# How do you write a long sentence that is acceptable?



## lumino (Mar 8, 2018)

How do you write a long sentence which cannot be criticized on the basis of clarity, coherence, etc? It seems that when I try to make a sentence longer and longer, I somehow connect information that others say should be in separate sentences and cause my syntax to become convoluted. Is there a way of writing a super long sentence, which is not burdensome to read, and which is coherent and clear? I am not sure if coherent is the right word, but I suppose you know what I mean in this post.


----------



## j.w.olson (Mar 8, 2018)

This is a good question, but one that's hard to answer without examples.

Yes, it's possible to write long sentences that are still clear, assuming you use the right transition words and connectors and etc, and generally follow the traditions of English grammar, especially if you switch up and employ multiple structures. This previous sentence of mine may be pushing it a bit, but everything in your post looks good.

Do you have an example of a sentence that you've been told is too long, incoherent, etc? I'd be happy to jump in and give suggestions if we have specifics we can work with.


----------



## nanabanana (Mar 8, 2018)

Why not! Long sentences are as understandable as shorter ones, if you use a good grammar. My advice would be to learn from classics. A lot of them have longer sentences than your average contemporary novel. And they're classics which have been reprinted thousands of times, so they must be good! Another suggestion is not to write all long sentences and then all short sentences. Mix them up. After a long sentence, give the reader a chance to breath with a short sentence. When you feel you can write another long phrase, and if that sounds good, do so.


----------



## Blackstone (Mar 8, 2018)

As a general rule, long sentences should be avoided. There is a simple biological reason for this concerning breathing (when read) and a less-simple psychological reason concerning the human brain's preference for ideas to be compartmentalized into logical segments. It's kind of the same reason why the mouth can only swallow so much on a fork without rejection.

So first of all I would be interested into the reasoning behind the question. Are you trying to emulate a certain style? Some writers are able to write long sentences that do not feel overlong, or infact like one sentences at all. This is largely because of careful use of compound punctuation (commas, parentheses, dashes, etc) and is often deployed to conjure a certain voice or flow. The Rushdie example is one. Another would be Kerouac's "Big Sur" (and probably other books of his) which is a kind of avant-garde prose-poetry more than it is fiction. Kerouac does not use much punctuation other than commas and dashes. In that case, the technique is in arrangement of those commas/dashes as well as language that emulates a certain rhythm and provides a sense of clarity to what might otherwise be incoherent (and, some would argue, still kind of is). 

Consider this excerpt:

_“One fast move or I’m gone,” I realize, gone the way of the last three years of drunken hopelessness which is a physical and spiritual and metaphysical hopelessness you cant learn in school no matter how many books on existentialism or pessimism you read, or how many jugs of vision-producing Ayahuasca you drink, or Mescaline take, or Peyote god up with–That feeling when you wake up with the delirium tremens with the fear of eerie death dripping from your ears like those special heavy cobwebs spiders weave in the hot countries, the feeling of being a bentback madman monster groaning underground in hot steaming mud pulling a long hot burden nowhere, the feeling of standing ankle-deep in hot boiled port blood, brown dishwater not a trace of subs left in it—The face of yourself you see in the mire with it expression of unbearable anguish so hagged and awful with sorrow you cant even cry for a thing so ugly, so lost, no connection whatever with early perfection and therefore nothing to connect with tears or anything"

_^ So the -dashes- kind of substitute for periods (don't know the thinking behind that) but even if we consider those as sentence markers each sentence is still rather long. If you read it out loud, however, you will find yourself adopting a certain rhythm that works to give the 'sentences' mileage. I am not a fan of this writer, however the attraction is clearly in the abundant language, the 'out of body' sensory experience in what closely resembles stream-of-consciousness. And it works.

Many Victorian/Edwardian novelists used longer sentences, particularly in Gothic novels. Though I don't recall any that are crazy long, they are nevertheless more technically complex than you would commonly find in the 20th and 21st centuries. Again I would come back to the reasons for doing this. If it is simply to impress people or establish a gimmick, I would strongly advise against it as the mere fact you are asking how to do it means it isn't your natural style. If your readers are telling you your sentences are overlong the best thing you can do - the only thing to be honest - is cut them down.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 8, 2018)

lumino said:


> Is there a way of writing a super long sentence, which is not burdensome to read, and which is coherent and clear? I am not sure if coherent is the right word, but I suppose you know what I mean in this post.


Use punctuation (such as commas) to break the sentence into manageable chunks. Also, if the sentence is really long and meandering, try to keep the words simple and direct (you don't want to add word-confusion on top of sentence-confusion).

Granted, you don't want _all_ your sentences to be long and drawn out. The reader would quickly get tired. Or annoyed. But if the writing calls for it, you should be able to stretch the occasional sentence out without sacrificing comprehension.

Example:

You can have a huge sentence, such as this one, that stretches on longer than expected, provided that you give the reader enough stopping points to breathe, to gather their wits, to center themselves at each pause before the next idea appears, this way they can run a marathon the way you eat an elephant: one bite at a time, or perhaps a better analogy would be that you're asking the reader to hike along with you, across some great distance, but to make it more manageable, you've provided benches along the way, so they can sit, and rest, and rub their feet, and look back at the vast distance that they've crossed with you so far, and they can feel like it wasn't even that vast at all, because they took it one step at a time, and they fell into the rhythm, and by the time they're ready to reach the end, the depth of your sentence will feel significant in some way, as if the journey has had a purpose, as if the meaning is symbolic and resonant, as if it all would have have felt _wrong, _somehow, had it been delivered in any other way.

:encouragement:


----------



## Sam (Mar 9, 2018)

Who said long sentences are unacceptable?


----------



## evak2979 (Mar 9, 2018)

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/547245.Sentence_Composing_for_College

I had the exact same question. The above is a must have book for exercising/getting comfortable with sentence lengths.

It discusses participial, absolute and appositive phrases in length, teaches techniques like sentence mimicking, sentence scrambling/unscrambling and so on. 

I recommend you get hold of a copy


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 9, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> You can have a huge sentence, such as this one, that stretches on longer than expected, provided that you give the reader enough stopping points to breathe, to gather their wits, to center themselves at each pause before the next idea appears,* [<- AARRGH!! COMMA SPLICE ALERT!!!]*this way they can run a marathon the way you eat an elephant: one bite at a time, or perhaps a better analogy would be that you're asking the reader to hike along with you, across some great distance, but to make it more manageable, you've provided benches along the way, so they can sit, and rest, and rub their feet, and look back at the vast distance that they've crossed with you so far, and they can feel like it wasn't even that vast at all, because they took it one step at a time, and they fell into the rhythm, and by the time they're ready to reach the end, the depth of your sentence will feel significant in some way, as if the journey has had a purpose, as if the meaning is symbolic and resonant, as if it all would have have felt _wrong, _somehow, had it been delivered in any other way.
> 
> :encouragement:



Sorry Kyle!  But this seems to me to be one of the biggest issues people have with long sentences. Coherence you can fix but for all the long-sentence enthusiasts among us (and this is otherwise a great example), unless you are going for a conversational voice, comma splices make us go _ack-ack-ack!_


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2018)

Are comma splices a pet peeve of yours?  I suppose they don't usually bother me (at least not in fiction, where prose can be a bit "looser" with grammar), unless they become excessive.

I remember first encountering the concept in a grammar book where an example was given:
Jack jumped, Jill ducked. (Incorrect)

Because Jack jumped, Jill ducked. (Correct)​
To this day I still prefer the first sentence, even if it is, technically, incorrect.

(Just out of curiosity: have you read any Cormac McCarthy? If incorrect grammar/punctuation is something that irks you, his writing might very well drive you up the wall. )


----------



## Terry D (Mar 9, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/547245.Sentence_Composing_for_College
> 
> I had the exact same question. The above is a must have book for exercising/getting comfortable with sentence lengths.
> 
> ...



That would probably work very well for non-fiction writing, but would make for terrible fiction construction. Most folks here default to fiction in discussion, but the OP's question didn't specify, so thanks for the link.

Long sentences are fine. They help to vary the pace of a story. They should not be avoided, nor should every sentence we write be long. Not all thoughts are long. The key to writing effective sentences, of any length, is using proper punctuation and careful word choice. Make your sentences clear and avoid rambling. A good sentence will deliver its message without the reader even thinking about its length. If your reader notices how long a sentence is, you've done a poor job.


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 9, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> Are comma splices a pet peeve of yours?  I suppose they don't usually bother me (at least not in fiction, where prose can be a bit "looser" with grammar), unless they become excessive.
> 
> I remember first encountering the concept in a grammar book where an example was given:
> Jack jumped, Jill ducked. (Incorrect)
> ...



Haha yes they do make me froth some. 

It's not so much the correctness of them - there is a place for them in the world - but rather where they get used. Often I see them in an otherwise gramatically solid piece and I can't figure out what they're doing there, what it adds. In the Jack-and-Jill example you give above, I dunno, that's not a great example because the tone is conversational, flowing, rapid, and judging simply by the brevity of the clauses, grammatical exactness has been thrown to the wind. And that's okay, but the idea that that somehow means they can go anywhere they please, and to hell with how they fit in the context, doesn't seem right. They _can _work - _The Handmaid's Tale_ is rife with them because that's how June/Offred thinks, and while I've not read any Cormac McCarthy I imagine it's similar - but that doesn't mean they always _do_. 

I wonder if my antipathy towards the humble CS is to do with the fact that, in a lot of early shots at writing, they are very much a first resort when people want to quickly characterise a character. The result - a lot of very cookie-cutter fiction. Anyway I sound like I'm having a go at you - I'm not! It's just that, you know, grammar is my first love, and I get defensive  Comma-splice away, they're so great.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> ... the idea that that somehow means they can go anywhere they please, and to hell with how they fit in the context, doesn't seem right. They _can _work - _The Handmaid's Tale_ is rife with them because that's how June/Offred thinks, and while I've not read any Cormac McCarthy I imagine it's similar - but that doesn't mean they always _do_.


A very good point, I'm hungry so I'll have to leave this conversation for now, _The Handmaid's Tale_ is still on my shelf waiting to be read, you really should read _The Road_ to see what you think of it, now I'm comma splicing everywhere just to be a pain and your fists are probably full of hair and I should really stop before the habit irreparable leaks into my own writing...


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 9, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> A very good point, I'm hungry so I'll have to leave this conversation for now, _The Handmaid's Tale_ is still on my shelf waiting to be read, you really should read _The Road_ to see what you think of it, now I'm comma splicing everywhere just to be a pain and your fists are probably full of hair and I should really stop before the habit irreparable leaks into my own writing...



I'll check it out it sounds good, what genre is it is it crim,


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 9, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I'll check it out it sounds good, what genre is it is it crim,



Gah!


----------



## Terry D (Mar 9, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> I'll check it out it sounds good, what genre is it is it crim,



_The Road_ is post-apocalyptic, or maybe SF, or mainstream, it's hard to categorize. Another good McCarthy book is _Blood Meridian_ (mainstream, or western), and _No Country for Old Men_. My first experience with Cormac was The Road. It took me a while to get into it because of his style; no quotation marks, sparse punctuation, made-up words, etc. But once I settled in it was a great read. His writing style is part of his world-building, bleak and stark. I find it very effective.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 9, 2018)

"Bleak & stark"- careful b.d. The road was very bleak and stark. It was really good but not light. I mean, there was no light, except the fire inside. Made me cry.


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 9, 2018)

Terry D said:


> _The Road_ is post-apocalyptic, or maybe SF, or mainstream, it's hard to categorize. Another good McCarthy book is _Blood Meridian_ (mainstream, or western), and _No Country for Old Men_. My first experience with Cormac was The Road. It took me a while to get into it because of his style; no quotation marks, sparse punctuation, made-up words, etc. But once I settled in it was a great read. His writing style is part of his world-building, bleak and stark. I find it very effective.



That does actually sound pretty good. I googled it too. Straight to the TBR pile


----------



## Bloggsworth (Mar 9, 2018)

Very carefully. Keep re-reading it to yourself *out loud*, that way you can ensure that it all joins and flows.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 9, 2018)

Why would you want to deliberately write long sentences? Or short ones? For me, the sentence length is less important than the story. During fast paced sections the sentences are naturally shorter, because I'm thinking more rapidly.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 12, 2018)

lumino said:


> HIs there a way of writing a super long sentence, which is not burdensome to read, and which is coherent and clear?.



Some sentences require the reader to figure out the grammar.


> Thecountry, which my father whom I, the author of this sentence, whichis complicated to read, an important activity, love was born in is atwar.


That's just a word salad if you don't see the grammar. (And I made that really hard.)

Long sentences are more difficult to grammatically decode. (I think the ambiguities multiply.) So the grammar of long sentences can be difficult to read. Hawthorne is my example. If you want to go that route, the grammatical structure has to be obvious. (Rushdie's 277-word sentence was my example of that.)

A string of meaningful phrases can be understood without decoding the underlying grammar. So that's (roughly) the second style for long sentences. Kyle gave an example; Blackstone gave an example from Kerouac. I don't know if that Kerouac sentence is grammatically correct; I don't want to even think about it; and the issue is irrelevant -- no one reads it grammatically, it's read as a string of phrases.


----------



## Sam (Mar 12, 2018)

Terry D said:


> _The Road_ is post-apocalyptic, or maybe SF, or mainstream, it's hard to categorize. Another good McCarthy book is _Blood Meridian_ (mainstream, or western), and _No Country for Old Men_. My first experience with Cormac was The Road. It took me a while to get into it because of his style; no quotation marks, sparse punctuation, made-up words, etc. But once I settled in it was a great read. His writing style is part of his world-building, bleak and stark. I find it very effective.



It's post-apocalyptic, which falls under sf, which then falls under speculative fiction. _Blood Meridien, Or the Evening Redness in the West_ is arguably more bleak and stark than _The Road. _

That said, I think _The Road _gets far too much credit, both from a casual and academic perspective. There are many, many better examples of the be all, end all of post-apocalyptic fiction. 

Just my $0.02.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 12, 2018)

The "long sentence exercise" can be of use when exploring the use of mixed punctuation in expressing a single yet complex thought in one concise statement (concise being a relative term in this case)<--- i was going for a continuance there but hit a very solid period. Thirty three words on that one. Approximately eighty words (or 88 if you like or are metaphorically minded). Another natural limit is the amount of words you can speak with one controlled breath (without straining).

Excellent prose, in my view, contains a nice mix of short, medium, and long sentences. Simple statements of fact for the short ones. The medium ones should contain a single thought, but may require a bit more complexity or detail. The longer ones should also involve a single statement; but one that  contains several variables or other complexities such as a quick three point argument, a single yet complex point with a related yet clarifying (subtext), side note, or relevant metaphor, that all add value to the statement on question (the very long ones are the perfect place for complex punctuation such as parentheses, quotes, dashes, and the like)

my last sentence there at sixty nine words was approaching tedium, yes?

Another difficulty with the very long sentence is in using the precise punctuation that carries the reader through without a stumble. Such sentences usually require a bit more editing work (mine above being a case in point)

As for long sentences, with nothing but comma breaks, they are not advisable, usually wandering, leave the reader breathless, perhaps confused, lost in a jumble of mixed up thoughts, without clarity, unless you are into stream of consciousness poetry, or other such sidelines, which can be interesting, but only for the every few, which likely will not gain you many admirers, and if inclined in such directions, then it best you call it poetry, and keep it to yourself(exactly 80) 

edit: Another useful variation in sentence length is when differentiating character voices in your fiction. Each writer has their own voice, and if all the characters speak in the same sentence lengths, if can be very difficult to avoid having your voice, as an author, "spill over" into all your characters. A useful exercise, with that concept in mind, is to intentionally have one character speak mostly in very short sentences;another in mid length mode, and just one wordy character (or narrator, depending on point of view). In doing so you will be much less likely to have character confusion in your work.

last and final edit: you can see frm the above the amount of editing work increases as my sentences became longer. I'm not going to go back and fix it. I'll let the example stand as is


----------



## senecaone (Mar 12, 2018)

An exercise for the beginning fiction writer that involves sentence length and character development.

Joe is a simple minded fellow. The world is all black and white. His strong statements are pointed. He can be good or evil. It doesn't matter which.

Mary is is an intercessor for Joe with a loving and perhaps motherly, mentoring, or love interest in Joe.

Sally is the matriarch, white knight, or evil manipulator who tangles her webs of deceit (or good intent) carefully, intentionally, and with a great deal of philosophical points to support her position with regard to the other characters and plot line.

The narrator can fit into all three roles.

That's it for my comments. i;ll check back and would love to hear some counterpoints or expansions on my commentary here.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 12, 2018)

I disagree. A short sentence is usually used for something important. So "simple fact" isn't good advice; most simple facts should be bundled into longer sentences.

And one reason to use a long sentence is to de-emphasize the importance of the precise details of what's being said.

More nit-pickingly, your sentence of all commas doesn't work well, but that's at least partly a problem with your particular sentence. Edited for clarity:


> As for long sentences with nothing but comma breaks, they are not advisable, they usually wander leaving the reader breathless and perhaps confused, the reader can become lost in a jumble of mixed up thoughts without clarity, though an exception is stream of consciousness poetry or other such sidelines, they can be interesting, but only for the every few, so they will likely not gain you many admirers, so if you're inclined in such directions you should call it poetry and keep it to yourself.



I can't fix the problem that that doesn't need a long sentence, the point is just about clarity. Martin Clark (_The Jezebel Remedy_) as a matter of style writes mostly long sentences separated by mostly just commas.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 12, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I disagree. A short sentence is usually used for something important. So "simple fact" isn't good advice; most simple facts should be bundled into longer sentences.
> 
> And one reason to use a long sentence is to de-emphasize the importance of the precise details of what's being said.
> 
> ...



Good points! Highlights the fact that it's a very complicated business, this writing thing. Clarity and flow that leads to an effective and uninterrupted expression of thought. Difficult! Complicated! Mostly failure, for most of us. Just remember: a .300 batting average is American baseball stardom. One in ten thousand football players achieve super star status.

I should use artists as a better example, but my point stands, clearly enough.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 13, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I disagree. A short sentence is usually used for something important.



No. A short sentence is used to express a single, simple idea; be it, 'Jane picked up a butcher's knife,' or 'John flipped another burger.' The paragraph, or scene in which these sentences are written will determine how "important" they are. (As an aside. I'll go on record here as saying every sentence we write, be it long, short, or somewhere in between should be important to the story. If it's not, it's baggage, so cut it. But some sentences are more 'dramatic' than others, and that's what I think you are really talking about.)

In the first sentence I wrote above, Jane might have just gotten her first apartment and is out shopping for cutlery with her best friend. The comment could be simple stage direction to break up a long string of dialogue, or, she could be in the middle of a fight with her cheating husband, then the act would be far more dramatic. If you only use short sentences to say something "important", your writing will be stiff and predictable.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 13, 2018)

First sentence: "Great feedback!"

Second sentence: "I'm not sure what you're getting at; when is a comma separated sentence better than a complex punctuated sentence?"

Third and the long one: (insert answer here, on one sentence, please... I have nothing in the queue atm)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 13, 2018)

senecaone said:


> Second sentence: "I'm not sure what you're getting at; when is a comma separated sentence better than a complex punctuated sentence?"



I just meant that it was okay to have a long sentence with just commas, not that that was always better. Having all commas would probably be better when I (as author) want to give each part equal status.


> I add sugar to the melted butter, then chocolate, and I pour in flour and the other ingredients, and I mix. I'm 90, so I can't mix as good as I used to, and I have to stop and rest once, but I get everything mixed good enough, anyway I won't care if there's a few lumps, and I pour it into the cake pans, and darn it I forgot to preheat the oven. I turn on my oven.



I think there's also a simplicity to commas. So if you want your reader to be feeling some emotion, you might not want them thinking about fine distinctions between different punctuations.

(Were you responding to me? What is the third and long one?)


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 13, 2018)

Terry D said:


> No. A short sentence is used to express a single, simple idea; be it, 'Jane picked up a butcher's knife,' or 'John flipped another burger.' The paragraph, or scene in which these sentences are written will determine how "important" they are. (As an aside. I'll go on record here as saying every sentence we write, be it long, short, or somewhere in between should be important to the story. If it's not, it's baggage, so cut it. But some sentences are more 'dramatic' than others, and that's what I think you are really talking about.)
> 
> In the first sentence I wrote above, Jane might have just gotten her first apartment and is out shopping for cutlery with her best friend. The comment could be simple stage direction to break up a long string of dialogue, or, she could be in the middle of a fight with her cheating husband, then the act would be far more dramatic. If you only use short sentences to say something "important", your writing will be stiff and predictable.



Hi Terry, If a longer sentence had two ideas, we could wonder why the author didn't write two sentences with one idea each. So I assume you think long sentences also contain one idea and cannot be divided in two. True?

So, right, sometimes a sentence will be long because it takes a lot of words to express an idea. But when an author has two ideas, they usually get bundled into one sentence. At least in fiction. And the sentence could be split in two with no loss of meaning except it will be perceived as choppy.

So you didn't put a period after, for example, "A short sentence is used to express a single, simple idea." But you put one after "No", and that added a healthy dollop of power.


----------



## JustRob (Mar 13, 2018)

Bloggsworth said:


> Very carefully. Keep re-reading it to yourself *out loud*, that way you can ensure that it all joins and flows.



Yes, I believe that this is the key approach. If you can read a long sentence out loud, _pacing and inflexing it as your punctuation implies rather than as you meant it to sound, _and it seems to make sense, then you're probably okay. The punctuation is important though because, apart from any grammatical rules that it should obey, its prime purpose is to tell the reader how to _speak_ the words, whether silently within their mind or out loud to others. You are in turn _telling_ your reader things, even if by doing that your intention is to show them others. Flawed punctuation ruins any sentence, even a relatively short one, so get it right.

Text is traditionally just a way of recording words to be spoken, although nowadays it is drifting away from that concept with hieroglyphics, e.g. emojis and abbreviations, being used more and more. What we tackle here is primarily text that can be read out loud. That's why I don't include emojis in my posts, because I can't read them out except by turning them into equivalent words. On that subject, I've always wondered why people nod, shrug and generally gesticulate when talking on their phones. What is it meant to achieve? Are they attempting to communicate their unspoken emojis?

The head of the mathematics department at my school told us that when setting out a mathematical proof we should imagine that we are telling it on the phone to an angel who has never visited Earth. I think the same applies to literature in a manner of speaking. (Could that be a joke? If so, where's the emoji? Do you _really_ need one though?)


----------



## AwkwardWriter (Mar 13, 2018)

Feel free to use colons and semi-colons, and ration your commas; too many and it gets irritating.  Jane Eyre wrote paragraph long sentences and used so many semi-colons, colons, and commas...so obnoxious.  By the time you finished the sentence, the meaning was lost.  I'd say use a max of three commas, maybe five, two colons, and two semi-colons. By then, it would be best to just end the sentence altogether.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 13, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Terry, If a longer sentence had two ideas, we could wonder why the author didn't write two sentences with one idea each. So I assume you think long sentences also contain one idea and cannot be divided in two. True?
> 
> So, right, sometimes a sentence will be long because it takes a lot of words to express an idea. But when an author has two ideas, they usually get bundled into one sentence. At least in fiction. And the sentence could be split in two with no loss of meaning except it will be perceived as choppy.
> 
> So you didn't put a period after, for example, "A short sentence is used to express a single, simple idea." But you put one after "No", and that added a healthy dollop of power.



A single sentence, regardless of its length, expresses one idea. Longer sentences may be required to express a more complex idea, but it is still one idea. Yes, longer, more complex sentences can often be broken down into two sentences, but, if constructed properly those two sentences will be iterations of the same idea. 

I never said that short sentences couldn't be used for emphasis. I simply said they didn't _have_ to be dramatic.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 13, 2018)

Two ideas in one sentence? Not advisable, imo, except when expressing a dichotomy, or conflict, or moral dilemma. But that's really one complex argument, so... never mind!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 13, 2018)

senecaone said:


> Two ideas in one sentence? Not advisable, imo, except when expressing a dichotomy, or conflict, or moral dilemma. But that's really one complex argument, so... never mind!



Exactly. I am wary of actually trying to count ideas, but I don't think any attempt will match up with one per sentence.



> I never said that short sentences couldn't be used for emphasis. I simply said they didn't _have to be dramatic.
> _ I never said that short sentences couldn't be used for emphasis, I simply said they didn't _have to be dramatic.
> 
> _


I am not sure those two sentences are two ideas. But if they are, they don't suddenly turn into one idea when they are combined together.



> I shake my head. I try not to smile.
> I shake my head and try not to smile.
> 
> I shake my head and try not to smile, because they'll take it as a weakness and keep pushing.



Perhaps ironically, I have the "rule" that the reader shouldn't have to read the next sentence to understand the present sentence. I have examples of that error (IMO) in King, Evanovich, and John Green, even though I mostly hold them up as good examples.



> But, in fact, depression is not a side effect of cancer. Depression is a side effect of dying.



That first sentence stopped me every time I read it.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 13, 2018)

Terry D said:


> I never said that short sentences couldn't be used for emphasis. I simply said they didn't _have_ to be dramatic.



Actually, I said a short sentence is usually used for something important; when you disagreed with me, you somehow decided I meant dramatic. Anyway, throwing out the confusion, I think we are agreeing -- emphasis is a great reason to use a short sentence. The idea is that a short sentence gets more attention than if it is combined into a longer sentence.

Again, it seems to be a basic technique in writing to bundle less important "ideas" into one sentence. Everyone does it. I don't actually like the following sentence, but the bundling seemed within normal to me.



> "Copy that, Alpha One," I replied into my headset, as the outer wall of the abandoned outpost began to emerge from the desert half a mile away, a dark shadow against a dusty brown hill so slight most people wouldn't have noticed it was there. (Shadow War, McFate &Witter, page 1)


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 14, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> But when an author has two ideas, they usually get bundled into one sentence. At least in fiction.



We tried this the other day, and found it almost impossible to keep the ideas separate. Just by having two ideas in the same sentence related them and turned them into one bigger idea. Try it:

"John turned the key in the lock."
"Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."

"John turned the key in the lock, and Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."
"John turned the key in the lock, but Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."
"John turned the key in the lock because Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."
"John turned the key in the lock; Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."
"John turned the key in the lock -- Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."

You can do all kinds of causative gymnastics but because of the meaning and relationships implicit in conjunctive clauses (or whatever they're called) it seems impossible to keep them entirely separate. I think what can be done is to load subordinate ideas onto the main one, often in the form of extra detail or some follow-on thoughts; eg:

"John turned the key in the lock, listening to the tumble and fall of the mechanism that reminded him, in one fleeting moment, of Mrs.. Judd's apples, and how they were best in autumn."


----------



## Terry D (Mar 14, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> I am not sure those two sentences are two ideas. But if they are, they don't suddenly turn into one idea when they are combined together.



The 'idea' of that sentence is the contrast between what I said and what you inferred from it. That's only one idea, hence, I wrote it as one sentence. In your rewrite of it using a full stop, You ended up with one sentence, "I never said short sentences couldn't be used for emphasis," and a fragment, "I simple said they didn't have to be dramatic." It's a fragment because, within that sentence, 'they' has no context, making it an incomplete idea.

Before you go there, I'll admit most fiction writers use fragments, but that's not the topic of this thread.



> Perhaps ironically, I have the "rule" that the reader shouldn't have to read the next sentence to understand the present sentence. I have examples of that error (IMO) in King, Evanovich, and John Green, even though I mostly hold them up as good examples.



Your 'rule' is simply the definition of a sentence; a group of words expressing an (note the singular) idea, statement, or thought. So, by definition, a sentence should stand on its own. But that doesn't mean the idea expressed will make much sense without the context of the paragraph in which it resides. Remember, words build sentences, sentences build paragraphs, paragraphs build scenes, scenes build chapters, and so on. Each level of construction serves as a foundation for the next, constantly expanding and, above the sentence level, weaving together  ideas. The inter-relationship between sentences you refer to shouldn't come as an epiphany. I'd like to see the examples from King, et al, you mentioned. I bet there is a complete idea within each.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 14, 2018)

Terry D said:


> Your 'rule' is simply the definition of a sentence; a group of words expressing an (note the singular) idea, statement, or thought. So, by definition, a sentence should stand on its own. But that doesn't mean the idea expressed will make much sense without the context of the paragraph in which it resides. Remember, words build sentences, sentences build paragraphs, paragraphs build scenes, scenes build chapters, and so on. Each level of construction serves as a foundation for the next, constantly expanding and, above the sentence level, weaving together  ideas. The inter-relationship between sentences you refer to shouldn't come as an epiphany. I'd like to see the examples from King, et al, you mentioned. I bet there is a complete idea within each.



Very well said!
I have nothing further to add, but do very much enjoy the discourse.
Carry on!


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 14, 2018)

Terry D said:


> I'd like to see the examples from King, et al, you mentioned. I bet there is a complete idea within each.



Thanks. Nice to have backup on this.

I'll start with Evanovich. The main character is in Florida and we read:



> It was the McDonald's milk shake of air.



Obviously, you can call that a complete thought. But it isn't. And I didn't experience it as complete -- I stopped and couldn't figure out the sentence. How is the air like a milk shake? The next sentence puts all of the meaning into this one: "You had to work to suck it in." Most of these can be fixed with a simple dash: It was the McDonald's milk shake of air -- you had to work to suck it in.

From King: The character is at an amusement park, looking for a drug dealer so he can buy some drugs.We read:


> Up ahead was an elaborate mini-golf layout. It was mostly filled with laughing teenagers, and I thought I had arrived at Ground Zero.


Ground zero is a metaphor, I assume, but for what? The next sentence explained everything. Another from King:



> But writing is a deep and wonderful thing.



Why? This sentence comes from nowhere. I think the theme here is that the next sentence explains why this sentence exists. The next two examples aren't from King. In the first, she is talking about her close relationship with her sister:



> We never deliberately froze anybody out, but it was challenging for other people to get very close. Scientists needed fifty years to split the atom.





> The air was cool and smelled of sun-dried leaves -- I assumed.



The last one is my favorite. I rewrote it as:


> The air was cool and smelled of sun-dried leaves. Or so I assumed -- my nose was so clogged, I couldn't sniff out the difference between a tulip and a trash can.


I'm not sure how to present these. Did you want to see the next sentence too? You wouldn't need it if the sentence was complete in thought.

Also, my actual claim did not mention ideas, which I worry is a treacherous foundation to build anything on. I said "I have the 'rule' that the reader shouldn't have to read the next sentence to understand the present sentence." The period tells the reader to stop and process the sentence, and in all of these examples, the reader doesn't have enough information to do that. As opposed to normally.

I guess it's an incomplete idea. But you are welcome to describe this mistake any way you want. (Writing is a deep and wonderful thing. Itopens deep wells of memory that were previously capped.)


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 14, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> We tried this the other day, and found it almost impossible to keep the ideas separate. Just by having two ideas in the same sentence related them and turned them into one bigger idea. Try it:
> 
> "John turned the key in the lock."
> "Mrs. Judd's apples were best in autumn."
> ...




I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. This seems like an example from fiction. With that assumption, there's no point to be made. Either turning the key inexplicably caused the character to think about apples, or it didn't. If there's no relationship between the two ideas, they don't belong in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence!


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 15, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. This seems like an example from fiction. With that assumption, there's no point to be made. Either turning the key inexplicably caused the character to think about apples, or it didn't. If there's no relationship between the two ideas, they don't belong in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence!



The point I’m making is to illustrate what happens if you put two ostensibly unrelated ideas in the same sentence, a relationship seems implicit. This example isn’t from anywhere, I just made it up - though it’s good to hear it carries the sheen of publication - so it’s a blank canvas but as a reader, if these 2 things didn’t merge at some point, I would feel cheated and as though I was in the hands of a sloppy writer. Basically I don’t think you and I disagree on this.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 15, 2018)

bdcharles said:


> The point I’m making is to illustrate what happens if you put two ostensibly unrelated ideas in the same sentence, a relationship seems implicit. This example isn’t from anywhere, I just made it up - though it’s good to hear it carries the sheen of publication - so it’s a blank canvas but as a reader, if these 2 things didn’t merge at some point, I would feel cheated and as though I was in the hands of a sloppy writer. Basically I don’t think you and I disagree on this.



I understood that you made up the example. And it doesn't carry the sheen of publication.

What I disagree with is the artificial nature of this discussion!

Sentences convey information. They must make sense, i.e., they must be easily understood by the average reader of the target audience. It's that simple.

Too many think grand, convoluted, flowery sentences make great writing. Great writing, in my opinion, clearly conveys what it needs to convey.

Some people naturally write long sentences. Others typically write shorter ones. That's part of your style. Trying to imitate a particular style will probably diminish the effectiveness of your writing.


----------



## senecaone (Mar 15, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> I understood that you made up the example. And it doesn't carry the sheen of publication.
> 
> What I disagree with is the artificial nature of this discussion!
> 
> ...



Though I understand you point, Jack, I have to take some exception. If a writer's natural style drives them to short, medium, or long sentences, and they follow that natural tendency, it can lead to a metronome cadence at the short end, or endless long sentences that leave the reader breathless.

A writer that gravitates to one end or the other, by nature, should intentionally add sentences from the other end of the spectrum (paying attention to effective flow). It's tricky, but in doing so you will be less likely to leave the reader numb.

That, of course, begs another question: Are you writing for the writer? Or for the reader? That's a completely different conversation, yet related. (Both agendas are entirely valid)


----------



## Terry D (Mar 15, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Thanks. Nice to have backup on this.
> 
> I'll start with Evanovich.



Easy one. That's a fragment because the word 'it' has no context within that single sentence. The author is relying on prior sentences to provide the context. It's not a proper sentence, but we've already established that fragments a frequently used in fiction.





> Obviously, you can call that a complete thought. But it isn't. And I didn't experience it as complete -- I stopped and couldn't figure out the sentence. How is the air like a milk shake? The next sentence puts all of the meaning into this one: "You had to work to suck it in." Most of these can be fixed with a simple dash: It was the McDonald's milk shake of air -- you had to work to suck it in.



A dash is overkill. A comma would work just fine. IMO



> From King: The character is at an amusement park, looking for a drug dealer so he can buy some drugs.We read:
> 
> Ground zero is a metaphor, I assume, but for what? The next sentence explained everything.



Remember what I said in my previous post; each level of construction, from words to chapters, serve to build ever larger ideas. The sentences you copied from King are complete sentences. Each carries a single idea, but, because we are looking at them out of context, we need further clarification to complete the thought. We need the entire paragraph.





> Why? This sentence comes from nowhere. I think the theme here is that the next sentence explains why this sentence exists.[/quote
> 
> Again, as with Evanovich, this is a fragment referring to the subject of a prior sentence. Not technically correct (OMG the bastard started a sentence with a preposition!!!) but used for effect.
> 
> ...


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 17, 2018)

Hi Terry. For the sentence "It was the McDonald's milk shake of air" you said, "That's a fragment". While I appreciate the logic of your answer, the reality is, AFAIK, you are the only one thinking that's a fragment. (Meanwhile, we need the true meaning of _fragment _to talk about them in grammar.)



> Remember what I said in my previous post; each level of construction, from words to chapters, serve to build ever larger ideas. The sentences you copied from King are complete sentences. Each carries a single idea, but, because we are looking at them out of context, we need further clarification to complete the thought. We need the entire paragraph.



A.most all sentences are very understandable with just has gone on before. "Two black crewmen carried a limp body toward her. The white man had a yellow slicker. Red hair appeared around the edges of his baseball cap." I have no trouble processing each sentence to get the meaning Crichton intended. Yes, there is more to come, but it will just add to those.

"The air was like a McDonald's milkshake." Maybe the problem is the metaphor. I cannot possibly know what the author meant by this metaphor. Or -- and now I am thinking this was more likely -- I stopped and thought about how the air was like a McDonald's milkshake. I don't remember if I gave up or thought of stirring the shake. Then I read the next sentence and learned I was wrong. So, all the time I spent thinking about that sentence was wasted.

So -- really -- a period says "think about this sentence". When that isn't going to work, the period isn't appropriate.. It doesn't work when the next sentence finishes the thought and the author assumes the reader will keep reading even though _the reader was told to stop and understand the sentence_.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 17, 2018)

senecaone said:


> Though I understand you point, Jack, I have to take some exception. If a writer's natural style drives them to short, medium, or long sentences, and they follow that natural tendency, it can lead to a metronome cadence at the short end, or endless long sentences that leave the reader breathless.
> 
> A writer that gravitates to one end or the other, by nature, should intentionally add sentences from the other end of the spectrum (paying attention to effective flow). It's tricky, but in doing so you will be less likely to leave the reader numb.
> 
> That, of course, begs another question: Are you writing for the writer? Or for the reader? That's a completely different conversation, yet related. (Both agendas are entirely valid)



I don't care to debate the question of who you are writing for here. That's too off topic.

I disagree about the breathless thing. Readers are generally reading silently, and breathe naturally regardless of sentence length.

Books I've read that were written in the 1800s and early 1900s typically had long sentences. It was the sign of the times, I suppose. I had no trouble at all reading them.

Sentence length is not something I usually notice when reading. Neither do I notice the use of -ly adverbs or "bookisms". Those fly right under my radar as a reader. What I notice is : believability, both character behavior and plot; flow of time, moving forward and not swirling around in a haphazard manner; respecting the laws of the universe, even in fantasy there are laws established as the story progresses, and I expect them to be followed. There's probably other things, but as you can see, they are larger scale items. Sentences or scenes that don't seem to belong will also jump out at me, as will jumps that leave out needed material. Flowery prose or use of unnecessary jargon also annoys me. I dislike vain attempts to impress me. I'm more impressed by a solid story that has a reason to be told. Even entertaining fiction can have a reason, other than entertainment. Without that reason, it's just fluff. And a waste of my time.

But getting back to the breathless argument, unless you are quietly reading, and moving your lips as you whisper the words, there's no need to feel breathless.

I'm not advocating long sentences. On the contrary! Anyone who deliberately tries to use long sentences is in danger of crossing into "vainly trying to impress me" territory. 

Keep it natural and focus on the story, then all should be well.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 18, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Terry. For the sentence "It was the McDonald's milk shake of air" you said, "That's a fragment". While I appreciate the logic of your answer, the reality is, AFAIK, you are the only one thinking that's a fragment. (Meanwhile, we need the true meaning of _fragment _to talk about them in grammar.)



Not the only one. This is one of the types of fragments discussed at grammar.ccc.commnet.edu:

*Stylistic Fragments*

There are occasions when a sentence fragment can be stylistically effective, exactly what you want and no more.

_Harrison Ford has said he would be more than willing to take on another Indiana Jones project. In a New York minute.
_
​As long as you are clearly in control of the situation, this is permissible, but the freedom to exercise this stylistic license depends on the circumstances.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Mar 19, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> Hi Terry. For the sentence "It was the McDonald's milk shake of air" you said, "That's a fragment". While I appreciate the logic of your answer, the reality is, AFAIK, you are the only one thinking that's a fragment. (Meanwhile, we need the true meaning of _fragment _to talk about them in grammar.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not stop and think about the sentence when I reach a period. Why would I? I keep reading to get the rest of the story.  

I'm struggling with the idea of time wasted. How long do you think?

On the other hand, when an author writes in a way that is not clear, I quickly put down the book. So I'm not suggesting that confusing sentences are OK. But I don't waste time thinking about them. I will read another sentence or two, and if it's not clear by then, the book is history.

I guess I have little patience.


As for there needing to be a definition of sentence fragment, there is one. Microsoft uses it to identify sentence fragments in Word. Open Office and other word processing software also use it.

I'm not advocating fragments. Just saying they are defined.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Mar 19, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> As for there needing to be a definition of sentence fragment, there is one. Microsoft uses it to identify sentence fragments in Word. Open Office and other word processing software also use it.
> 
> I'm not advocating fragments. Just saying they are defined.



The issue was whether this was a fragment: "It was the McDonald's milk shake of air." Terry said yes ("That's a fragment because the word 'it' has no context within that single sentence.") I said no, not by the normal definition that everyone uses.

Fragments! They have an interesting role in this issue. I claimed that a sentence should make sense by itself (or with the preceding) and not need the following. The obvious exception is a topic sentence. Of course, we usually don't use topic sentences in fiction; one problem is presumably that the reader is expecting a sentence to make sense.

Anyway, the solution, if you want a "topic sentence", is to use a "topic fragment". You will often see authors beginning a paragraph with a topic fragment.



> My arrest. The Downtown Civic Club met each [continues the story of him being arrested] (Grisham, _The Racketeer_,page 35)


----------



## bdcharles (Mar 19, 2018)

EmmaSohan said:


> The issue was whether this was a fragment: "It was the McDonald's milk shake of air." Terry said yes ("That's a fragment because the word 'it' has no context within that single sentence.") I said no, not by the normal definition that everyone uses.
> 
> Fragments! They have an interesting role in this issue. I claimed that a sentence should make sense by itself (or with the preceding) and not need the following. The obvious exception is a topic sentence. Of course, we usually don't use topic sentences in fiction; one problem is presumably that the reader is expecting a sentence to make sense.
> 
> Anyway, the solution, if you want a "topic sentence", is to use a "topic fragment". You will often see authors beginning a paragraph with a topic fragment.



I agree. To me, a fragment is a gramatically incomplete sentence. Like this. Or this. They have their place. Impact, mostly. Sudden. Very sudden. The example you give is, I dunno what it is. It's just a sentence I think, isn't it? Presumably the context (of "it") must be either very close by, or very easy to infer, or the lack of context must be the thing to pay attention to. A good example is the opening to _A Tale of Two Cities_: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness. Hot damn, it was the McDonalds' milkshake of air!"

Joking aside, I like the example cited. I think it is a neat metaphor  I picture sterile air conditioning with no richness to it.


----------



## evak2979 (Mar 20, 2018)

Terry D said:


> That would probably work very well for non-fiction writing, but would make for terrible fiction construction. Most folks here default to fiction in discussion, but the OP's question didn't specify, so thanks for the link.
> 
> Long sentences are fine. They help to vary the pace of a story. They should not be avoided, nor should every sentence we write be long. Not all thoughts are long. The key to writing effective sentences, of any length, is using proper punctuation and careful word choice. Make your sentences clear and avoid rambling. A good sentence will deliver its message without the reader even thinking about its length. If your reader notices how long a sentence is, you've done a poor job.



Pardon the delayed response - 
this is untrue ! All of the examples in that book are from fiction writing, including writers like King, Hemmingway, Wolfe, etc. There is not a single non-fiction example. Personally I found it immensely useful, and it has also changed the way I read a novel - by noticing how writers use forementioned techniques to control pace and story.

The book is about techniques on how to construct sentences, long and short, using participial phrases, appositives, parallel joints, taking into account things such as the sound/rhythm of words .It's definitely a very good read for fiction writers


----------



## Terry D (Mar 20, 2018)

evak2979 said:


> Pardon the delayed response -
> this is untrue ! All of the examples in that book are from fiction writing, including writers like King, Hemmingway, Wolfe, etc. There is not a single non-fiction example. Personally I found it immensely useful, and it has also changed the way I read a novel - by noticing how writers use forementioned techniques to control pace and story.
> 
> The book is about techniques on how to construct sentences, long and short, using participial phrases, appositives, parallel joints, taking into account things such as the sound/rhythm of words .It's definitely a very good read for fiction writers



Point taken. Although, to be honest, all I had to go by was the book description in the link which never once mentions fiction writing, but mentions writing for high school and college a number of times. There is a dramatic difference between academic writing and fiction writing, the blurb should have been more specific. Thanks, however, for the information.


----------

