InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "haha ur mom did it"

Envinyatar (envinyatar15) wrote,
@ 2008-05-08 17:13:00

Entry tags:

books, fun with quotes

read this...
... and tell me your thoughts about this sentence regarding readability:

Those who had cars or trucks would see the ones who had not
walking beside the roads or at rest stations and in diners on
the way, and, recognizing them for what they were, would
offer them rides.
~ American Gods by Neil Gaiman, p. 487 US paperback edition

Do you stumble over something in this sentence? Because I had to read it like three times very carefully until I got it with a *headdesk* :/

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

(Post a new comment)

	snegurochka_lee 2008-05-08 11:14 am UTC (link)
	Um, yeah. "... would see the ones who didn't walking..." but even then, it's awkward. But I've never read that book. Is awkward grammar part of the style, or something? Eck. :) (Reply to this) (Thread)

envinyatar15
2008-05-08 12:07 pm UTC (link)

See, once I got sense out of this sentence I thought it would have to be "the ones who DIDN'T", but I typed correctly - "the ones who HAD NOT", which does not sound correct (but then again how "correct" anything sounds to me might be a non-native thing as I preceive grammar differently as I suppose it is for a native). And then of course there's the main awkwardness, "the ones who had not WALKING..." *shakes head*

No no, this kind of grammar is definitely not part of the style! It's a very well-written novel, IMO - and I'm very peculiar about what works for me and what doesn't, stylistically. Sentence structures where I constantly would have to re-read would turn me off the book faster than... er. I don't have a fitting comparison at hand. Pretty fast :) I guess I just decided to post this because I'm doing beta work now, which I've mostly refrained from doing in the past because of my non-nativeness. I wanted to know whether what reads awkward for me does the same for natives. Call it a mid-fandom crisis, or something :)

*is rambly and grammatically awkward, too*

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	envinyatar15 2008-05-08 12:21 pm UTC (link)
	Flora comes to the rescue regarding my point of didn't vs. had not - ah well, ain't I right with being careful about such grammatical perceptions :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	red_day_dawning 2008-05-08 11:50 am UTC (link)
	Definitely an awkward sentence to follow. I also had to re-read it to get the sense of it. I loved American Gods though. That, and Neverwhere are my favorite Gaiman books. He comes out with the occasional phrase that grabs my mind and freezes it, it's so good. (Reply to this) (Thread)

envinyatar15
2008-05-08 12:12 pm UTC (link)

I'm glad I'm not the only one to stumble :/

I love this book, too, don't mistake me! It's amazing, and I definitely agree - some turns of phrases really are that good that you have to pause, inhale deeply, and only then can continue. The premise is fantastic and the structure works so fucking well. There's something that doesn't work that well for me personally - which is, I find the emotional connection to the main character isn't as deep as I'd like it to, which means I sometimes feel a little lost. I just need this connection to the main character, what can I say :/ But everything else? HELL YES!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

red_day_dawning
2008-05-08 06:14 pm UTC (link)

I find the emotional connection to the main character isn't as deep as I'd like it - I think that it's the nature of Shadow that no-one can emotionally connect with him; he's very likeable but aloof - he stands outside everyone. I think even his wife (Laura?) comments on that aspect of his personality when she's explaining why she slept with his best friend.
Shadow really is a 'shadow' - he's not quite there for anyone (except perhaps Bast, & maybe the other gods too.)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

envinyatar15
2008-05-09 03:15 pm UTC (link)

Well, yes, of course - but I find that even if someone isn't quite alive, as Laura says, he will find some things weirds or there are surprises or what-have-you, and Shadow, he just doesn't react at all. Though now - mainly since he had that discussion with Laura - I don't find it as much of an eyebrow-rising issue anymore.

It comes down to being a personal issue - I just need this connection, whether there being little emotionality is satisfied or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

red_day_dawning
2008-05-09 04:48 pm UTC (link)

It comes down to being a personal issue - I just need this connection, whether there being little emotionality is satisfied or not. - it's hard to sustain an interest in the character without that emotional connection. Yet the story around him is so interesting, it kind of propels you along regardless (I found.)
Interesting too - now that you've pointed out Shadow's emotional detachment I wonder if it less a quality of Shadow & more a quality of Gaiman's writing, as I'm almost certain the central protagonist of Neverwhere, Richard Mayhew(?) exhibits a similar emotional detachment from the world around him - although he does find emotional connection in Neverwhere.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	envinyatar15 2008-05-10 07:32 am UTC (link)
	Oh yes, I was (am, since I'm still not through) very interested in the story and couldn't wait to find out more. Still I'd get this "grrr give me moar!!!" kind of feeling every so often ;) Other Gaiman books are on my to-read list (Neverwhere on (at?) the top), so I shall dissect this matter when I come around to buying them :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

florahart
2008-05-08 12:04 pm UTC (link)

I didn't especially stumble, but I think "had none" or "didn't" rather than "had not" would make it a hell of a lot clearer to my ear--but, Gaiman is a Brit, and there are some differences in how they use "had" versus American/Canadian/I think even Aussie English, and this might be an expression of that.

That is, where I (American) say "Have you (been somewhere/done something)? I haven't." A Brit ends that with "I haven't (been/done)," and use "have not" as an opposite to "have" in sentences like this where I would use "didn't" or "don't" (e.g., Do you have a pen?/I don't versus Have you a pen?/I have not.)

So it might sound different to a Brit's ear. Or it's just his style. Hard to say.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

envinyatar15
2008-05-08 12:18 pm UTC (link)

Interesting point you make. I can't say we ever learned the differences between American/British English beyond spelling in school, so this is definitely new to me. What you mention is what did make me stumble - once I'd figured out what Gaiman means (my fault that it took me so long because I never read to the end of the sentence the first couple of times), the reaction of "But it should be didn't, shouldn't it?" was immediate. I've never really consciously diferred between all the Englishs (heh) around the world, though I've, through the nature of my flists and the TV shows I'm watching in English, always been much closer to American English. So there's where my fail lies :) Thanks for clearing that up!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	red_day_dawning 2008-05-08 06:20 pm UTC (link)
	Interesting point about the different English-types in use! The sentence certainly made me pause & required a re-read. (Reply to this) (Parent)

ariadneelda
2008-05-08 12:44 pm UTC (link)

Oddly enough, because I'm not a native speaker either, I got the meaning at once, and I usually stumble a bit over similar kinds of sentence structure. Maybe because I was taught British English? I don't know. But "did not" would work for me exactly the same way, too. Not that I could remember "have not" vs. "did not" before reading the comments to your post. Most of the times I suck at telling what is British and what is American English. Anyway, interesting grammar discussion. :-)

And btw, I really liked American Gods.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

envinyatar15
2008-05-09 03:03 pm UTC (link)

Ah, they said they were teaching us British English in school, but once I got into writing I realised that really, they only taught us British spelling - not word usage/sentence structure/whatever else is important to language. Anyway, I am much closer to American English and I didn't know about the did not/have not issue, so that's why I didn't get it. Also, I didn't finish reading the sentence until the third time - probably would have understood sooner if I'd done that right away :/

I really need to finish, but I really do like it, too!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	ships_harry 2008-05-08 02:03 pm UTC (link)
	Naw, actually, not at all :). Though I see from the comments there's maybe a Brit vs US English thing, and my language tends more toward the former than the latter, so mebbe that's why? What I don't like about it is "ones" :). Never managed to think of that as being a reasonable word, even though I slip and use it sometimes. Woulda said "those". (Reply to this) (Thread)

	envinyatar15 2008-05-09 03:08 pm UTC (link)
	Probably! I didn't even know about that, so that's where I think my problem came from :) What part of the world are you from, when you say your English tends to be more British? Hm. I found "ones" weird, too, when I first started cultivating my English, but these days I don't think about it anymore. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

ships_harry
2008-05-09 04:59 pm UTC (link)

I'm from NZ, and my parents shifted out here from England about two years before I was born, so I grew up with fairly English-English, and preferred it to the rather dreadful speech patterns of the wee hick town in which we lived.

Telly is switching the language I hear more and more towards what I'd think of as Americanisms, but spelling and so forth tends more toward the UK than the US. I get quite irate whenever a news reporter uses a word like "normalcy" :).

The dislike of "ones" is courtesy of it being my Dad's pet hate, so I heard about it being incorrect and illogical (a terrible crime!) every so often as a kid :).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	envinyatar15 2008-05-10 07:28 am UTC (link)
	Ah yes, that explains that quite well :) Eek! What's wrong about normalcy??? is clueless (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	ships_harry 2008-05-10 03:21 pm UTC (link)
	It's not so much that anything's wrong with it - it's just an Americanism for the perfectly adequate-and-has-existed-for-longer "normality" :). Pet peeve, that one. I'd find it distracting if Snape or Lucius said it, but perfectly normal from Sam Winchester. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	shiny_crystal 2008-05-09 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	I had to read the "who had not walking" part twice, but then it was okay. But I do agree, it's a bit of a weird construction. Regarding your latest entry, Gute Bessserung, hon! huggles (Reply to this) (Thread)

	envinyatar15 2008-05-10 07:25 am UTC (link)
	Yes, I find it awkward even then. What can I say, awkward constructions get me all the time. Thank you snuggles (Reply to this) (Parent)