Sentence fragments redux

Really, I have no problem with the well-placed and effective and infrequent sentence fragment. But as with every grammar exception, I think, it should be the exception, not the rule. The fragment should be used for emphasis of some kind, not as just another variety of sentence. So when I revise or edit, I often re-hook a fragment to the thought-sentence adjacent, or if the fragment is really its own thought, make it into a full sentence. The occasional fragments which add emphasis or punctuation or voice-verisimilitude will have far more effect when they stand out as unusual.

This comes to mind because I'm reading a very good book with very many unnecessary fragments-- an average of one per paragraph. It's non-fiction, so the fragments do not reflect the voice of a mentally unstable or uneducated or broken-spirited character. And the author is an experienced writer, and the publisher a major one (the majorest, prob), and the subject is Shakespeare, so the incessant fragmentation does not fit the situation either. In fact, as generously as I'm reading, I cannot find any reason for a fragment-per-paragraph.

Anyway, this is a good book. In fact, I'm going to get a couple extra copies to give to friends. However, all these fragments have driven me to stop reading and write a blog post.) (Probably the author was not aiming for this result. :)

So here are some examples from a terrific chapter about the issues raised by the variation of endings of Lear between the Quarto and the Folio. (Really, this is fascinating.) But to the fragments, away!

Or do they represent different stages in the evolution of Shakespeare as an artist and thus different versions that are both, in a way, Shakespearian? If it was he who made the change.

Note the assumption by Shapiro that Shakespeare himself would have seen things Shapiro's way: that his original draft was "incoherent" and that he had to make a choice between "the integrity of his character and his plot". That Shakespeare preferred conventional revenge-plot simplification to anything too "dark and existential."

"She's dead as earth," he says in both versions as he sets her body down and calls out for a mirror. One he can hold up to his daughter's lips in a desperate effort to see, "If that her breath will mist or stain the stone/Why then she lives."

Here's a sentence fragment leading to a sentence fragment-- and across a different paragraph than the original sentence whose thought they together complete (that is, they belong in the same paragraph, I think):

*long but coherent sentence, ending with:
...and one of them (the conversations) has remained in my mind.
(New paragraph) Remained because it had an important effect on my thinking back then, and because of the way it can historicize, let's say, the fascinationg trajectory of Greenblatt's own thinking. His thinking about Shakespeare as an author.

Now when I try to plumb the author's intent as he tries to plumb Shakespeare's (and I think neither of us thinks that "author intent" should be controlling, yet here we are), I figure that he wanted to avoid making his sentences too long. But I don't think that's a good reason for fragments. First, in the case of a too-long sentence, the solution is making another sentence, not a fragment. Second, this is an academic book, and long sentences are not verboten in academic prose, goodness knows. Third, the sentences intact would have been long but coherent, as they start with the main clause (almost always the simplest construction for a long sentence, and one that can clarify almost any addition of modifying clauses and phrases).

So that last one -- there's no reason "remained" has to be a fragment. Let's make it a real sentence:
..and one of them (the conversations) has remained in my mind.
(New paragraph) This remained because it had an important effect on my thinking back then, and because of the way it can historicize, let's say, the fascinationg trajectory of Greenblatt's own thinking. His thinking about Shakespeare as an author.

Don't like the repetition? Neither do I. Here's what I'd actually do (also obliterating the dumb repetition of "his thinking" and the split of a thought into two paragraphs).

...One conversation has remained in my mind ever since because it had an important effect on my thinking back then, and because it can historicize, let's say, the fascinationg trajectory of Greenblatt's own thinking about Shakespeare as an author.
(Then I'd start a new paragraph for his discussion of the situation of the conversation and another about the specifics.)

It's a long sentence, and it can be broken up if necessary. (I might break between the "me" effects and the "him" effects-- "And it can historicize..." Yes, you can start a sentence with "and". The "because" is okay in the long sentence, but here it would cause a fragment (And because it can historicize, let's say, the fascinationg trajectory of Greenblatt's own thinking about Shakespeare as an author.FRAGMENT!) "And" is a coordinating conjunction and works with independent clauses (independent clauses can be complete sentences on their own), so "and" wouldn't make that a fragment. But "because" is a subordinating conjunction and creates a dependent clause, and dependent clauses must be hooked to an independent clause to form a full sentence. (I will post again my Clauses schemata if anyone asks.)

The "his thinking" -- I really don't get the author's thinking on this one. This is just an explanation of what thinking he's talking about in the sentence, so why not put it in the sentence?

Here's another where the repetition is unnecessary, and so is the fragmentation:

"She's dead as earth," he says in both versions as he sets her body down and calls out for a mirror to hold up to his daughter's lips in a desperate effort to see, "If that her breath will mist or stain the stone/Why then she lives."

Too long a sentence? Okay, but don't break it at the mirror. (Break, mirror-- I'm so clever. :) Break it between the speech and the action:
"She's dead as earth," he says in both versions. Then he sets her body down and calls out for a mirror to hold up to his daughter's lips in a desperate effort to see, "If that her breath will mist or stain the stone/Why then she lives."

That way each sentence has a coherent and complete thought-- Here is what he says. Here is what he does.

Now as I said, this is a GOOD book. So please don't let this make you not want to buy the book. It's good enough that I'm almost able to ignore the fragments. Almost. (See? I can do fragments!)

Let's look at the others, and I'll say how I'd edit them, were I editing this for Super Major Publisher.

Or do they represent different stages in the evolution of Shakespeare as an artist and thus different versions that are both, in a way, Shakespearian? If it was he who made the change.

This I understand. The fragment IS a conclusion, a caveat, and should be emphasized. However, I think a dash would be more emphatic, as it adds the note of interruption, of undermining. Let's see:
Or do they represent different stages in the evolution of Shakespeare as an artist and thus different versions that are both, in a way, Shakespearian-- if it was he who made the change.

Can't you almost hear the portentous pause there, the slight cackle before the subversive suggestion that this might not be Shakespeare's change at all? (He makes it clear that this IS subversive, even dangerous. :) Yes, there's the problem of the missing question mark, but I like the flatness imposed on the whole sentence by adding that caveat, so I'd want the question mark gone anyway. The "if" is sort of a superior question, overwhelming and undermining the first.

The trouble with a too-easy resort to fragments is that that can keep the author from trying out other constructions that might accomplish more than simple fragmentation. The dash both connects and divides, and that's a terrific effect, and, I think, just right for this thought. If the author has an instinctive "try again" whenever he considered a fragment, he might have found another, more effective construction. Just sayin'. (That's not truly a fragment, btw, though I would like it to be so I come across as more wild and free. It's really an elliptical sentence, as the subject "I" and the auxiliary "am" are implied. But I think that implication makes for a fragment. I mean, most fragments have implied sentence elements missing.)

Finally, here's a paragraph where I think fragmentation works, but I'd actually ADD a sentence fragment, so that-- well, I don't know. It just seems like two fragments makes for a better rhythm. Let's see:
Note the assumption by Shapiro that Shakespeare himself would have seen things Shapiro's way: That the original draft was "incoherent". That Shakespeare had to make a choice between "the integrity of his character and his plot". That he preferred conventional revenge-plot simplification to anything too "dark and existential."

I moved "Shakespeare" to my first fragment and "he" to the second (reversing them) and changed "his" to "the" in the first "that clause" because "he/his" could conceivably refer to "Shapiro/Shapiro's". Also I capped the first "That" after the colon. The general rule is you cap if what follows a colon is a complete sentence. But since there are fragments following, starting the same way, and those "Thats" are capped... well, really, I have three fragments as sentences following the colon, so I'd keep the capitalization coherent. Hey, sin boldly.

Anyway, the fragmentation here emphasizes the three problems the author has with Shapiro's assumptions. The colon (which starts a list) and the parallel structure emphasizes the emphasis, and also make the construction of the paragraph more formal (appropriate for academic publications). So I guess sin not-so-boldly. ;)

So... if you fragment a lot, challenge yourself. (Clearly, you cannot assume an editor is going to fix it for you.)
-First, recognize that this is a fragment. This is really essential. Fragments should be recognized. They can sometimes work, but they shouldn't be there because you can't distinguish a complete sentence from a fragment.

-Second, decide if this is intentional or accidental. If intentional, determine what your intention is. If accidental, well, accidents are meant to be fixed.

-Third, see what you're breaking up here. Is it a thought, a description, an explanation? If it's two thoughts you're breaking, consider if it would be better to have each thought a separate sentence, to give them each the weight of thought. If you're breaking a description or explanation (especially breaking a modifier off from the modified noun), connect it back and try breaking the sentence somewhere else. Modifiers usually belong with the word modified.

-Fourth, check for repetition. Repetition is often useful for clarity and for rhythm, but beware of creating the necessity for repetition merely to create a fragment. When you start a fragment with a repetition of one of the later words in the last sentence, that's a sign that you can probably adjoin it to the complete sentence without the repeated word.

-Fifth, if you want the fragmented thought separate, see if it can easily be made into a complete sentence. Try the legal workarounds (like the dash above). Experiment with different ways of presenting this and choose among them. Don't resort to fragments just because they're easy.
The most annoying fragments in my experience are relative clauses (the most common relative clauses begin with the relative pronouns who or which, and these are truly the most annoying of fragments). The pronouns that start a relative clause create a dependent clause, but those pronouns can be replaced with other pronouns that create an independent clause (complete sentence), and there's usually no reason not to do that. (Very occasionally, yes, I like to go with who or which for emphasis or to replicate the voice of the character, but again, those aims are not achieved when I often use this form of fragmentation. Less is more. Less is more. Less is more. Talk about repetition. :)
Here you go-- examples.
Which was the reason she'd divorced him.
This (or that) was the reason she'd divorced him. (Still a pronoun, but a demonstrative one, pointing back to the previous sentence, but also giving this sentence its very own subject.)
Who never had a chance to win her back.
He never had a chance to win her back.

Finally, if you think this is a justifiable fragment, one that adds to your meaning in some way and can't be done better in a sentence, do it well. Do it infrequently, so that when you do, the fragmentation stands out and creates some meaning beyond "I don't know what a sentence is." Do it judiciously-- decide where the fragment should begin in order to create the meaning you want. And do it with a thought to rhythm, to sound, and to situation. You might find that a series or pair of fragments gives more power and coherence than just one. (With a pair or series, parallel structure can emphasize the connection.)

Fragmentation is not an excuse for laziness. Rather, fragmenting a sentence, like any breaking of rules, should be done for a purpose, and done well, and create a result that's better than following the rule would create.

Alicia