stylistic quibble

Gee, either one will pass. Only difference is a colon instead of a new sentence. Very good writing BTW.

Tri

I like the second one better, even though I don't like the use of the colon.

whitehound said:

I am having a discussion with somebody about fine details of style. I won't tell you why, with whom, or which bit is whose, because I don't want to bias the vote. Just tell me, if you would, which of these slightly different version of the same scene you prefer.


For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous. She decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and she grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Professor. Destruction to our enemies."

For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous: decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Prof. Destruction to our enemies."

Click to expand...

Both seem wordy, and I hate the colon in the second one. I'd prefer it as:

He was freakish and dangerous, but then, he wasn’t the one who got off on blood and death. So she grinned back in a sort of cozy, mutual malice, saying, "Destruction to our enemies, Professor. Destruction to our enemies."

I prefer the first selection--it seems to flow a little better. I like the writing style.

I prefer the first one. The colon leaps out at me in the second, and the phrase starting with 'decided' seems too long the way it's constructed.

azbikergirl said:

I prefer the first one. The colon leaps out at me in the second, and the phrase starting with 'decided' seems too long the way it's constructed.

Click to expand...

The colon shouldn't be a colon, though semi-colon would be OK. I prefer the first.

I agree with Julie's post, if only for the inclusion of a "but". It separates the two contrasting statements much more effectively than any punctuation could.

I also prefer the first.

The first.

The first.

whitehound said:

For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous. She decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and she grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Professor. Destruction to our enemies."

For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous: decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Prof. Destruction to our enemies."

Click to expand...

1. Either one works, depending on the style of the surrounding writing.

2. Of the two, I prefer the sentence break to the colon, but otherwise prefer the second version.

3. Neither is the way I would write it personally, which might go something like:

She'd never noticed he was freakish and dangerous. On the other hand, she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death.

She grinned back with a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Professor. Destruction to our enemies."

Click to expand...

4. I wouldn't use "Prof" for Professor unless it's a nickname that's already well-established. Possibly not even then.

First for me.

Neither

whitehound said:

I am having a discussion with somebody about fine details of style. I won't tell you why, with whom, or which bit is whose, because I don't want to bias the vote. Just tell me, if you would, which of these slightly different version of the same scene you prefer.


For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous. She decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and she grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Professor. Destruction to our enemies."

For an instant she felt that he was freakish and dangerous: decided in another instant that she was the one who got off on singing about blood and death and was therefore in no position to talk, and grinned back in a sort of cosy, mutual malice. "Destruction to our enemies, then, Prof. Destruction to our enemies."

Click to expand...

Either will do, neither is great, and both need to have a "THAT" removed.

The first is better than the second, but I'm not terribly fond of it.

the second with a semi-colon, but neither is smoothly written.

The first.

Both versions are flawed because you're telling rather than showing: stepping outside her head to tell us about the passage of time. Also, we need to see her reactions. For example, something a little like this:

Not perfect, of course. However, the idea is to give her an reaction that takes "an instant", then have her mentally dismiss it. YMMV
Z

zornhau said:

Both versions are flawed because you're telling rather than showing:

Click to expand...

It depends. If the versions are lifted from a WIP, maybe, maybe not--we'd need to know the surrounding text to say. If the versions were concocted so that they differ in one or two stylistic elements for the purpose of this informal poll, rewrites are useless, and weren't requested anyway.

Ah, we were discussing the to colon or not to colon. My bad.

Though, actually, I stand by my original comments.

The colon was being used to separate two instants in time, so it was part of a construction which told rather than showed the POV character's changing perceptions over time.

It was a bit like asking: What shall I take into the gunfight? A fish or a surrealist manifesto?

I'm not sure the colon is the key stylistic element--only whitehound knows. Just pointing out that a specific question was asked, and the two examples might have been constructed just for that purpose.

As far as telling vs. showing goes, again, hard to say without knowing the context.

(it's difficult to do a good job of improving a sentence without knowing the voice of the rest of the work and the context of the sentence...)

brinkett said:

I'm not sure the colon is the key stylistic element--only whitehound knows. Just pointing out that a specific question was asked, and the two examples might have been constructed just for that purpose.

Click to expand...

Problem was, I couldn't see anything redeeming in either of the two examples. How was I to answer? I could have said nothing, I suppose... I was only trying to help as I would in the workshop I attend. The OP can ignore my comments if they choose.

brinkett said:

As far as telling vs. showing goes, again, hard to say without knowing the context.

(it's difficult to do a good job of improving a sentence without knowing the voice of the rest of the work and the context of the sentence...)

Click to expand...

Context: It was 3rd person past tense SF genre fiction rather than literary.

Voice: There's nothing magical about "voice". If the rest of the novel is in a similar "voice" then it's flawed and requires an edit.

Had it been in a 1st person conversational style, that might have been a different matter.

zornhau said:

Problem was, I couldn't see anything redeeming in either of the two examples. How was I to answer?

Click to expand...

I don't like either style.

I could have said nothing, I suppose... I was only trying to help as I would in the workshop I attend. The OP can ignore my comments if they choose.

Click to expand...

True.

Context: It was 3rd person past tense SF genre fiction rather than literary.

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant by context. I meant the surrounding text, if there is any.

Voice: There's nothing magical about "voice". If the rest of the novel is in a similar "voice" then it's flawed and requires an edit.

Click to expand...

You can't make that assessment based on one sentence lifted from the work (if there's a work).

Anyway, all I was trying to point out was that a specific question was asked, and critiquing/rewriting doesn't answer the question. I didn't mean to single you out specifically, and should have made that clear in my original response.

Agreed. No flame intended or taken. We're just clarifying here!

I disagree with you, in that I think that in some cases you can take a chunk of text out of its page and tell that it's broken or probably broken. However, that's OT for this thread. 'nuff said.

Z