I dislike writing rules. Like cattle chutes, they funnel most writers into the same pen. So often, published stories read about the same. Language gives us many opportunities to create not only engaging plots but also stories that appeal to our senses and expand our awareness. McCarthy is brilliant in the way he weaves words into a sensory tapestry.
He is, but if I'm wrong, I've demonstrated a willingness to be wrong and not claim to love every word simply because a great writer wrote it.
And I want to say that the biggest frustration are those who check to see if a rule was followed... and not whether the writing worked. For me, I stumbled, and I saw a possible reason why.
I'm not sure I was aware of any unspoken rule against compound subjects as regards good style (or is it only complex compound subjects with unilateral modifiers prior to the verb?). I am however constantly intuiting whether a sentence's construction is impairing its clarity; consciously considering complex compound subjects would be a good criterion for identifying hang-ups in my sentences.
That said, the opening sentence to ATPH's never really tripped me up. But my dumb reptile brain got stuck on the second sentence of Cold Mountain once because it wouldn't stop reading the word "wound" as the past tense of "wind..." the verb not the noun. Very puzzling reading experience until I got that sorted haha
To address the issue of the complex subject (compound or otherwise), my beverage rule is what works rules. Specifically, in today's post I refer to what Brooks Landan describes as the movement of a sentence from clause to phrase, step by step. The danger of a long subject is the sentence holds still for all those many words, waiting to move forward. Movement within a sentence creates ease in following the meaning.
I dislike writing rules. Like cattle chutes, they funnel most writers into the same pen. So often, published stories read about the same. Language gives us many opportunities to create not only engaging plots but also stories that appeal to our senses and expand our awareness. McCarthy is brilliant in the way he weaves words into a sensory tapestry.
He is, but if I'm wrong, I've demonstrated a willingness to be wrong and not claim to love every word simply because a great writer wrote it.
And I want to say that the biggest frustration are those who check to see if a rule was followed... and not whether the writing worked. For me, I stumbled, and I saw a possible reason why.
It may have been my clumsy eyes.
I'm not sure I was aware of any unspoken rule against compound subjects as regards good style (or is it only complex compound subjects with unilateral modifiers prior to the verb?). I am however constantly intuiting whether a sentence's construction is impairing its clarity; consciously considering complex compound subjects would be a good criterion for identifying hang-ups in my sentences.
That said, the opening sentence to ATPH's never really tripped me up. But my dumb reptile brain got stuck on the second sentence of Cold Mountain once because it wouldn't stop reading the word "wound" as the past tense of "wind..." the verb not the noun. Very puzzling reading experience until I got that sorted haha
To address the issue of the complex subject (compound or otherwise), my beverage rule is what works rules. Specifically, in today's post I refer to what Brooks Landan describes as the movement of a sentence from clause to phrase, step by step. The danger of a long subject is the sentence holds still for all those many words, waiting to move forward. Movement within a sentence creates ease in following the meaning.
That makes good sense. I'll keep that wisdom close in my revisions.
I'm glad I'm not the only one these things happen to.