Annoying Style of Sentence Construction?

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

I'm reading a novel right now that I'm fully enjoying, but there is one type of sentence construction that the author frequently uses and it always hits me like the sound of nails on a chalkboard. What do you think?

"Bob looked at Jim through the windshield, shrugged."

"He walked to the bathroom, peed."

"After a long moment, Bob turned, got back into the car."

Is there any reason not to just use "and" instead of a comma here (it would be the second comma in the last example)? Is this genuinely annoying, or is it just me?

[Slushie]

It's just you. :D

I think the lack of an 'and' gives the post-comma word more emphasis.

[Maxinquaye]

I guess it's a way to reduce word-count, remove conjunctions :D

[Garpy]

if it's once or twice every other chapter, I could cope. But if it regular, it would get old fast for me.

[Phaeal]

Agree with Garpy. Overuse of this alternative construction would strike me as an affectation and annoy me.

[Khimera9]

conjunctions are there for a reason. Everytime I read one of these sentences, I have to stop at the comma unlike an and that would keep the sentence flowing.

Doing this for reducing word count is lazy to me.

[Neversage]

I've worried about this with my own work. I have some tendencies that I hope don't stick out too much with the way I build sentences.

He stumbled sleepily toward the counter with the cheese in hand, and promptly began slicing it for his sandwich.

A LOT of my sentences are like that.

[backslashbaby]

I like that style of sentence, but not with those words. I don't think it adds a thing in the listed examples.

[RG570]

I do this all the time.

Never thought it was anything to worry about. Standard rule applies--don't overdo anything.

[RunawayScribe]

^Ditto to backslashbaby. I think that style of sentence can have a certain positive effect, but I don't care for any of those examples.

[Sandy Shin]

I enjoy reading this style, but only in small amounts and used correctly. Of the 3 sentences, the first two would have pulled me out of the story, while the third one flowed. I can't quite explain why.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

I enjoy reading this style, but only in small amounts and used correctly. Of the 3 sentences, the first two would have pulled me out of the story, while the third one flowed. I can't quite explain why.

I agree the last example is less noticeable. Every time I read this sort of thing it jars me out of the story, though. I think the last example may read a bit better because the action that follows the second comma is described in more than one word.

Compare:

"After a long moment, Bob turned, got back into the car."

with ...

"After a long moment, Bob turned, sat."

The second one might seem oddly abrupt?

[colealpaugh]

I like that style of sentence, but not with those words. I don't think it adds a thing in the listed examples.

Yes, agreed.

It's like a pleasant accent to me. It's a smooth read when the words are well chosen, I don't notice anything missing.

Perhaps the other end of the spectrum would be semicolons, which Vonnegut called "...transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

(Eh, if they show you've been to college, then aren't they doing something?)

[Slushie]

Yes, agreed.

It's like a pleasant accent to me. It's a smooth read when the words are well chosen, I don't notice anything missing.

Perhaps the other end of the spectrum would be semicolons, which Vonnegut called "...transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

(Eh, if they show you've been to college, then aren't they doing something?)

I like semicolons; they're great. A semicolon might be a hermaphrodite; however, some might be just 'bi-curious'. They're not sure if they want to be a period; sometimes a comma they want to be. I've been to college; if I'd have known semicolons took the place of a framed degree, well... shucks, that was a waste of money. :D

Might have overdone it a lil bit there; I just can't stop; someone help me; they just keep coming; I don't know what to do. There.

Maybe they should be called semi-periods, or semi-commas.

[folkchick]

It sounds like an Indian, "I go by fire, sit."

[JoNightshade]

I could see using such a construction as a method of developing a certain "voice." But if there's no real reason, it's kinda annoying.

[colealpaugh]

I like semicolons; they're great.

Okay, so a thoroughly scientific experiment. Compare two first lines of pretty good selling novels written by dudes with funny foreign names:


"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins."

and

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."


C'mon, EyeSeaAll, wouldn't you totally prefer the fire of my loins?

[Jamesaritchie]

It sucks.

[blacbird]

It sucks.

Ditto, for emphasis. I read the sentences, grimaced.

caw

[Cliff Face]

Ditto, for emphasis. I read the sentences, grimaced.

caw

LOL. I've been guilty of using these types of sentences very sparingly before. For some reason they remind me of lyrics... like, you know how in songs sometimes "less important" words are skipped out because it doesn't match the tempo?

Sometimes (like, 3 times a novel...) I'll just get in a weird mood, and the next sentence will be one of those stunted ones. Mine are usually more pertinent to the feel of the story than those examples though...

I think they come along when my narrator is exasperated but still energised... that's the best I can explain it. They'll probably get edited out if they're in the first 3 chapters, as I don't want to give the wrong impression in a partial...

[colealpaugh]

It sucks.

But it SELLS.:)

"Cars trundled down Main Street, flashing up winks of sun."

[Maxinquaye]

But it SELLS.:)

"Cars trundled down Main Street, flashing up winks of sun."

I'd rather have nails pulled than abusing the english language like that. I like conjunctions! :D

[John61480]

But it SELLS.:)

"Cars trundled down Main Street, flashing up winks of sun."

Isn't that from Stephen King's Under the Dome, a sentence from the very first paragraph?

I just checked and it seems similar---- Cars trundled along Main Street, flashing up winks of sun.

Slight difference, oh well.

[Judg]

But it SELLS.:)

"Cars trundled down Main Street, flashing up winks of sun."
That's an entirely different construction. The original examples were multiple verbs with the same subject. Yours is a participial phrase.

The original sentences could be great depending on the rhythm of what comes before and after. It's very hard to judge out of context.

I closed The Road after a single page. Way too many sentence fragments. (If you're reading attentively, you know I'm not opposed to them, but they're used for special effect and an excess is annoying.)

Semi-colons exist for a reason. They fill a function nothing else does.

[Aidan Watson-Morris]

NO. THAT SO ANNOYS ME. THAT'S WHY I CAN'T STAND READING SOME OLDER THINGS.

[backslashbaby]

It sounds like an Indian, "I go by fire, sit."

Qualify that somehow, please. Native Americans are real and still around; I promise. And they even speak English now.

[colealpaugh]

Isn't that from Stephen King's Under the Dome, a sentence from the very first paragraph?

I just checked and it seems similar---- Cars trundled along Main Street, flashing up winks of sun.

Slight difference, oh well.

Yeah, I miss-typed.

I was speaking more to the choice of dropping the conjunction, figuring the OP's examples were hyperbolic. I guess the "He walked to the bathroom, peed" threw me off.





"The cold passed reluctantly from the earth, and the retiring fogs revealed an army stretched out on the hills, resting."

[colealpaugh]

Qualify that somehow, please. Native Americans are real and still around; I promise. And they even speak English now.

I'm absolutely certain she meant the stereotypical movies. Always good to step up and be sure someone doesn't leave something like that hanging out there. And Indians are from places like Mumbai, where eating with your left hand is a no-no.

[Slushie]

C'mon, EyeSeaAll, wouldn't you totally prefer the fire of my loins?

*dumps a bucket of ice on Cole, laughs*

These sentences, when taken out of context, read choppy. Maybe it works when sparingly buried in a paragraph. I can see using this structure to give emphasis to a certain word, but it's one of those things that can be overused.

I'm too lazy to go back and quote that "Indian" comment, but Indians are from India. Native Americans are, well, the native peoples of the American continents. That post was either done out of ignorance, or a failed attempt at funny.

[CheekyWench]

I'm absolutely certain she meant the stereotypical movies. Always good to step up and be sure someone doesn't leave something like that hanging out there. And Indians are from places like Mumbai, where eating with your left hand is a no-no.

Qualify that somehow, please. Native Americans are real and still around; I promise. And they even speak English now.

I lived on the Cherokee rez in NC for years with a family (native to cherokee, nc) and to be honest, the vast majority of the reservation like to be called Indians. They think white people made up the term Native American to make themselves feel better.

[folkchick]

We've all heard American Indians' speech being portrayed that way from old movies and stupid cartoons, and it was a reflection of that. My kids' great-great-great-grandmother was Sac and Fox and I love the whole American Indian culture- so it definitely was not a mockery of them. It was a mockery on the way society has always represented their speech, turning it into Tarzan-type stunted speech. But I feel really bad anyway, despite the intention.

[CheekyWench]

don't sweat it ;)

[Albannach]

Okay, so a thoroughly scientific experiment. Compare two first lines of pretty good selling novels written by dudes with funny foreign names:


"Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins."

and

"Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."


C'mon, EyeSeaAll, wouldn't you totally prefer the fire of my loins?
The first is a sentence fragment consisting of a list of endearments. Ok in its place but hardly profound.

If one had to be erased from existence I'd certainly take erasing Lolita over Anna Karenina.

[folkchick]

Thanks Cheeky.

[backslashbaby]

Intention totally, totally matters :) No problem!

And I'll second the 'Indian' thing, but you rarely know before knowing them whether someone prefers Indian or Native American, so I usually go with NA.

Sorry about the derail :)

[kaitie]

I like that style of sentence, but not with those words. I don't think it adds a thing in the listed examples.

Me too. I do it all the time. It mostly depends on the type of pacing I'm going for and also serves to vary sentence structure. I find a lot of sentences aren't really fit for a conjunction. And having "ands" all over the place actually drives me even more nuts. ;)

[The Lonely One]

But it SELLS.:)

"Cars trundled down Main Street, flashing up winks of sun."

I don't now if anyone said this, but this sentence seems different than the examples in that it isn't deliberately missing any words.

This sentence actually sounds quite nice. The others--I tend to share the opinion of the poster. Maybe it can work in certain instances. But it does turn me off a little as a reader. They give an accent or dialect to the narrator that seems southern in a contrived or hokey way. This is just my opinion and maybe it's because I don't write those kinds of constructions normally.

Lonely one leaves, drinks coffee.

[defcon6000]

"Bob looked at Jim through the windshield, shrugged."

"He walked to the bathroom, peed."

"After a long moment, Bob turned, got back into the car."
Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with this, it's a nice touch to maybe a dull sentence with the added emphasis. I use to read this one individual's story and they very much leaned on this sort of sentence structure. It worked out real well.

[Mara]

The only time I've seen this style of conjunction is in newspaper headlines, especially in The Onion for comedic effect.

[cptwentworth]

I don't find your examples bother me, but I know there's a particular non-fiction author I've tried to read, because I like the material, but I can't get past his "voice." It sticks out like a sore thumb and makes it difficult to let the words flow.

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

This sentence actually sounds quite nice. The others--I tend to share the opinion of the poster. Maybe it can work in certain instances. But it does turn me off a little as a reader. They give an accent or dialect to the narrator that seems southern in a contrived or hokey way. This is just my opinion and maybe it's because I don't write those kinds of constructions normally.


That's interesting because the main character in the book is originally from the south and the book is set in the south, though he's been living up north for so long that he doesn't seem southern anymore. His character definitely doesn't fit a southern stereotype in any way.

I grew up mainly in the south, but I wouldn't have placed this kind of thing as a southern way of speaking. Maybe I'm missing it, though.

[kaitie]

I don't now if anyone said this, but this sentence seems different than the examples in that it isn't deliberately missing any words.

This sentence actually sounds quite nice. The others--I tend to share the opinion of the poster. Maybe it can work in certain instances. But it does turn me off a little as a reader. They give an accent or dialect to the narrator that seems southern in a contrived or hokey way. This is just my opinion and maybe it's because I don't write those kinds of constructions normally.

Lonely one leaves, drinks coffee.

This is interesting...I'm southern and now I'm wondering if that has anything to do with why I like it lol. I often wonder if certain phrases I use are just southern things ("figures," for instance. As in either, "It figures," or, "I figure he's just upset he got a bad grade on his English test.").

[job]

As others said, your examples make this look like general awkwardness in the writing. The word 'peed' is the give-away. That's a word suited to the narrative of childrens books or the dialog of male characters below age ten.

The grammar rules of expository writing do not apply to fiction. Good narrative incorporates sentence fragments, idiomatic usage and idiosyncratic constructions.

Now, a copyeditor, faced with the examples above, might suggest pulling out the comma and making two sentences. Flow of language, cadence, 'eye' appeal, pacing, narrative 'voice', ease of comprehension, proper placement of emphasis ... all of these are going to say whether that trailing word should be comma-ed into the leading sentence or treated as a fragment.

But folding in word fluff and pureeing the lumps out of the writing is not necessarily the best option. There's nothing wrong with a tense, terse, telegraphic style.

[Cliff Face]

Kaitie, I use figures all the time, but then I'm from SSA (Southern South Australia) which if you look at it right, makes me a backwards ass... so I'm not sure how much that helps.

And job, I know plenty of adult women who use the word pee - as in, "I need to pee, brb" but in past tense they tend to stick with "I went to the bathroom" instead of "I peed" when asked where they were, or whatever.

Again, this is all from people who are SSA...

ETA: I also know older women who use the word "Tinkle" which I previously had thought was the epitome of children's ways of talking about things...

[Lady Ice]

I'm reading a novel right now that I'm fully enjoying, but there is one type of sentence construction that the author frequently uses and it always hits me like the sound of nails on a chalkboard. What do you think?



Is there any reason not to just use "and" instead of a comma here (it would be the second comma in the last example)? Is this genuinely annoying, or is it just me?

Those sentences are just crap anyway. They'd be bad whatever punctuation you put in them.

The first is a sentence fragment consisting of a list of endearments. Ok in its place but hardly profound.

This is the whole opening bit:
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

Brilliant, hey?

[Me&BacchusGoIntoABar]

Those sentences are just crap anyway. They'd be bad whatever punctuation you put in them.

I don't know about that. You might not like "peed," but other than that they'd be fine if not for the unconventional construction imo.

[Use Her Name]

Well, you probably would be annoyed again and again if you read my writing. I absolutely love this more telegraphic style, and do not believe it is totally incorrect. The comma replaces the "and" anyway.

[wardigital]

Yes, agreed.

It's like a pleasant accent to me. It's a smooth read when the words are well chosen, I don't notice anything missing.

Perhaps the other end of the spectrum would be semicolons, which Vonnegut called "...transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

(Eh, if they show you've been to college, then aren't they doing something?)

I would presume that Vonnegut meant they do absolutely nothing in terms of writing.

The best lesson that writers like Vonnegut can teach other writers is that the rules of writing are only rules when it comes to evaluating the mechanics of a text. As a story, though writing is about the story. The first poster's examples are just a style of storytelling. They will be fine for some and not for others.

The beauty of being an avid reader is that no two authors are alike, so running into the same problem isn't really an issue. :)

[Albannach]

Those sentences are just crap anyway. They'd be bad whatever punctuation you put in them.



This is the whole opening bit:
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta. She was Lo, plain Lo, in the morning, standing four feet ten in one sock. She was Lola in slacks. She was Dolly at school. She was Dolores on the dotted line. But in my arms she was always Lolita.

Brilliant, hey?

It's not bad, but brilliant is always in the eyes of the beholder. I think I mentioned my general lack of love for that particular novel.

[colealpaugh]

I would presume that Vonnegut meant they do absolutely nothing in terms of writing.

The best lesson that writers like Vonnegut can teach other writers is that the rules of writing are only rules when it comes to evaluating the mechanics of a text. As a story, though writing is about the story. The first poster's examples are just a style of storytelling. They will be fine for some and not for others.

The beauty of being an avid reader is that no two authors are alike, so running into the same problem isn't really an issue. :)

I believe the Vonnegut quote received even more attention because of the banter with John Irving. Vonnegut used to poke fun at his friend's heavy use of semicolons. Irving, btw, has two semicolons in the first paragraph of his new book. Just sayin'.