A different critique (Page 1 of 2)

Indeed.

Or (for the sake of a capital C), if the Cheetah were a powerboat and the photographer at the marina? 

(Joking!)

Unless, of course, it was because cheetahs don't usually roar that the sound startled the photographer? That would be valid, I think.

Lynne Clark wrote:

Unless, of course, it was because cheetahs don't usually roar that the sound startled the photographer? That would be valid, I think.

Maybe. Nope, they're not just lazy,  they can't roar, so "don't usually" wouldn't be valid in this case. Unless of course the photographer was on a mad scientist's island where all sorts of strange things might happen. Now, we're getting somewhere. The paperback should be out soon. Take care. Vern

Ignoring whether a cheetah does or does not roar, the given sentence is problematic in its construction. "Its" refers to the cheetah, obviously, but the subject of the opening clause is "roar," so "its" could be referring to the antecedent "roar," which of course is nonsensical. Replacing "a cheetah" with "the cheetah" helps a little but doesn't resolve the issue. The solution I'd propose in my in-line: The cheetah roared, startling me as I snapped its picture. This makes "cheetah" the unambiguous antecedent of "its."

jack the knife wrote:

Ignoring whether a cheetah does or does not roar, the given sentence is problematic in its construction. "Its" refers to the cheetah, obviously, but the subject of the opening clause is "roar," so "its" could be referring to the antecedent "roar," which of course is nonsensical. Replacing "a cheetah" with "the cheetah" helps a little but doesn't resolve the issue. The solution I'd propose in my in-line: The cheetah roared, startling me as I snapped its picture. This makes "cheetah" the unambiguous antecedent of "its."

As you state, "its" obviously refers to the cheetah, so, I suppose if anyone would attribute "its" to a roar having its picture taken, then we can throw all logic and the rules governing such out the window. I did consider the "a vs the" situation, but ultimately decided it had no consequence in the grand scheme of things. Nothing wrong per se with rearranging other than "startling me" is a bit less dramatic imo. Take care. Vern

jack the knife wrote:

vern wrote:

As you state, "its" obviously refers to the cheetah, so, I suppose if anyone would attribute "its" to a roar having its picture taken, then we can throw all logic and the rules governing such out the window. I did consider the "a vs the" situation, but ultimately decided it had no consequence in the grand scheme of things. Nothing wrong per se with rearranging other than "startling me" is a bit less dramatic imo. Take care. Vern

The rules of sentence structure regarding antecedents are there for a reason: to avoid ambiguity in every instance, not just berry-picking examples. In the given sentence, it's fairly obvious the cheetah is the antecedent, but structurally, it isn't. Excusing this because the meaning should be clear here ignores countless other instances where the meaning is not clear and gives a pass to sloppy sentence construction. Next subject: dangling participles.

*wanders onto Google to look up antecedents...*

vern wrote:

Lynne Clark wrote:

*wanders onto Google to look up antecedents...*

Yes, I understand the rules are there for a reason, that being to make things clear. My point is that in this instance, it is obviously clear without using google to look up obscure rules the preponderance of readers and writers have no idea exist. That is going beyond what I dare say any publisher/editor would be concerned within the context of a story. But if someone is looking for that technical detail in a review then they are well beyond anything I could offer or would seek on this site.

I do wish this had come up before the clarification that cheetahs don't roar because that is precisely what I was going for. When we overlook a factual error, contradictions, plot holes, transitions, etc. in our search for technical fault, that is a case of sticking to rules to the detriment of creative writing imho. Take care. Vern

The structure of that sentence is what I thought you were going for when you started the discussion, since it was flawed. (The sentence structure, not the discussion. That's one example of what I mean. ) I agree that an isolated sentence like the one you proposed is not likely to raise the concern of editors - though they would likely correct it - or cause readers to shake their heads in confusion. But if I had the time on this Sunday of March Madness and Tiger in the hunt at Bay Hill, I would give you more examples to show why sticking to proper construction is important for clarity.

jack the knife wrote:

vern wrote:

Yes, I understand the rules are there for a reason, that being to make things clear. My point is that in this instance, it is obviously clear without using google to look up obscure rules the preponderance of readers and writers have no idea exist. That is going beyond what I dare say any publisher/editor would be concerned within the context of a story. But if someone is looking for that technical detail in a review then they are well beyond anything I could offer or would seek on this site.

I do wish this had come up before the clarification that cheetahs don't roar because that is precisely what I was going for. When we overlook a factual error, contradictions, plot holes, transitions, etc. in our search for technical fault, that is a case of sticking to rules to the detriment of creative writing imho. Take care. Vern

The structure of that sentence is what I thought you were going for when you started the discussion, since it was flawed. (The sentence structure, not the discussion. That's one example of what I mean. ) I agree that an isolated sentence like the one you proposed is not likely to raise the concern of editors - though they would likely correct it - or cause readers to shake their heads in confusion. But if I had the time on this Sunday of March Madness and Tiger in the hunt at Bay Hill, I would give you more examples to show why sticking to proper construction is important for clarity.

I also am wandering in from watchin Tiger in the hunt -- but not so much any more after that last bogey --  and I agree the sentence structure would be a problem if the meaning were not clear, but when it is absolutely clear without defying logic, then the precise sentence structure becomes a non-issue, countless examples where it is not clear notwithstanding, imho. Take care. Vern

Malcom Reynolds wrote:

So, I put the question out:  would a good writer, after actually hearing the sounds of a cheetah, describe their sound as a “roar”?

Hmm... Charles Dickens spoke of the waters of Niagara as a roar. Not sure he meant feline noises, and equally unsure I can prove he was any good at his craft.