"Grammar" and "Punctuation" nit's unite! You're "head" will literally explode!
05-29-2011
, 05:49 PM
05-29-2011
, 05:58 PM
05-30-2011
, 01:14 PM
05-30-2011
, 02:01 PM
Quote:
This kind of loose, rambling prose, which almost never makes use of periodic sentences, puts the reader's mind into a coma. I don't mind the second passage as much as the first because the first sentence is periodic in construction and the third sentence is short and to the point (and therefore breaks the monotony of the longer looser prose; obviously too many of these would be tedious in their own way). The final sentence is a real sprawl and could certainly use some editing, but I would say that occasionally these kind of sprawling sentences can be used for effect.
But the kind of writing exemplified by the first passage quickly becomes tedious. The first sentence is a bit hard to parse on first reading (though possibly easier in context) and it appends information in a clause that distracts attention from the main statement and should come elsewhere, not out of the blue here. The second sentence is just poor writing: it buries its main clause by sandwiching it between a modifying phrase and two subordinate clauses, the second of which is a very unhelpful simile.
In general, this author doesn't seem good at signalling the reader as to what is most important in the information he's trying to convey. (That, in fact, is the one thing that's clearly wrong with that last sentence: it starts our as if it's about the effects of crack in general--but that's not its point. And its use of simple conjunction that brings together two main clauses is often a sign of an author who doesn't have a sense of the hierarchy of ideas in his writing.)
But the kind of writing exemplified by the first passage quickly becomes tedious. The first sentence is a bit hard to parse on first reading (though possibly easier in context) and it appends information in a clause that distracts attention from the main statement and should come elsewhere, not out of the blue here. The second sentence is just poor writing: it buries its main clause by sandwiching it between a modifying phrase and two subordinate clauses, the second of which is a very unhelpful simile.
In general, this author doesn't seem good at signalling the reader as to what is most important in the information he's trying to convey. (That, in fact, is the one thing that's clearly wrong with that last sentence: it starts our as if it's about the effects of crack in general--but that's not its point. And its use of simple conjunction that brings together two main clauses is often a sign of an author who doesn't have a sense of the hierarchy of ideas in his writing.)
To me, it's redolent of a lack of attention to word-selection/rhythm/significance-of-details. There's so much that's of no consequence.
Quote:
1) They meant before he had begun avidly smoking crack, which is a withering drug. As a young man, he had a long, narrow, slightly curved face, which seemed framed by hair that bloomed above his forehead like a hedge.
2) Dismayed by his appearance, he doesn’t like to look in mirrors. He likes to sit on the floor, with his legs crossed and his propane torch within reach, his cigarettes and something to drink or eat beside him. Nearly his entire diet consists of fruit and juice. Crack makes a user anxious and uncomfortable and, trying to relieve the tension, Scott-Heron would sometimes lean to one side or reach one hand across himself to grab his opposite ankle, then perhaps lean an elbow on one knee, then maybe press the soles of his feet together, so that he looked like a swami.
2) Dismayed by his appearance, he doesn’t like to look in mirrors. He likes to sit on the floor, with his legs crossed and his propane torch within reach, his cigarettes and something to drink or eat beside him. Nearly his entire diet consists of fruit and juice. Crack makes a user anxious and uncomfortable and, trying to relieve the tension, Scott-Heron would sometimes lean to one side or reach one hand across himself to grab his opposite ankle, then perhaps lean an elbow on one knee, then maybe press the soles of his feet together, so that he looked like a swami.
"...slightly curved face..." Just can't picture that. Weak description.
"...seemed framed by hair..." A certain breed of cliched facial descriptions tends to devote a disproportionate amount of attention to the hair. Another uses the word "framed" to describe the hair in relation to the face. This one does both! (Less of the former, but still...) And there's the awful hedging verb "seemed." As in his face seemed framed with hair but there was a chance that it wasn't? For $6.99 come see The Man With Magical Hair That Can Trick You Into Believing That It Borders The Perimeter Of His Face.
"...look in mirrors..." A minor trifle that I would have forgiven if there weren't so many mistakes before it. Both "look at the mirror" at "look in the mirror" sound better, aurally.
Okay, I'm bored. There are more.
* I
this adjective.
05-30-2011
, 05:57 PM
05-30-2011
, 08:56 PM
05-30-2011
, 10:52 PM
05-30-2011
, 10:53 PM
