need to mention that, in doing so, he put his left foot in front of his right, then reversed the procedure, several times, to get there?
Overdescription of inconsequential activities is a major flaw in a lot of manuscripts I see.
caw
Noooooooooooooo. Don't go editor my humble proofing ass
. I don't doubt there are better ways. The point is that -ing-clauses can be looked at from different angles: not just simultanous: Dangling the keys in front of them, he unlocked the door.
The usual argument is you can't 'dangle' if you're 'unlocking' (simulataneous action), but what about near-simultaneous (or showing a state through action)?
Dangling the keys in front of them (he's being a bit of a b******), he locked the door.
Near-simultaneous does not equal simultaneous. And why write it that way, anyway? It's a weak way to form a sentence, because you're forcing a subordinate, supporting clause to take on the role of a main action.
Better would be--
He dangled the keys in front of them before unlocking the door.
or
He dangled the keys in front of them, then unlocked the door.
Reserve the subordinate clause for a truly supporting function--an action that modifies or enhances the main action.
Her heart pounding, she opened the box.
In that case, the dependent clause is first in the sentence because the action of opening the box needs to be last, for greatest impact.
But mostly it's better to place the dependent clause in the middle of the sentence or at the end.
He trudged through the snow, leaving bloody footprints in his wake.
You're editting out of context, Beth, and without looking at what Kate is saying.
I'm saying that youd don't just use -ing clauses to portray simulataneous action (as evan was asking why/when intial, medial and end positioning would be a choice for placement).
The semantic relation between -ing clause and main is tenuous at best, yes aspect plays a major part, but it can be dealing with many things, including time, reason, condition.
Your example deals with a mental state, then main clause.
Her heart pounding, she...
Which is one use, but saying 'simultaneous use' is the only correct way restricts usage.
'Grabbing the keys, she rushed out of the bedroom.'
This one could suggest a series of events (you grab and then run).
I'm not saying how can this be written better; I'm looking at the meaning of it as it stands.
Last edited:
Well, yes, I agree with you that your interpretation is how most people would read it.
Which still doesn't make it good usage. Grammatical correctness isn't a guarantor of good writing, which is what I think I said in my first post in this thread. And is not an irrelevant issue.
One of my first pieces of advice to students in my writing classes is: If a sentence you've written bothers you, chances are you can write it differently and improve it. Even if the first version has no grammatical problem.
caw
Agreed
'Grabbing the keys, she rushed out of the bedroom.' Comes from one of Richard Layman's novels. The 'Dangling the keys...' example comes from the Longman Student G. (fict). Layman uses far more -ing clauses than say, the likes of Patricia Cornwell (she seemes to favour the 'supplement info -ing' (final position)).
I think it just makes me nervous when some editors say 'good authors avoid'. I think 'good authors' just know when 'best' to use something. You get an aspiring author thinking they can't be used at all, when that isn't the case.
Last edited:
*puzzled* I wasn't responding to Kate. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say I'm editing out of context. I was arguing with your supposition that actions that are close to simultaneous are OK to write as a dependent/independent construct.
Those are two consecutive actions, yes, and they happen very close together, but that's still a misuse of the dependent clause. A dependent clause should modify and support the main clause. In that sentence, you have two equal and distinct actions--grabbing the keys and rushing out of the bedroom--but one of them has been incorrectly relegated to a position of supporting the other.
And sure--sometimes you do find sentences like that in published books. Unfortunately. But it's not a good example to follow.
Last edited:
According to whom, though? I've seen this usage decried too, but I'm not necessarily convinced. This site, for instance, says simultaneous and sequential uses are both fine.
All I want is to understand - at first read - what image the writer is trying to convey in the context of the scene in question.
If I do, I'm not going to start picking clauses apart looking for some other meaning that probably only exists when considering the relative sentence outside the context.
If I do, I'm not going to start picking clauses apart looking for some other meaning that probably only exists when considering the relative sentence outside the context.
I think the fact that we find these constructions in published books--and fairly widely, in my opinion--doesn't so much mean we shouldn't follow those awful examples of misuse, as proves that it's a perfectly acceptable use of language.
It's no shocker that writer-types are going to henpeck grammar and syntax to death, no matter where we find it. The vast majority of readers, though, use a solid understanding of basic language, idioms, laws of physics, and common sense to determine the meaning of sentences.
When someone reads "Unlocking the door, he let himself out," no one thinks "My god! How in Hades did he stretch his arms out the window and open the door from the outside!?" This thought never enters most readers' minds because most of us automatically dismiss absurd interpretations of language. "Writers" and other grammarians might have a chuckle; most people are completely aware of the author's intent.
Yes, we should avoid awkward situations, like "Getting out of bed, he caught the bus," and I realize some people are going to have different levels of tolerance for what's "awkward." But I don't see any reason why, if the structure makes contextual sense, can't legitimately be misconstrued, and doesn't confuse the reader, we shouldn't use the structure to our full advantage for variety, flow, rhythm, and nuance.
Readers aren't stupid, and in my opinion, the idea that you must always avoid the construction was thought up by the same people who iron their underwear. It's a valid construction--writers use it; readers understand it.
It's no shocker that writer-types are going to henpeck grammar and syntax to death, no matter where we find it. The vast majority of readers, though, use a solid understanding of basic language, idioms, laws of physics, and common sense to determine the meaning of sentences.
When someone reads "Unlocking the door, he let himself out," no one thinks "My god! How in Hades did he stretch his arms out the window and open the door from the outside!?" This thought never enters most readers' minds because most of us automatically dismiss absurd interpretations of language. "Writers" and other grammarians might have a chuckle; most people are completely aware of the author's intent.
Yes, we should avoid awkward situations, like "Getting out of bed, he caught the bus," and I realize some people are going to have different levels of tolerance for what's "awkward." But I don't see any reason why, if the structure makes contextual sense, can't legitimately be misconstrued, and doesn't confuse the reader, we shouldn't use the structure to our full advantage for variety, flow, rhythm, and nuance.
Readers aren't stupid, and in my opinion, the idea that you must always avoid the construction was thought up by the same people who iron their underwear. It's a valid construction--writers use it; readers understand it.
I think this hits it on the head. If a reader took every example of writing literally, you'd get pretty outlandish interpretations.
@Beth. Can you maybe provide some citations from a reference grammar that says these constructions are weak or (near-simultaneous) should be avoided in fiction? I'd like to have a look at what's being said.
Some do say that. I've never figured out why they think it's acceptable, either grammatically or from a good-writing standpoint. From the source you cited, they also said things like:
The second example is not "unnatural" and it may well be the best way to write that sentence, if the fact that's he's brushing away a hair (imginary or otherwise) is actually significant and the writer wants it to be noticed.
Since you asked for sources, let me quote from two respected ones. First, John Gardner in The Art of Fiction says:
And from the widely recommended Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King:
Both of these sources went on to say that the -ing construction is not to be avoided entirely, but it needs to be used appropriately and thoughtfully, not scattered like confetti throughout the writing. And their objections mostly centered around using them to open a sentence, which is the weakest position and seems to cause the most problems.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2007
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 112
- Age
- 56
- Location
- Midwest
- Website
- remus-shepherd.livejournal.com
I think you're right that this is the core of the question: How much can you bend the rules of grammar before your prose suffers?
I worry that there may be two answers to that question, one for readers and one for editors. Readers are forgiving, but judging by the linked article in the OP editors may be extremely (overly?) strict.
They're supplement clauses:
(The Longman Student Grammar, p258)
It's kind of one of the points to supplementary clauses that the main clause remains the focus. To say it's 'weak usage' because that structure makes your writing 'incidental' or 'unimportant' seems... both ironical and prescriptive.
They're not like this class of dependent -ing clauses:
Using a supplement clause is considered 'weak' by some (subject -ing)... The woman taking the call was frustrated (noun postmodifier)...
Information becomes background, sets the scene to the main etc:
'Grabbing the keys, she rushed out of the bathroom.' (Laymen)
They're not as closely tied like the examples above, and their semantic relation varies.
Going back to the op's editorial link... If a 'good writer' intended it as anything but 'supplementary', he'd write it differently. But if he intended it as supplementary, as background info to the main, he wouldn't be a 'bad writer' for using them...
Yes, absolutely.
This is missing the point, which I'll repeat: taking an action and forcing it inappropriately into a supportive or supplemental role is what weakens the sentence. It's not that you can't have these phrases; it's what you use them for that makes the difference between good and bad sentences. This same point was touched in at least one of the sources I cited in my previous post. And since you requested that I provide some sources, I'd be curious to hear your response to them.
Well, I'd argue that if he writes sentences like
Grabbing the keys, I dashed out of the room
or
Entering the room, she answered the ringing phone
intending one of those actions to be subordinate to the other, then clearly he doesn't understand the proper use of the infinite verb clause.
In those sentences, the actions did not happen simultaneously, nor is one incidental to or modifying the other. The actions are separate and sequential. They have equal weight, which makes the use of the dependent clause inappropriate.
A better way to write them would be:
I grabbed the keys from their hook and dashed out of the room.
I hurried down the hall, snagging the keys from the table along the way.
She burst into the room and pounced on the ringing phone.
Upon entering the room, she heard the phone ring and went to answer it.
Quoting phrases out of context is never conclusive.
Who is to say an author's choice of words wasn't deliberate and used because it fitted the particular situation?
For instance, if I already knew the keys were hanging on a hook beside (or even on the back of) the open door I would completely accept -
Grabbing the keys, I dashed out of the room
Who is to say an author's choice of words wasn't deliberate and used because it fitted the particular situation?
For instance, if I already knew the keys were hanging on a hook beside (or even on the back of) the open door I would completely accept -
Grabbing the keys, I dashed out of the room
They're style sources. 'Prescriptive' sums up my response to their tone well enough. That's no disrespect to anyone. It's just obvious to me that some authors do use these initial supplement clauses to suggest near-smultaneous action. I'd much rather look at examples from authors across different genres to understand why/why not to use them, rather than be told outright that they can be bad writing.
And this is where taking the writing literally unsettles me. Yes it's 'correct' to use the adverb, but like with the 'Grabbing the keys, she rushed out of the room' example, when the adverb is dropped, a reader is able to 'infer' the sequence from context.
Last edited:
I think it's always a good idea to study the writing in published novels, but if you (generic you, not you in particular) are already of the opinion that such constructions are acceptable/unacceptable, then finding examples of them (or lack thereof) will only reinforce your position, I should think.
Yes, and this is really where we differ. Of course, we can understand it perfectly well, but that still doesn't make it a good sentence. My opinion (which will be no surprise to anyone
) is that while it may be clear in meaning, it is also sloppy writing.That said, if I occasionally encounter a sentence like that in a published book, I'm not going to care much. If the writing is peppered with them, though, I won't bother reading further than a page or so.
Of course, we can understand it perfectly well, but that still doesn't make it a good sentence. My opinion (which will be no surprise to anyone
That said, if I occasionally encounter a sentence like that in a published book, I'm not going to care much. If the writing is peppered with them, though, I won't bother reading further than a page or so.
Clearest, most succinct, and most pertinent post in this thread.
caw
- Status