perspectives in action sequences

[Harbinger]

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]

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]

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]

Ya thats how I read it too.

 

[Penpilot]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Shockley]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

^^

An outstanding illustration PP.