Showing posts with label reading critically. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reading critically. Show all posts

Monday, May 21, 2018

What Makes a Sentence Work?

How does a sentence, a string of words, hold a reader’s interest and compel a reader to keep turning the pages?

In the hope of finding an answer, I pulled a book off my shelf at random and opened it (to a random page) and selected a few sentences, just to see what I might be able to learn about the construction of sentences. Here they are:
“Rachel catches a whiff of toothpaste and onions. Izzy is a big, bulky man with wild gray eyebrows. His hands are broad, grayish from cement, and still strong-looking, although it’s been almost twenty years since he has worked as a stonemason.” (from Norma Fox Mazer’s After the Rain, page 38)
What do you notice about these sentences? Would you say they're compelling? Do the sentences work? Do you want to read more of the story after reading them?

Let's take a look at the first sentence: "Rachel catches a whiff of toothpaste and onions."

It doesn’t seem earth-shatteringly important, does it? And yet the unusual combination of aromas—toothpaste and onions—piques the reader’s imagination. The combination is kind of odd, isn’t it? A unique juxtaposition of smells that you don’t smell every day.

What else is unique? Not just the smells, but we have a character—Rachel—who notices this unusual combination of smells. And the act of noticing these smells is framed as “catching a whiff.” Why not simply say “Rachel smelled toothpaste and onions.” What does “catching a whiff” do for the reader? It’s a compelling expression, I suspect, because the act of smelling is described as an active rather than passive act. Rachel doesn’t sit back and let the smells come to her. She catches them. Like catching butterflies. Or lightening bugs.

So, this first sentence paints an interesting portrait, and we read on, curious about what we’ll find next.

In the second sentence we see how Mazer continues her skilled crafting of sentences. She keeps each sentence short. She uses a minimum number of words to create maximum effect: “Izzy is a big, bulky man with wild gray eyebrows.”

Again, we aren’t given anything earth shattering, per se, in terms of details, are we? But the details are offered in a way that makes for an interesting picture: a big, bulky man and wild gray eyebrows. The repetition of the “b” sounds in big and bulky. The echo of Izzy and the “y” sound in bulky. The echo of the “g” sound in big and in gray.

Six words. But we have a strong picture of Izzy in our minds. It’s a picture that is as clear as if he is standing in front of us. And we are now curious about him. We know he is big. Not just big but bulky. How does his bulkiness change our view of big? And what about his eyebrows? Not just gray but wild gray. As if the man himself has something of this wildness about him. Again, Mazer has intrigued the reader with her descriptions.

And then comes the third sentence, which happens to be much longer than the first two, but Mazer has earned the reader’s trust with the first two sentences. We trust the author’s vision of the world, and we understand that the descriptive words that Mazer has selected not only serve as descriptors but as ways of understanding the story, the characters, and the underlying plot.

So, perhaps, this is one of the keys to understanding how a sentence works: it can operate on multiple levels simultaneously.

Let’s take a look at the third sentence: “His hands are broad, grayish from cement, and still strong-looking, although it’s been almost twenty years since he has worked as a stonemason.”  

Here we are given a more detailed description of Izzy, with the focus on his hands, and the description gives us a deeper understanding of him and of his life, which involved working as a stonemason with cement. His hands are a workman’s hands, and they are still strong, even though Izzy hasn’t worked for almost twenty years.

They are hands that are “broad, grayish” and “strong-looking.” These details build on the earlier details that we were given, adding to the picture in our mind of Izzy with his wild gray eyebrows. And they create a kind of bond between Izzy and the reader, as well as a kind of sympathy for a man who has worked and aged and is now gray and a little wild still.

And we feel a bit of the same feelings that Rachel feels toward him. And the reason we feel these emotions is because of the way that Mazer has crafted these sentences.

What is it about any sentence that compels you to keep reading the story?

Word choice, pacing, emotional weight, sentence length and rhythm of the words… these are only some of the reasons why a sentence might work (or fail to work).

Do you have an author whose work you admire? Why not take a look at a few of his or her sentences and see if you can explain why the sentences work so well.

If you get a chance, share your favorite sentence in the comment section, and remember to include a brief explanation of why you think the sentence works.

Thanks, as always, for stopping by.



Sunday, January 21, 2018

Why I Gave Up Reading

It seems sacrilegious for a writer to say that he gave up reading books, but that’s what I admit to having done for a few months last year. I still feel guilty about it, as if I had betrayed my first love, yet I can’t see how I could have done anything differently.

My eyes were weary from reading so many words for hours every day, and I disliked needing to wear reading glasses to read books whose print was too small because the book designer was either younger than me or had better eyesight or because the publisher was too stingy to spend more money on printing a book with larger type and hence more pages.

My brain felt weary, too, from the many hours that I spent reading posts on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, as well as from squinting at news stories that appeared almost minute-by-minute on my phone’s news feed (along with tweets from the foolish man in the White House who kept fouling the air, each tweet like a harpoon aimed to slay the Great White Whale of democracy).

So I gave up reading books for a few months, but I couldn't give up my love of stories. So, I started watching TV shows and movies on Netflix and Amazon Prime instead. I watched after dinner until going to bed, and then the next night I watched more… and more… and it was like eating a bagful of salty potato chips or popcorn or sugary sweet cotton candy. No matter how much I watched, I didn’t feel like I’d gotten enough when I reached the bottom of the bag (or the end of the show)… and had to return for more.

At first, I’ll admit, it was a relief to watch a story without having to “work” to read it, which only made me realize how much work it takes to read a novel. You have to think about each word and use your imagination to translate these words into images that you can project onto a blank screen (that you've drawn) in your head and on which the story can unfold in a series of images that you create in concert with the writer who struggled to put the words on the page.

Watching a story unfold on the screen, on the other hand, requires a different set of skills to interpret the story. You’re given the precise color of a character’s hair, the expression of a character’s response to danger or love, and you're given so much more--the buildings and sky and alleyways and pedestrians walking by--and you need to evaluate and re-evaluate each picture that you are seeing on the screen as it appears, constantly interpreting for meaning the images rapidly flashing before your eyes.

It had been a while since I sat down to watch TV shows, and what surprised me about the shows was the amount of nudity and violence displayed on screen.  These days nudity and violence appear to be an accepted way of holding the viewer’s attention, and it works, to a point. Who can turn away from unflinching depictions of sexual encounters or violent battles, where nothing is spared or left to the imagination? In shows about Henry the VIII, Viking kings and queens, Russian spies, and the French court at Versailles, you can watch love depicted in all its regal (and non-regal) forms. The curtain is drawn back. Lovers are revealed together in all their nakedness. The line between viewer and voyeur, mild scintillation vs hardcore pornography, is blurred, if not blotted out entirely.

After a while I couldn’t help asking myself why I continued watching these shows? Was I watching for the story or for the scenes of nudity and sexual encounters (the same way as a teen I used to read writers like Harold Robbins)? Even in the shows where sex and nudity didn’t play a role—Blue Bloods, Green Arrow, The Flash, 24—there was still a sense of watching for the eye-candy, the beauty or attractiveness of an actor or actress, rather than for the unfolding story, for how a character might have to struggle to overcome a challenge. 

Yet soon something began to gnaw at my conscience, a sense of purpose, perhaps, a question about why exactly I needed to watch these particular stories, or, more precisely, why I might require these stories told in this particular form and in this particular way. Luckily, Netflix and Amazon Prime give the viewer the opportunity to move forward or backward in a story, much like turning pages ahead or going back to check a passage, and I found myself skipping scenes that I didn’t feel advanced the story. Before long I skipped lots of scenes and began thinking not only about why I was watching these stories but if, in fact, these stories were well-told stories, which is the way that I usually think about stories.

I’m not a film critic by any means, but I began to think about the stories in terms of exposition in the same way that I like to think about a literary work. How does the opening scene introduce the main character’s problem? Why are two or three separate story lines operating simultaneously? How does each story line contribute to the other? How does the main character respond to the problem he or she has to confront? How do the minor characters contribute to the story? How do shifting points of view add or detract from the drama?

After a few months of watching the screen, my eyes recovered, I’m happy to say, and my love of stories on paper began to pull at me again. My imagination yearned for creating images rather than accepting images created by someone else’s imagination. I started looking for books to read again. I yearned for the sound of words in my ear. I longed for the chance to remove my earphones and shut off the screen and see words on a page, to enjoy the magical transformation that happens when I read a story and an image appears in my mind as the result of a word or words that a writer has put down on paper.

Since the start of the New Year I’ve turned off my tablet, content to read stories instead of watch them (although, admittedly, it’s hard to keep from tuning in to watch The Americans, or Poldark, or Lewis, or Endeavor, or a new show that I’ve found, Taken). But looking back on my months away from reading, I realize how much the time away has helped me better appreciate the gift of books and words, and the myriad skills that reading requires.



-->