# Really Long Sentences and the Commas That Love Them



## Wordweaver (Oct 31, 2011)

I remember 5th grade English Class, and a specific worksheet in which we had to take a really long sentence, such as:

_He tried to answer aloud, but much of his face had been smashed to an unrecognizable bloody mass, and his jaw was naught but bone-dust and ragged meat, and all that came out was a garbled mess of groans and murmurs._

(yeah, my homework was pretty gruesome)

...And break it down into a bunch of bite-sized pieces, like so:

_He tried to answer aloud, but much of his face had been smashed to an unrecognizable bloody mass. His jaw was naught but bone-dust and ragged meat. All that came out was a garbled mess of groans and murmurs._

Even then we would break them down further, each independent clause getting its own capital and period.

Problem is, I thought then, as I do now, that this exercise is garbage. I liked the sentence how it was! So my question is this: Is the idea that really, really long sentences are _bad grammar_ a thing of the past? Or is it just that I tend to ignore it because I think it's a garbage rule?

Which leads to a related question: Since I tend think long sentences are OK, I tend to use a lot of commas. How many commas is too many commas? When you're really writing, would you add commas in places that are not technically grammatically correct or necessary, just because it gives the narration a more dramatic, or even just cooler-sounding effect?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Oct 31, 2011)

Most of my sentences tend to have no more than two clauses. He did this, but then thought this. He went here, and then went there. She said this, and laughed at that. Plenty with one clause, too. I actually have a problem with doing "A, but B" sentences, that I'm trying to cut back on, just because I feel like I'm overusing it. (Dialogue doesn't count. Some characters ramble.)

Usually the only time I use more than two clauses in a sentence is at a really dramatic or intense moment, or when a character is really feeling something strong:



> She watched as Liam leapt his horse the last yards, skidding on some debris for one terrifying moment, but the stallion caught its balance, and jumped forward again.



Four clauses. You could break it down, but it's one complete beat (action, complication, recovery, continuation) and flows better as a single sentence than it would as individual sentences.

I wouldn't add extra commas unless it served some particular narrative purpose. Honestly I can't say that, while writing, I've ever consciously thought, "This sentence should be longer." Usually it's the other way around, where I end up combining two clauses together that really don't need to be connected.


----------



## subdee (Oct 31, 2011)

My opinion is that long running sentences can tire the reader and are not always necessary. Especially if it is like your example where you keep adding clauses with "and". I think there are specific circumstances where a long sentence would be better than small sentences but as a general rule, I try to put stops where I can.


----------



## Crimson Phoenix (Oct 31, 2011)

You have to be very careful with long sentences, I think when you can and cant use them can depend mostly on the narrative, or more specifically the part of the narrative where it appears. For example if you were writing a long descriptive paragraph about setting or suchlike, then I think you probably have more of a free reign with long sentences. On the otherhand if you were at an action packed fast-paced part of the narrative then it wouldn't be advisable. Just make sure you keep it in line with the pace of the piece because a long sentence can stop a story dead and make something brilliant and exciting seem that little bit more heavy and lethargic. The trick I use is to read the sentence out loud, you'll soon realise if its too much of a mouthful and if it is then yeah, it probably is too long.

As for commas, I dont think there is any hard and fast rule, I just try and keep it down to about two maximum. However this isn't something I tend to concentrate on until I do a second or third draft of a piece. Remember; 'get it written, then get it right!'


----------



## Devor (Oct 31, 2011)

Wordweaver said:


> _He tried to answer aloud, but much of his face had been smashed to an unrecognizable bloody mass, and his jaw was naught but bone-dust and ragged meat, and all that came out was a garbled mess of groans and murmurs._



I want to agree with you, but it doesn't help that your example really does have bad grammar.  Try:

_He tried to answer aloud, although much of his face had been smashed to an unrecognizable bloody mass and his jaw was naught but bone-dust and ragged meat, so that all which came out was a garbled mess of groans and murmurs._

In this case I'm not sure that it is better than having multiple sentences.  In your original rewrite there are two ideas being expressed, and in this rewrite they are combined into one.  I think that's why the situation might demand two sentences, and it has nothing to do with length.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Oct 31, 2011)

I am Queen of realllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllly long sentences. 
I wish I were joking, but I am not. LOL 
As Xanado pointed out once it is an annoying tendancy. Sorry folks! 

I think people who tend to talk fast, and stick a ton of things into a single sentence, usualy write the way they talk. 
( I know I do ) 

I could be wrong but it is something I have noticed with friends of mine. 
The fast talkes, and the ones who can say something for three mins straight with out taking a breath, are the ones who write that way as well. 
Anyone else notice this?


----------



## sashamerideth (Oct 31, 2011)

I have a problem with comma splices, and the dreaded, yet marvelous, Shatner, comma.  As long as, the comma, serves a definite, purpose, and is, correct I see, no, reason to not use, them.


----------



## ShortHair (Oct 31, 2011)

You know how you'll be talking to someone, and he'll run on and on about nothing at all, and you've got things to do, but you don't want to make him feel insulted by just making an excuse and walking off, but you wind up doing that anyway? And then you're reading this, like, book, and you start a sentence, and you think you know what it's about, but it goes this way and that way and over here and over there, so you get kinda lost, and by the end of the sentence you're not sure what the point was, or even if it had any kind of point at all really?

Rule of thumb: read your stuff aloud. If you have to stop for breath before the end of the sentence, it's too long.


----------



## Elder the Dwarf (Oct 31, 2011)

I think it is a matter of style, although the sentence in the original post was rough.  Several "great" writers have been known for their long sentences.  Faulkner springs to mind as a notable example, although I'm not a fan.


----------



## Ghost (Oct 31, 2011)

I don't mind long sentences as long as they're clear and they aren't run-on sentences. Long sentences of comma/conjunction are usually better off being split or combined in a different way. Long sentences aren't grammatically bad unless you're using bad grammar in them. The first sentence in the OP was a run-on, and the rewrite was choppy. You can balance the two.

I like Devor's rewrite better. I agree that the original sentences had two ideas. The part about the character trying to talk got interrupted by a long description of the mess. I'd just split them up.

_Much of [character]'s face had been smashed to an unrecognizable bloody mass, his jaw naught but bone-dust and ragged meat. He tried to answer, but all that came out was a garbled mess of groans and murmurs._

Of course, it's a stylistic choice and you have to find what fits your style of writing instead of forcing yourself to relive the 5th grade. I don't think that does anybody any good. *shiver*

I add commas to improve the flow of a sentence or to make my point clear. Sometimes a pause that isn't grammatically necessary improves the sentence. I don't stick them in willy-nilly. Commas aren't cool or dramatic all on their own. I'm not sure what counts as too many commas. It might be one of those "I know it when I see it" situations.


----------



## Shadoe (Oct 31, 2011)

I actually wrote a sentence yesterday that was five lines long. Five long lines. I was going to edit, but I'm training for NaNo, so I'm defiantly leaving it there!


----------



## mythique890 (Nov 5, 2011)

As long as I can remember the beginning of your sentence by the time I get to the end, you're good in my eyes.  I've noticed my sentences tend to be mostly short to medium with a loooong one thrown in every few paragraphs.  Also, I know I put commas in for dramatic rather than grammatical effect.  And I'm a fan of parenthesis in my blog/post writing, though I don't use them when I write stories.  It's all about the timing.


----------



## Ravana (Nov 5, 2011)

I'd respond fully to this, but for the sake of general sanity, I probably ought to refrain. I'm either the last person you want to emulate, or exactly the person you want to emulate, depending on whether or not you feel you _ought_ to be writing long sentences. 

I will say this much, at least: sentence length has nothing to do with grammaticality. And also this: commas inserted ungrammatically "for effect" are still ungrammatical… and most if not all editors are not interested in what _you_ think produces the correct "effect"–what they want is a properly-edited piece that corresponds to accepted rules of written English, and which does _not_ require a bunch of time spent fixing your grammatical errors. If you're really lucky, they'll tell you in advance which style guide they're using. However, as someone who owns a couple dozen such guides and whose job it has been to correct the damage American public schools have done to literacy levels, I can assure you there isn't as much variation as most people are inclined to believe. _Some_ grammatical rules can be violated, if the violation is handled in proper fashion (such as beginning a sentence with a conjunction–did anybody even notice I did that above?); most should not be attempted, and at least a few don't even _have_ ways they can be acceptably violated. Or to put it another way: you _may_ get it right in doing it wrong, but you'll never get it wrong in doing it right.

The only "rule" I might suggest for a "wrong" sentence length is if all your sentences are the _same_ length, no matter what that is. Variety does matter.


----------



## Wordweaver (Nov 6, 2011)

Ravana...I hadn't actually considered what this question might mean to an editor. Since I'm just now working on my first real project, I've never really worked with an editor, so I didn't even think to consider this.

This might be slipping slightly off subject, but do you think stuff like ungrammatical (but effective) comma use should be self-edited and/or avoided, or should I, as the writer, write the story how I want it written and let the editor sweat it?

Another thing you mentioned was starting sentences with conjunctions. This is another concern for me, _because _I have this tendency to write really long sentences. To shorten them I sometimes end a sentence right before a conjunction and then start the next one with And, But, etc. I know its grammatically incorrect but it generally sounds much better. I'd pose the same question here as well: should I avoid such things completely, since their technically wrong, or does one get points for style that can supersede grammar strictness?


----------



## Ravana (Nov 7, 2011)

In general, go for correctness, if you aren't sure. The chance of getting "style points" is minimal compared to the chance of annoying whoever has to read it–or, if being submitted to an editor, accept it. Believe me, most editors _won't_ "sweat it": why should they, when they have a hundreds, perhaps thousands, of submissions for every space they have available? An editor might read a slow-starting piece to the second page, but few if any will read past the second grammatical or spelling error on the _first_ page. (Don't believe me? At one job, I worked in the mail room, which was also where incoming faxes arrived… including resumÃ©s. One day, I handed one to the office manager, saying I knew it wasn't my job to read them, but I spotted three errors just in the trip down the hall. He crumpled it up without looking at it; he told me to go ahead and read them, to save myself the trip in the future. And this was _not_ in the publishing industry. Something to keep in mind next job you apply for.)

By and large, there is no such thing as "ungrammatical but effective comma use," as far as modern style goes. Commas used to be a lot more common in English, as prosodic indicators (go read some John Donne to see how far things can change in four centuries); these days, they're usually confined to grammatical ones. In fact, the only places that come to mind where there's even an _option_ of using one or not are prior to a conjunction in a three-or-more-item list ("blood, sweat, and tears" vs. "blood, sweat and tears"), or when setting off two lengthy clauses ("making mistakes is common, but admitting them is not" vs. without the comma). In both cases, the one with fewer commas is generally preferred, though some guides still like to put them there; it isn't likely to be held against you in either direction, though you may be required to make the changes before the manuscript is accepted. (You should, however, at least be consistent in your choice.) There may be one or two more, but pretty much everywhere else they're either mandated or forbidden.

As for using conjunctions to begin sentences: if you can break your sentence at all, you can probably drop the conjunction as well and begin the next sentence with the word following. The only time I begin sentences with conjunctions is when I'm trying to create a choppy, "conversational" feel to something–or in actual dialog, where rules can to a certain extent be flung out the window, since spoken and written English are very different: we do _not_ speak the way we write, nor vice versa. No matter what we might _think_ we do. If the sentence sounds better broken up, break it up; there will always some way to get rid of that conjunction, even if it means rephrasing the remainder slightly. This will narrow down the number of instances to those where it absolutely seems to require doing so in order to get the tone right. The rest will never be missed.

Even in dialog, you should know what you're doing, and only violate writing rules occasionally… because if you do try to write the way you talk, and succeed, it will be almost impossible to follow. Example: how often do you _speak_ in complete sentences? Most of the time, you don't have to… the person you're speaking with can fill in vast amounts of information from context. Nor do most people realize just how many unnecessary words such as "like," "I mean," or even non-words such as "uh" they use, let alone how many pauses they employ. Try tape-recording a normal conversation some time (you may have to do this secretly, to make sure it _is_ "normal"), then typing it up _exactly_ as it was spoken. Most people will never even attempt this a second time, so difficult is it to do… unless you're a linguist or similar species of masochist, in which case it might be necessary. Which won't make you hate having to do it any less.…


----------



## Shadoe (Nov 7, 2011)

I used to transcribe surveillance tapes. I had to type things exactly as they were said. On paper, the conversations often made no sense at all. (Okay, granted, these were criminal lowlifes talking, but still.)


----------

