Just wondering if someone could help me here. Is there is anything wrong with this follow sentence?
A sheen of sweat glistened on his shaven scalp in the lowlight of the bridge, which was devoid of the usual clutter of read-outs and manual controls you might associate with a vessel of the Fortitude’s size.
Is it okay to expect the reader to logically assume that the bridge was devoid of clutter as opposed to his shaven scalp?
posted
Have you read this sentence out loud? It's very thick. Too many images and descriptors for my taste. It took me a while just to make it to the word 'bridge' because I was trying to translate everything that came before it.
And when I did get there, the image my brain immediately conjured was an actual bridge (as in, over a river) at night with a dim light underneath it, and then the next part of the sentence totally confused me until I realized I had the wrong kind of bridge.
The second half of the sentence (after the comma) was no less word-heavy than the first. Without dissecting it word by word, I wouldn't know what the heck this sentence was saying.
posted
I also got the wrong bridge and I also thought the light was under the bridge. If two people thought that way, then something's wrong.
'In the lowlight of the Fortitue's bridge, a sheen of sweat glistened on so-and-so scalp.'
For me, that takes care of the confusion. But I'm not trying to tell you how to write your own material. If you could describe the bridge in another sentence, saying the same things (save for the 'you' which pantros mentioned, I agree I reads better withuot it) I think the problem would be solved.
Suggestion: A sheen of sweat glistened on his shaven scalp in the low light of the ship's bridge.
Without knowing the story, I would venture a guess that the lack of clutter on the bridge is not important, nor is the reference to the vessel's size. (I'm presuming the reader will have already been given an idea of the ship's size in a more appropriate spot, and defining what is not there is usually a waste of time. If the clutter WAS there, and interferred with his ability to function in his job, it might be relevant.
And you also asked: Is it okay to expect the reader to logically assume that the bridge was devoid of clutter as opposed to his shaven scalp?
The answer is: yes, you can assume the reader will be able to figure out out eventually. But SHOULD you write it like that? No. Would an editor find it acceptable grammar? No. Don't split your descriptions. You can handle it better by keeping your descriptors in the same neighborhood. Example: The ship's bridge was devoid of its normal clutter. As Character X peered at the screen, the low lights from the control panel reflected an eerie shade of green off the sheen of sweat on his bald scalp.
My two centavos.
[This message has been edited by Elan (edited November 21, 2005).]
posted
It seemed clear to me, but do you really think it is necessary to build the image all in one sentence?
Posts: 24 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
