Thread: Need some help on correctly arranging my sentences

Now I normally didn’t have problems with this at all, I don’t really know the rules but I always go by feeling. I recently gave something I wrote to a friend of mine to read and she told me that she had to rearrange a lot of my sentences around in her head because the order was incorrect.

This has left me second guessing myself constantly now, it’s extremely exhausting and time consuming. It could be that she lied (unfortunately that wouldn’t be the first time) but I just want to make sure. Here are a few examples and I want to know if the order is possible in all cases, or which one are best or wrong and why. I highlighted the words in the following sentences.

She lifted her eyebrows amused.
She lifted her eyebrows, amused.
She lifted her eyebrows looking amused.
Amused, she lifted her eyebrows.

Her heart immediately started to pound faster.
Her heart started to pound faster immediately.
Immediately, her heart started to pound faster.

She was slowly pulled inside.
She was pulled inside slowly.

Oddly enough shes ounded happy.
She sounded happy oddly enough.


Thanks so much in advance!

In my opinion, at least....

She lifted her eyebrows amused. -- wrong: it would need a comma.
She lifted her eyebrows, amused. -- just fine.
She lifted her eyebrows looking amused. -- awkward. A comma would help, but it's still stylistically wrong. Who does she look amused TO?
Amused, she lifted her eyebrows. -- just fine.

-- Still though, I think it would be better to just say that she lifted her eyebrows and let the reader decide why she did. The whole showing-not-telling, thing.




Her heart immediately started to pound faster. - fine
Her heart started to pound faster immediately. - fine
Immediately, her heart started to pound faster. - fine

-- I'd rather simplify it and say "Her heart pounded faster." By being less wordy, it feels more immediate.


She was slowly pulled inside. - fine
She was pulled inside slowly. - fine


Oddly enough she sounded happy. - bad: it needs a comma.
She sounded happy oddly enough. - bad: it needs a comma.

-- Again, who is it odd to?

My preference - Amused, she lifted her eyebrows.

Either of these depending on context:

Her heart immediately began to pound faster. I would prefer the word began to started.

Immediately, her heart began to pound faster.

My preference - She was slowly pulled inside. You could have: She was pulled inside - slowly. This would give a pause between the act and the manner of it.

Originally Posted by j.w.olson

In my opinion, at least....

She lifted her eyebrows amused. -- wrong: it would need a comma.
She lifted her eyebrows, amused. -- just fine.
She lifted her eyebrows looking amused. -- awkward. A comma would help, but it's still stylistically wrong. Who does she look amused TO?
Amused, she lifted her eyebrows. -- just fine.

-- Still though, I think it would be better to just say that she lifted her eyebrows and let the reader decide why she did. The whole showing-not-telling, thing.




Her heart immediately started to pound faster. - fine
Her heart started to pound faster immediately. - fine
Immediately, her heart started to pound faster. - fine

-- I'd rather simplify it and say "Her heart pounded faster." By being less wordy, it feels more immediate.


She was slowly pulled inside. - fine
She was pulled inside slowly. - fine


Oddly enough she sounded happy. - bad: it needs a comma.
She sounded happy oddly enough. - bad: it needs a comma.

-- Again, who is it odd to?

Actually, these are just excerpts from lines, that's why they don’t make complete sense.

Any particular reason why you would use one over the other?
They all seem to work, with the exception of the missing comma in some cases.

Hope you could answer me this as well, but thanks already for your quick reply.

Well, it's somewhat subjective of course. I won't give you answers, but I'll give you the criteria I use.

1. Simplicity. "Her heart beat faster" is much more straightforward than "her heart immediately began to pound faster." For something that happens quickly, make it read quickly.

2. Variety. If all of your preceding sentences have the same structure, change this one up.

3. Placement. It's often worthwhile to put words next to what they modify. "immediately" modifies "started," and "slowly" modifies "pulled."

4. Importance. The first thing in the sentence sets a tone, and the last thing in the sentence lingers. I liked Bloggsworth's suggestion of "She was pulled inside -- slowly." It really emphasizes the last word by breaking up the flow.

5. Nonfamiliarity. Strangeness is the spice of writing. I might write "Amusement lifted her eyebrows." It's short, simple, straightforward, and slightly different than expected, which makes it linger.



Also, it seems like you're mostly having questions about adverbs. I've been reading a number of books lately (On Writing, by Stephen King and The First Five Pages by some editor, among other books) and many of them strongly recommended avoiding adverbs in writing as much as possible because they do too much work for the reader which makes the writing more boring. Something to consider.

Just a side note, if it ends in 'ly', it is an adverb, and good writing will minimize adjectives for stronger verb. That or just kill the adverb altogether.

That's something I never even considered, avoiding adverbs.
It's nice to know that in almost all cases it's subjective though, makes me doubt less.

Without a few adverbs here and there I just feel my text feels empty.
Does it make a difference if I'm writing fantasy? Could I use more adverbs or should I still ease up on using them?

Again, thanks a whole lot for your kind answers.

Can you use them, yes, but they add weight to the writing. Cleaner writing has a nice flow and lets the reader focus on the story. Good fantasy does not need to be drowned in details to make it good. The best writing is the kind that the reader never notices the words, only the story they tell.

As Mr. Darkstorm said, yes, you may use adverbs. (There are not a lot of hard and fast rules.) However, avoiding them is generally a good idea in all writing. If you want your writing to seem less empty, fill it with interesting and specific verbs and nouns instead.

So, instead of saying, "she sounded happy," you could write how her eyes blazed wide, she flashed her teeth into a grin, and an ear-piercing "Squee!" erupted from some long-surpressed childhood. That's not the best example as it's still a bit wordy, but it's certainly a less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more vivid) description.

Originally Posted by Lord Darkstorm

Just a side note, if it ends in 'ly', it is an adverb, and good writing will minimize adjectives for stronger verb. That or just kill the adverb altogether.

This is exactly why I tell people to take with a pinch of salt the rules given on writing forums. What you have said above is wrong. I can name you twenty words off the top of my head which end in '-ly', none of which are adverbs:

Timely, anomaly, monopoly, disorderly, unruly, grisly, ugly, comely, cuddly, bubbly, assembly, friendly, homely, belly, sully, tingly, apply, bully, imply, and melancholy.

The above are either nouns or adjectives. So you see what happens when you tell someone to remove all words that end with '-ly' from their writing? You end up telling them to cut words which aren't even adverbs.

Cara, you can cut down on adverbs if you wish, but please don't do it because someone else says so. I've had a professional editor change words to adverbs and ask me why I hadn't used one in the first place. So you see, publishers won't care if you eliminate every adverb if there isn't a good story behind it all.

On this I will kindly refer to a book called "The First Five Pages", by Noah Lukeman, of whom is an editor, not writer.

Here are six reasons why manuscripts heavy on adjectives and adverbs generally don't work:

1. More is less. When a string of adjectives or adverbs is used, they detract from each other. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a reader to keep all those modifiers in his head by the time he gets to the noun or verb.

2. It can be demeaning to the reader when the writer fills in every last detail for him. It assumes he has no imagination of his own. As readers, we bring so many of our own associations to the table anyway, we're going to substitute our own picture of a car, say, no matter how much effort a writer puts into describing it.

3. It is often preferable to leave things blank and force the reader to use his imagination--that way he makes the text his own, becomes more fully engaged in the manuscript. He won't set it down if it's his.

4. Writers who overuse adjectives and adverbs tend to use common ones--usually ones they've heard used in the same context before--and the hackneyed results is immediately apparent. (It is rare to find truly unusual adjectives or adverbs in a manuscript.)

5. Adjectives and adverbs often, ironically, weaken their subjects. It is as if the writer were saying to the reader, "This noun (or verb) is not string enough to stand on it's own, so I will modify it (or build it up) with a few adjectives (or adverbs)."

6. Finally, the overall effect of a text encumbered with adjectives, adverbs and the inevitable commas in between makes for very slow, awkward reading--which these writers would find out for themselves if they only took the time to read their own work aloud.

Originally Posted by Lord Darkstorm

On this I will kindly refer to a book called "The First Five Pages", by Noah Lukeman, of whom is an editor, not writer.

1. More is less. When a string of adjectives or adverbs is used, they detract from each other. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a reader to keep all those modifiers in his head by the time he gets to the noun or verb.

2. It can be demeaning to the reader when the writer fills in every last detail for him. It assumes he has no imagination of his own. As readers, we bring so many of our own associations to the table anyway, we're going to substitute our own picture of a car, say, no matter how much effort a writer puts into describing it.

3. It is often preferable to leave things blank and force the reader to use his imagination--that way he makes the text his own, becomes more fully engaged in the manuscript. He won't set it down if it's his.

4. Writers who overuse adjectives and adverbs tend to use common ones--usually ones they've heard used in the same context before--and the hackneyed results is immediately apparent. (It is rare to find truly unusual adjectives or adverbs in a manuscript.)

5. Adjectives and adverbs often, ironically, weaken their subjects. It is as if the writer were saying to the reader, "This noun (or verb) is not string enough to stand on it's own, so I will modify it (or build it up) with a few adjectives (or adverbs)."

6. Finally, the overall effect of a text encumbered with adjectives, adverbs and the inevitable commas in between makes for very slow, awkward reading--which these writers would find out for themselves if they only took the time to read their own work aloud.

More of the same. I've heard it all, from every writer and editor's blog on the Internet. The problem is, there's no substance to it. Open any published book, even one released last week, and I guarantee you will come on an adverb before the first page is read.

However, you're missing my point. I gave you twenty words which end in '-ly', of which none are adverbs. So there's a problem with adjectives now too, is there? Okay, let's remove all adjectives from our work. Why stop there? Let's get rid of those pesky nouns while we're doing it too.

Here's the problem: No reader becomes enthralled in a novel, to the point where they can't sleep, and then comes on an adverb and suddenly decides to throw the book away. We read for stories. Gripping stories. I don't care if the book's lined to the hilt with adverbs. If the story is good, I'll keep reading.

And what genius decided that an adverb made for bad writing in the first place?

3. It is often preferable to leave things blank and force the reader to use his imagination--that way he makes the text his own, becomes more fully engaged in the manuscript. He won't set it down if it's his.

I disagree with this one. I have trouble visualizing things, and if the writer helps me along, so much the better. This is especially true in fantasy works. If the author has something new and original that he wants the reader to share, it's important to get that across. Otherwise even an imaginative reader will just fill in the blanks with things he remembers from other stories, and the book will lose its potential impact.

Two things can result from forcing the reader to use his imagination. The first, and obviously the most desirable, it the one mentioned above. The second (and in my mind, the more likely) is that there will be a disconnect between the book and the reader; the reader can't make the story his own because he has no means to relate to it.

Originally Posted by Sam W

Here's the problem: No reader becomes enthralled in a novel, to the point where they can't sleep, and then comes on an adverb and suddenly decides to throw the book away. We read for stories. Gripping stories. I don't care if the book's lined to the hilt with adverbs. If the story is good, I'll keep reading.

This. For every rule of story writing you can name, I'll bet there are a dozen best-sellers that break that rule. Is the plot good? Are the characters good? Will someone reading the story be aware of both? If so, congratulations. You have a good book.

I've read several fantasy books which do as you mention, describe to the point I start skimming to get past it. There is details we need, and details to indulge the author, of which, the second is usually better off skipped. They make it in to print all the time, but usually because the rest of the story makes up for the parts the reader has to skip to keep from going to sleep. Usually by authors who have been published often enough the publishers will indulge them. For those of us not having that reputation, I don't think they will give the same leniency.

I’mpleasantly surprised by all the replies to this subject.

Originally Posted by j.w.olson

As Mr. Darkstorm said, yes, you may use adverbs. (There are not a lot of hard and fast rules.) However, avoiding them is generally a good idea in all writing. If you want your writing to seem less empty, fill it with interesting and specific verbs and nouns instead.

So, instead of saying, "she sounded happy," you could write how her eyes blazed wide, she flashed her teeth into a grin, and an ear-piercing "Squee!" erupted from some long-surpressed childhood. That's not the best example as it's still a bit wordy, but it's certainly a less predictable (and thus, hopefully, more vivid) description.

These aresome really good examples. Mostly I would just try to find a different synonym for happy to switch it up, but it’s of course much better to show diverse examples that showcase why/how she’s happy. Thank you!

Originally Posted by Sam W

This is exactly why I tell people to take with a pinch of salt the rules given on writing forums. What you have said above is wrong. I can name you twenty words off the top of my head which end in '-ly', none of which are adverbs:

Timely, anomaly, monopoly, disorderly, unruly, grisly, ugly, comely, cuddly, bubbly, assembly, friendly, homely, belly, sully, tingly, apply, bully, imply, and melancholy.

The above are either nouns or adjectives. So you see what happens when you tell someone to remove all words that end with '-ly' from their writing? You end up telling them to cut words which aren't even adverbs.

Cara, you can cut down on adverbs if you wish, but please don't do it because someone else says so. I've had a professional editor change words to adverbs and ask me why I hadn't used one in the first place. So you see, publishers won't care if you eliminate every adverb if there isn't a good story behind it all.

Thank you so much for this piece of advice. Trying to follow certain rules made up by god knows who can truly suck the soul out of your work. I think I need to cut dow nmy adverbs a little, but it’s good to know I don’t have to start and butcher my work.

Originally Posted by Gamer_2k4

I disagree with this one. I have trouble visualizing things, and if the writer helps me along, so much the better. This is especially true in fantasy works. If the author has something new and original that he wants the reader to share, it's important to get that across. Otherwise even an imaginative reader will just fill in the blanks with things he remembers from other stories, and the book will lose its potential impact.

Two things can result from forcing the reader to use his imagination. The first, and obviously the most desirable, it the one mentioned above. The second (and in my mind, the more likely) is that there will be a disconnect between the book and the reader; the reader can't make the story his own because he has no means to relate to it.


This. For every rule of story writing you can name, I'll bet there are a dozen best-sellers that break that rule. Is the plot good? Are the characters good? Will someone reading the story be aware of both? If so, congratulations. You have a good book.

I’m not worried about that. I always take my time describing something, but I don’toverdo it. That’s mostly because I absolutely despise it when I read a book and it takes a writer one page to describe a field or something. I get especially annoyed when clothes are explained in great detail. Just set a clear image, then let the reader fill in however s/he chooses, that’s how I feel about it anyway.Thanks for the reply.