What is wrong with this sentence? - Writers Forum

Siglark · 12-03-2006, 10:55 AM

I know that there's something wrong with this sentence, but I'm not sure what.

Quote:

I listened doubtingly an instant; detected the disturber, then turned and dozed, and dreamed again; if possible, still more disagreeably then before.

Stewart · 12-03-2006, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siglark

I listened doubtingly an instant; detected the disturber, then turned and dozed, and dreamed again; if possible, still more disagreeably then before.

At the most basic level, it's the use of then when you mean than.

However, taking it a step further, it's complex and strangely crafted and needs rewritten. Two adverbs in one sentence isn't advised, as there's better way to show such things. The last section, after the latter semi-colon, is superfluous. Listening doubtingly seems a strange way to express something, and the use of 'instant' is in no way a realistic measure of time for which to listen, is it? 'Disturber' is a confusing choice of word. Do you mean disturbance, or intruder?

Mike C · 12-03-2006, 11:41 AM

What's wrong with it is that you wrote it. It's muddled, too complex and meaningless. Break it down.

aspiring · 12-03-2006, 12:00 PM

It is an odd sentence that could be expressed more clearly in a different way. However, I would say that the only thing wrong with it (grammatically speaking) is that the second semi-colon should actually be a colon because it is explaining about the dream, not beginning a new thought. Obviously as Stewart also pointed out, there is a typo.

My opinion, though - feel free to disagree.

Quote:

I listened doubtingly an instant; detected the disturber, then turned and dozed, and dreamed again: if possible, still more disagreeably than before.

Mike C · 12-03-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

I listened doubtingly an instant; detected the disturber, then turned and dozed, and dreamed again: if possible, still more disagreeably than before.

Still too messy.

Doubtingly - doubting what? Your ears? That there was anything there? Say what. Regardless of structure this leaves too many ambiguities.

I listened for an instant - had I heard something? There is was again; Aspiring back from the pub late. Reassured, I turned and dozed and returned to my dream. A dream that was, if possible, more disagreeable than before.

HarryG · 12-03-2006, 02:27 PM

I heard a noise, in my dreams, but it didn’t register, at first, but it returned to disturb my dreams and suddenly I was wide awake.

writerofthedead · 12-03-2006, 03:11 PM

A lot is wrong with this sentence I agree with Mike C its messy but his rewritten version sounds good and its easy to read.

Stewart · 12-03-2006, 05:07 PM

Disturbed for a moment, I listened, then dreamed again, turning often.

aspiring · 12-04-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

I listened for an instant - had I heard something? There is was again; Aspiring back from the pub late. Reassured, I turned and dozed and returned to my dream. A dream that was, if possible, more disagreeable than before.

Ten minutes later, I awoke again. Aspiring was singing at the top of her voice, right outside my front gate. I sighed. She did this every Friday without fail. Fuelled by Jack Daniels and Coke, she became convinced that she was the next Shirley Bassey and would hog the karaoke machine at the pub, snarling at anyone who dared to approach. Then, becoming maudlin by the end of the evening, she would sing sad songs all the way home.

I slammed the pillow over my ears and returned to my dream. Even a disagreeable dream was better than that godawful singing.

Emerson Darkness · 12-04-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Siglark

I know that there's something wrong with this sentence, but I'm not sure what.

With writing like this, I'm certain you've written others just like it. description is nice, but overdescription can make it seem like you don't know what you're writing.
This annoys readers at best. They might throw your book into the fire, or take it back for a refund at worst.

Frills, bells, and whistles are nice, but if your writing doesn't work, it becomes an eyesore, not to mention a brainsore! People are reading because they want to know everything that's happeining, they don't want to be thrown off by obscurrity!

I can't tell what's happening here, it doesn't work. Get rid of the frill, bells, and whistles, or, if you absolutely, positively, need such description, explain what's going on better.

In my opinion, this could use a more utilitarian style. Look through other stuff that you've written, and see if obscurity has put a chockehold on your story!

Siglark · 12-04-2006, 12:27 PM

Thanks for all of your comments. Time for me to tell the truth.

This was a single-blind experiment. I've been writing an essay about Wuthering Heights for school, and I wanted to get some information about what exactly made this novel difficult to read. The quote is from Wuthering Heights, and while I haven't used any of your comments for the essay, I personally better understand why the novel was so confusing. Thanks again for the comments.

aspiring · 12-04-2006, 01:32 PM

Hah! I am delighted by this revelation!

I have to say, I didn't mind the original sentence at all, even though I would have replaced the semicolon with a colon. But then I enjoyed Wuthering Heights immensely.

Mike C · 12-05-2006, 12:35 AM

Interesting. It does, at least, demonstrate that a sentence taken out of context loses meaning.

bob rulz · 12-05-2006, 02:02 AM

I thought the sentence was clunky, overwritten, heavy, and tried too hard to be clever.

Stewart · 12-05-2006, 04:19 AM

I take it the typo was your addition?