Interrupting your readers is rarely a good idea
06/April/2009 01:25 PM Filed in: On Editors &
WritersMistakes
Smart People Make
I
don’t remember if it was in my freshman or my
sophomore year of college, but I do remember how
emphatically Dr. Mahaffey forbade his students from
writing more than one modifying element between the
subject and main verb of a sentence:
“Don’t
do that.”
At the time, I assumed he was laying down an ironclad rule. From that point on, I followed his advice and allowed only one such modifier, if any, to follow the subject.
• OK: “Hawthorne, who was born in Salem, distanced himself from his ancestor’s role in the witch trials, an event in American history in which innocent people were executed.”
• Not OK: “Hawthorne, who was born in Salem, tracing his ancestors back to one of the judges of the witch trials, in which innocent people were executed, distanced himself from his family’s role in this part of American history.”
Since my college days, I’ve learned that no rule forbids long strings of what are called nonrestrictive elements to come between subject and predicate. In fact, in my editing work I often see multiple phrases and clauses used this way. But I still think it’s a really bad idea.
Why? Clarity.
By the time your readers have read two, three, or more modifying elements and finally arrived at the main verb, they may need to retrace their steps to remember the subject of the sentence:
Popular in New Hampshire, Pierce, who was nominated in 1852 as the Democrat candidate for the presidency, largely in response to his support of the Compromise of 1850, which made federal laws stricter in regard to runaway slaves, adding to the strife between North and South during the years when the nation was heading toward the Civil War, was responsible for the disastrous inclusion of several factions of the Democratic Party in the cabinet.
If readers are forced to retrace their steps to remember the subject of your sentence, they have left the flow of your thoughts, which you’ve otherwise carefully arranged to lead up to your conclusions. If sentence after sentence contains multiple “interrupters,” you’re seriously slowing down your readers’ progress through your text. This is especially true if your subject matter is theoretical or abstract.
Here’s the sentence recast:
Popularity at home in New Hampshire was no guarantee of success in the Oval Office. Nominated as the Democratic candidate in 1852, Pierce was controversial not only for his support of the Compromise of 1850 and its stricter federal laws regarding runaway slaves but also for his disastrous inclusion of several factions of the Democratic Party in his cabinet, a decision causing even more political strife as the nation was heading toward the Civil War.
I’ve moved the interrupting modifiers to positions before the subject and after the main verb. Yes, I’ve also split the original sentence in two.
Look what breaking up the sentence has forced me to do: to develop the seed of an idea. In the earlier version, I simply state that Pierce was popular in New Hampshire. (So what?) In the second version, I comment on how that popularity failed to serve Pierce in office, and trouble succeeding politically is the main point here. Even more important, the core idea of the longer sentence is now more emphatic: Pierce was controversial. Everything that comes before and after the subject-verb pair builds upon that clearly expressed idea.
If you decide to practice recasting strings of interrupting modifiers in your own sentences, note that you can often simply move modifiers to the beginning or end of the sentence, as in my recast version.
Scholarly writing deals with complicated and often abstract concepts. Why make absorbing your ideas even more complicated for your readers? Rather than forcing them to retrace their steps, keep them following your line of thought.
At the time, I assumed he was laying down an ironclad rule. From that point on, I followed his advice and allowed only one such modifier, if any, to follow the subject.
• OK: “Hawthorne, who was born in Salem, distanced himself from his ancestor’s role in the witch trials, an event in American history in which innocent people were executed.”
• Not OK: “Hawthorne, who was born in Salem, tracing his ancestors back to one of the judges of the witch trials, in which innocent people were executed, distanced himself from his family’s role in this part of American history.”
Since my college days, I’ve learned that no rule forbids long strings of what are called nonrestrictive elements to come between subject and predicate. In fact, in my editing work I often see multiple phrases and clauses used this way. But I still think it’s a really bad idea.
Why? Clarity.
By the time your readers have read two, three, or more modifying elements and finally arrived at the main verb, they may need to retrace their steps to remember the subject of the sentence:
Popular in New Hampshire, Pierce, who was nominated in 1852 as the Democrat candidate for the presidency, largely in response to his support of the Compromise of 1850, which made federal laws stricter in regard to runaway slaves, adding to the strife between North and South during the years when the nation was heading toward the Civil War, was responsible for the disastrous inclusion of several factions of the Democratic Party in the cabinet.
If readers are forced to retrace their steps to remember the subject of your sentence, they have left the flow of your thoughts, which you’ve otherwise carefully arranged to lead up to your conclusions. If sentence after sentence contains multiple “interrupters,” you’re seriously slowing down your readers’ progress through your text. This is especially true if your subject matter is theoretical or abstract.
Here’s the sentence recast:
Popularity at home in New Hampshire was no guarantee of success in the Oval Office. Nominated as the Democratic candidate in 1852, Pierce was controversial not only for his support of the Compromise of 1850 and its stricter federal laws regarding runaway slaves but also for his disastrous inclusion of several factions of the Democratic Party in his cabinet, a decision causing even more political strife as the nation was heading toward the Civil War.
I’ve moved the interrupting modifiers to positions before the subject and after the main verb. Yes, I’ve also split the original sentence in two.
Look what breaking up the sentence has forced me to do: to develop the seed of an idea. In the earlier version, I simply state that Pierce was popular in New Hampshire. (So what?) In the second version, I comment on how that popularity failed to serve Pierce in office, and trouble succeeding politically is the main point here. Even more important, the core idea of the longer sentence is now more emphatic: Pierce was controversial. Everything that comes before and after the subject-verb pair builds upon that clearly expressed idea.
If you decide to practice recasting strings of interrupting modifiers in your own sentences, note that you can often simply move modifiers to the beginning or end of the sentence, as in my recast version.
Scholarly writing deals with complicated and often abstract concepts. Why make absorbing your ideas even more complicated for your readers? Rather than forcing them to retrace their steps, keep them following your line of thought.
|
