# perspectives in action sequences



## Harbinger (Jul 20, 2012)

I ran into an interesting problem while writing and wanted to know if anyone can clear it up. My question is about being clear who is doing what during a paragraph. I run into this problem alot during action scenes. An example is below:

Two guards appeared on the stair above, drawing their swords as they rushed the imposters. Davaar met the first and cleaved into the soldier’s arm with a mighty swing of his waraxe. Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat. 

For the third sentence, is it clear that Carleon is using his own sword to cut the soldier's throat, or does it read as if he's cutting his own throat? I may be thinking too far into it but I seem to run into this kind of thing alot.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 20, 2012)

Harbinger said:
			
		

> Two guards appeared on the stair above, drawing their swords as they rushed the imposters. Davaar met the first and cleaved into the soldier's arm with a mighty swing of his waraxe. Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat.



On first read it seemed fine to me. Second time through, I can see where a reader might be confused. I doubt very many won't get the sentence but if you're striving for ultimate clarity then you may wish to rewrite it. 

Something like, "Carleon slit the wounded man's throat to finish him." - its an extremely active sentence & unlikely to be read differently by different readers. Always try to be as clear as possible.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 20, 2012)

> Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat.



You're going to have to reword.  Both of uses of "his," to me, refer back to "man."


----------



## Harbinger (Jul 20, 2012)

Ya thats how I read it too.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 20, 2012)

Maybe it's me but I followed the flow of the sentences just fine. No confusion on my part when reading who did what to whom.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 20, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Maybe it's me but I followed the flow of the sentences just fine. No confusion on my part when reading who did what to whom.



Same here. You can certainly change it if you want to clarify, but I doubt any reader will be confused or mistaken by it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 20, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Maybe it's me but I followed the flow of the sentences just fine. No confusion on my part when reading who did what to whom.



I understand what he's trying to say, but the point is that it can create confusion.  Think about it.  He's got two uses of the word "his" right next to each other that refer to two different people.  Sure, most people will connect the dots and figure the most logical way to interpret the sentence, but you really don't want to do it for several reasons:

1) It takes the reader out of the flow if they have to figure out what the author is saying.
2) Some people won't be able to figure it out, and, each time you have a situation they don't understand, you risk losing them.
3) It's sloppy writing.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 21, 2012)

> Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat.



'Careleon ran his blade across the wounded mans throat.'


----------



## Shockley (Jul 21, 2012)

Assuming your readers are thinking beings (and they should be, if they can actually read) there will be no confusion.

 From a purely stylistic point you might want to change it, but as a functional sentence it is fine.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 21, 2012)

Shockley said:


> Assuming your readers are thinking beings (and they should be, if they can actually read) there will be no confusion.
> 
> From a purely stylistic point you might want to change it, but as a functional sentence it is fine.



Again, the way that it is written is that the protagonist uses the wounded man's blade to cut the wounded man's throat.  

I'm not sure how you would reasonably interpret the sentence any other way unless you stop and think "The author meant to say."  

If it's important that the protagonist use his own blade, then you have to reword.  It's not a "style" choice.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 21, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> Again, the way that it is written is that the protagonist uses the wounded man's blade to cut the wounded man's throat.
> 
> I'm not sure how you would reasonably interpret the sentence any other way unless you stop and think "The author meant to say."
> 
> If it's important that the protagonist use his own blade, then you have to reword.  It's not a "style" choice.



This is nonsense. The function of words is to communicate ideas. If you've done that,  you've succeeded. No reasonable reader will misread that sentence. If you want to reword because you prefer another wording,  that's fine.  There is no reason to pretend it is for clarity.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 21, 2012)

Could that sentence be misread? Yes, possibly

Is it likely that sentence won't be understood? No

Could it be written in a way that eliminates the possibility of confusion? Absolutely

Although BWFs approach may be overly technical, I believe that striving for clarity is important. But hey, that's just me. It seems likely that the author of the sentence is bothered by a potential confusion. In my view, that is what warrants a rewrite.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 21, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> t seems likely that the author of the sentence is bothered by a potential confusion. In my view, that is what warrants a rewrite.



This is it exactly. If the author is bothered by a sentence, or uncertain about it, then it should be rewritten until the author is happy with it as an expression of her idea. As we can see from this thread and others, different authors have differing views. There isn't one right way, to the exclusion of others. Even at the level of grammar, the idea that "rules" have to be adhered to and can't give way to an author's preference is demonstrably false when one considers the body of English Literature.


----------



## Butterfly (Jul 21, 2012)

I wasn't confused by it.

Mind you having your character run his attacker's own sword across his throat might be a great way of showing his characteristics (if that's how you want him portrayed), his fighting ability armed, and his resourcefulness in fighting unarmed / caught off guard. I quite like that idea -  you could do a lot with it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 21, 2012)

I do not see how you can read that sentence and not think that the protagonist was using the wounded man's sword.  Period. 

It's not nonsense at all.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 21, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I do not see how you can read that sentence and not think that the protagonist was using the wounded man's sword.  Period.



Maybe you don't, but plenty of people didn't read it that way, and I'm guessing the vast majority of readers would not.


----------



## psychotick (Jul 21, 2012)

Hi,

I read it without confusion. I was easily able to accept that the guard who'd just been whacked in the arm was the wounded man. However to further distinguish you could replacethe wounded man with the wounded guard, and to make certain that everything was flowing in order, chuck in a 'then'. So the final sentence would read: Then Careleon ran his blade across the wounded guard's throat.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Lorna (Jul 21, 2012)

If I'd been reading the book and knew Carleon was the MC, Davaar a friend and in your world guard = soldier this wouldn't faze me. However as a snipped I found it confusing. 



> Davaar met the first and cleaved into the soldier’s arm with a mighty swing of his waraxe.



I wouldn't always associate being a guard with a soldier and might think 'where's that soldier come from?'



> Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat.



TA Smith and Thinker X have discussed a couple of alternatives. I'd simply go with 'Carleon slit the wounded man's throat.'


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 21, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> I do not see how you can read that sentence and not think that the protagonist was using the wounded man's sword.  Period.



To this I'd like to refer back to a writing tip I read on another thread. It's about writing, but I think it applies to what you just said.



BWFoster78 said:


> Consider the viewpoints of all your characters when writing your scene.



If you can't see how it may not be confusing. There's a failure in applying this sentiment. 

To me a sentence doesn't stand on it's own. It works with the sentences around it channel the flow of thought by the reader. So in context. I don't believe the sentence is confusing. It's like that trick where you get someone to say the word 'white' ten times out loud then ask them what does a cow drink? A lot of people say it's milk, which is wrong. To me that's the same thing prose does. It directs a reader into a train of thought so they think like you want them to.

Can the reader be confused with the sentence? Yes. Will the reader be confused? If the words around the sentence are working with it well, I don't think they will. Should the OP change it to make it absolutely clear? It depends on how much it disrupts things in their eyes.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 21, 2012)

^^

An outstanding illustration PP.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 21, 2012)

Harbinger said:


> Carleon finished the wounded man by running his blade across his throat.



I wasn't confused by this part, but I can see how two hises so close to each other can cause confusion since you have to rely on context instead of grammar to know what's going on. 

I'd play around with the sentence if it bothered me. Carleon finished the wounded man by running a blade across his throat. Carleon finished the wounded man by slitting his throat. Carleon ran a blade across the wounded man's throat, finishing him. Carleon slit the wounded man's throat.

Listen to your instincts when they tell you something is off. Things might look fine to you and others, but I believe that doubts about a passage signify another approach is out there, one that fits your book and your style better.



Lorna said:


> If I'd been reading the book and knew Carleon was the MC, Davaar a friend and in your world guard = soldier this wouldn't faze me. However as a snipped I found it confusing. I wouldn't always associate being a guard with a soldier and might think 'where's that soldier come from?'



Same for me. Since I don't know the book, I didn't know how many people were involved. Changing from "guard" to "soldier"  to "wounded man" confused me more than the his-his problem.


----------



## Harbinger (Jul 22, 2012)

I ended up just going with "Carleon slashed the man's throat." Lorna and Ghost brought up another question I had though. I try to avoid using 'the guard' or 'the man' too much, but its sometimes hard to avoid in sequences likes this. Is it better to just overuse these tags instead of risk confusing the reader?


----------



## Ghost (Jul 22, 2012)

For me, it depends on how long the character appears in the story. If he's there for a couple of pages or paragraphs, I prefer one name. It confuses me to have more than two names within a short span. I keep reading until the author makes it clear what's going on, but I'd prefer the author keep it straight from the get go.

Some people suggest changing it so there's less repetition; however, I consider a word like "guard" or "wounded man" to be like stand-ins for a name. I certainly wouldn't change a character's name every other paragraph. (Changing from "guard" to "wounded man" isn't bad. I'm assuming all involved are men, so "wounded guard" is more specific.)  Stand-in names that add description or characterization can be useful, but they're unecessary for a bit player.

If there's only one person it could be, it's easy for me to tolerate changes. It's harder in action scenes with more than two people since there is more to keep track of.


----------

