Sentence Structure - is it an issue?

[cooeedownunder]

I’ve been beta reading and come across a sentence structure that I feel is problematic, despite not feeling it is technically incorrect. These are just random selections from the WIP. Although I don’t necessarily see any individual one as an issue, I’m feeling that too many of the same structure are letting down what is otherwise good writing in the WIP.

Does anyone else see them as an issue, or is it just me?

The following sentences are not related and are only random selections.

--------------

Ducking his head against the wind, Peter turned toward Station Street.

When the sky turned indigo, Phillip’s mother came to reassure him.

When he returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him.

[Kenn]

My own personal view on something like this is whether it disturbs the flow. I don't think there is a defined answer to your question, as it is really a matter of style. It also depends on what you mean by too many. If there are lots, then it might seem like a list of actions. Also, sequences of short sentences can make the text seem choppy. But these are only my views.

No doubt there are some that would shy away and try to include a more colourful description of the event. But if it's no big deal, then why elaborate on it?

[Nymtoc]

Originally Posted by cooeedownunder

Ducking his head against the wind, Peter turned toward Station Street.

When the sky turned indigo, Phillip’s mother came to reassure him.

When he returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him.

I see nothing wrong with the first two sentences technically. The third, however, has a serious problem. Since the subject of the first, subordinate clause is a pronoun, the person after the comma in the main clause should be the same person. It should read, e.g., "When he returned to his seat, he looked up and saw Peter leaning toward him." Another acceptable fix would be "When Bruce returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him."

On aesthetic grounds, I can't see anything wrong with the first sentence. But the second, while making it through the syntax portal, is awkward. There is no immediately apparent connection between the two clauses, and I had to read the sentence twice to see if I understood it. An improvement would be something like "Phillip was frightened when the sky turned indigo, and his mother came to reassure him."

You're right to be bothered by these constructions.

[Kenn]

Originally Posted by Nymtoc

The third, however, has a serious problem. Since the subject of the first, subordinate clause is a pronoun, the person after the comma in the main clause should be the same person...

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think it's an example of using a subordinate clause to derank the subject.

[brianjanuary]

Ducking his head against the wind, Peter turned toward Station Street.

To me, this one is fine. It's a good way to break up sentence structure throughout your work.

When the sky turned indigo, Phillip’s mother came to reassure him.

This one, I think, is a bit iffy. The two phrases are dissimilar enough that the sentence sounds a bit jarring. Maybe something like, "The sky was turning indigo when Phillip's mother came to reassure him" would be better.

When he returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him.

This one has a bit of the same problem as the second sentence, but maybe it would work within its context. The problem with it as a stand-alone sentence is that I don't know who "him" is, and I'm not sure if "he" refers to Peter or not. If the he is Peter, then maybe "When peter returned to his seat, he leaned toward Jim (or whomever)."

[Snitchcat]

Hmm... I see no problems with any of the three sentences. As standalones, I'm fine with them; in context, I would imagine they're okay.

However, if nitpicking, I will flag the third as problematic:

Without context, my question is, who's doing the leaning? Peter or the unnamed 'he'? In context, though, this sentence would probably be clear.

[blacbird]

On these three examples, my editorial opinion:

Originally Posted by cooeedownunder

Ducking his head against the wind, Peter turned toward Station Street.

When the sky turned indigo, Phillip’s mother came to reassure him.

When he returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him.

1. The first can be improved:

Peter ducked against the wind and turned toward Station Street.

2. I quite like this one as it is:

When the sky turned indigo, Phillip’s mother came to reassure him.

Nicely phrased, and vivid.

3. Pronoun awkwardness, but that might be clearer in context. The problem is that, in the sentence quoted, we don't know if the "he" refers to Peter, or the other unnamed character. Who exactly returned to his seat?:

When he returned to his seat, Peter leaned toward him.

Probably needs a rephrasing, for clarity.

caw

[ArtsyAmy]

Seems to me all three could be okay. First is fine, period. Second is fine if the context indicated that indigo skies give reason for Phillip to need some reassuring--that the two parts of the sentence fit together. Third would be okay if it's really clear in the context whom each pronoun is referring to, but might be better to change that one.

I think this structure can be a nice element in keeping things varied, but if you're seeing it so much that you're noticing it, maybe it's being used too much.

[cooeedownunder]

Guys, thanks for your thoughts.