Fluid Sentences

[Androxine Vortex]

I am trying to make my sentences more fluid and well, just better in general. I often make sentences redundant and have unnecessary words. But should you always try to make your sentences as short as you can? I personally enjoy reading longer sentences because for some reason short sentences seem like they don't really belong. I'm not sure how to describe it but it is like I read a short sentence and feel that it could have been longer to give it more flavor instead of it seeming like it is just a blunt statement. Let's take this sentence I came up with off the top of my head:

"He pulled his sword from its sheath, its surface gleaming in the firelight."

Should you necessarily make it, "He pulled his gleaming sword from its sheath."

To me, the first sentence sounds better because it gives more detail. What's making the sword glimmer? Oh, the firelight. Maybe the reader could deduce that firelight was making the sword's surface glimmer but I think it adds a little bit more color to the sentence.

What are your thoughts? Should you always try to shorten your sentences whenever you possibly can?

 

[Steerpike]

No, you shouldn't always shorten your sentences. It depends on the style you are going for, or any effect you are trying to achieve at a given time. If you are going for a more descriptive style, longer sentences may well work better for you, and if done well they can be quite effective.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There's an argument to be made for concision but I believe the real value in choosing sentence length rests with variety & cadence.

If all the sentences tend to be long, it may lull your reader to sleep a bit.... Conversely, if they are all short the exposition will read choppy. Varying sentence length helps to keep the reading fresh.

Additionally, varying sentence length strategically to induce feelings of speed or slowness can add unconscious depth to your writing. As discussed in other threads, short & quick sentences tend to read fast which can add to suspenseful or action sequences. The opposite is true for longer sentences where, you the author, intentionally want to slow things down. Either of these are usually used to best effect when similar sentence structures are strung together.

Edit: In the examples above, the first sentence is superior.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Agreed. "Fluid" is not the same as "shorter." In general, writing should be as short as it needs to be, and no shorter; which may sound silly, but writers have a tendency to put more in than is really necessary. I've clocked it for myself and when I do the first revision of an exploratory draft, my prose routinely gets cut down by about 30%.

Fluid writing, like anything, is a skill. Jumping around from idea to idea makes things less fluid; writing in a way where one idea seamlessly blends into the next is more fluid:

Joam bent down and tested the sword with his finger. It had cooled enough to pick up, so he hefted it and stood again. It was lighter than he'd expected, certainly lighter than the bastard swords his people usually carried. The blade bent easily between his hands, and sprang back with hardly a wobble.

The master wasn't going to believe this. Joam held a real glassblade, and he hadn't had to kill anyone to get it. Not that he would have objected -- the Teskari all deserved of slow deaths -- but he knew the value of acquiring such a reward for so little risk.

It starts with Joam examining a sword he's found, and then shifts into how someone else is going to feel about the sword he found, and then shifts into him thinking about what he didn't have to do to get the sword, and then there's a tangent about who normally has these swords, and how he's glad it was so easy.

Not that this is the only way for writing to be fluid, but if in consecutive sentences you have two unrelated thoughts/topics, that's going to seem non-fluid. (This is why we have paragraph breaks; conclude a thought at the end of the paragraph, or at least come to a sort of semi-conclusion, so that the next paragraph can go off in a different direction.)

 

[Shockley]

I've thought of several ways to approach this, and I've decided that the best manner is to take your post and break it down. I'll bold the parts that I think break the flow.

I am trying to make my sentences more fluid and well, just better in general.I often make sentences redundant (I'd switch sentences and redundant) and have (I'd replace 'have' here, personally) unnecessary words. But should you always try to make your sentences as short as you can? I personally enjoy reading longer sentences because for some reason short sentences seem like they don't really belong. I'm not sure how to describe it but it is like I read a short sentence and feel that it could have been longer to give it more flavor instead of it seeming like it is just a blunt statement. Let's take this sentence I came up with off the top of my head:

Bear in mind what I've taken out at this point. I made your points more concise, and only shortened the sentences to get those points. So now I'll break it down by sentence:

1. The above comment explains this.
2. We don't need to know the regularity of something, just that it happens. I suggest switching sentences and redundant simply because, to my ear, 'redundant sentences' is prettier and has a softer tone.
3. Never start a sentence with 'but' or 'and' unless it's required for the flow of the story or occurring in dialog. I removed 'always' as an answer to the question posed: There are no hard and fast rules of writing, just general guidelines.
4. 'Personally' is cut as we know the source of the opinion. Also, you'll want to try and avoid adjectives and adverbs when possible.
5. There was implied redundancy, which I removed.
6. Let's.

"He pulled his sword from its sheath, its surface gleaming in the firelight."

The important part of this sentence is that he has unsheathed his sword. Everything outside of that point is dressing. So the sentence 'He pulled his sword from its sheath.' would be the ideal sentence if we were to just cut words. That said, you went the long way. "He unsheathed his sword." works even better in driving the point home.

The rule of thumb is this: If you're writing something with a slower place, you should lean towards longer sentences and more descriptive writing. When you want something fast and kinetic (as the start of an action scene should be) you should prefer short, punchy sentences.

That said, I think 'He unsheathed his sword' is lacking artistic merit and could use some fat. I would go with 'He unsheathed his sword and rammed it into his attacker's stomach.' Short, punchy and the action is done as quickly as it would happen. The sentence is not perfect and would have to reflect the reality of the world it's set in, but it gets my point across.

At the end of the book the reader isn't going to remember that the firelight gleamed off the sword or what kind of sword it was or how the protagonist handled the blade. What they will remember is that the protagonist took out his sword and stabbed someone, and that is the important part.

Should you necessarily make it, "He pulled his gleaming sword from its sheath."

Ask yourself if its important that the sword gleams. Your reader will know what a sword looks like and that they have metallic surfaces, so it's the fine line between deciding if something is important enough to mention or if you just want to mention it for the sake of mentioning it.

Now, let me give you some general rules that have helped me:

1. Assume that your reader is somewhat intelligent and they don't need everything spoon fed to them.
2. Don't use weasel words. 'Like,' 'maybe,' 'somewhat,' etc. Go for broke or don't go at all.
3. Second guess every adjective and every adverb. They have their place, but they should be used sparingly so they have more weight when they do appear. Save them, if at all possible, for the focus points of the paragraph and the story at large.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

The important part of this sentence is that he has unsheathed his sword. Everything outside of that point is dressing. So the sentence 'He pulled his sword from its sheath.' would be the ideal sentence if we were to just cut words. That said, you went the long way. "He unsheathed his sword." works even better in driving the point home.

Although I agree with most of your points I disagree with the statement above. The additives to the sentence are not merely "dressing". It provides greater levels of information. For example, it's likely night time, there may be things difficult to see, perhaps the character is concerned that the shining blade will alert an enemy. There are many possibilities that depend on the context.

If the added words do act simply as dressing then I might consider cutting them. With added detail though, that's not always the case.

 

[Shockley]

If the incident is happening at night, or there are other enemies lurking about, I think those things should have already been made clear before the action starts. As I said later on, the sentence has to be constructed in line with what is going on in the world and in the story.

This sentence exists outside of any context, so I think my criticism holds true.

 

[Alex97]

The important part of this sentence is that he has unsheathed his sword. Everything outside of that point is dressing. So the sentence 'He pulled his sword from its sheath.' would be the ideal sentence if we were to just cut words. That said, you went the long way. "He unsheathed his sword." works even better in driving the point home.

I also disagree with this, although most of your points I agree with. Even though the extra infomation may not be entirely relevent it does not necesserily detract from the flow of witing but instead adds extra detail and colour. In short I think it just sounds better.

Of course it depends on the context the paragraph this sentence is in. If it was in a faster paced paragraph then I would go with something different but if it was slower I think this would be ok.

 

[Shockley]

I also disagree with this, although most of your points I agree with. Even though the extra infomation may not be entirely relevent it does not necesserily detract from the flow of witing but instead adds extra detail and colour. In short I think it just sounds better.

'Color' should come from the details already established in the story. We should know who is drawing the sword, why it is being drawn and into whose belly its about to get plunged. Those things, when specified in the sentence, should be the source of 'color.'

Of course it depends on the context the paragraph this sentence is in. If it was in a faster paced paragraph then I would go with something different but if it was slower I think this would be ok.

There are few action sequences, in my mind, that benefit from a slow pace.

 

[Androxine Vortex]

Thank you all for the responses. I do agree with Shockley's posts to an extent. I mean, 99% of the time all text will be in context. But just because something is in context I don't think it should have to be reduced to a simplified or shorter version, just as long as it isn't blatantly redundant.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

There are few action sequences, in my mind, that benefit from a slow pace.

Not trying to be argumentative but there is strong benefit for slowing pace in an action sequence. This is particularly true during a build up to fast action.

In the sentence we are discussing, the drawing of the blade, and the visual description that follows, could perform that function well. When the major action does come, fast and furious, it is even more striking when contrasted against a slower paced build.

Suspense doesn't depend on fast pacing. Short sentences can influence a reader's speed and enhance the experience certainly. It is not, however, a requirement.

Ultimately, this is a stylistic choice.