Another IT factor -- "As It"

Here's another way the word it cues weakness in a sentence. You know how writers are sometimes advised to eliminate the word as? Usually, we're talking about problems of simultaneity, but not always. Sometimes, it's just plain old wordiness.

Watch for the word combo, as it.

She listened to the roar of the crowd as it erupted from the sports stadium.

You can kill as it and get a stronger sentence.

She listened to the roar of the crowd erupt from the sports stadium.

It's still wordy, but it's better, and this is a very easy fix to spot and to make.

Theresa

A Quick Sentence Revision Tip: Subordinate "IT"

Every now and then, we stumble across a manuscript that overuses a certain type of sentence. As with any sentence structure, the issue is not use so much as overuse.

She removed his shirt, pulling it over his head.

Okay, that's a really crappy example but it will serve to illustrate the point. Those of you who've been reading the blog for a while will probably expect a rant on present participial phrases now, but that's not where we're going. Ignore that problem for the moment. (No, aliens have not taken over my body. Promise.)

Focus instead on the word it, a weak pronoun that might signal some flab in the sentence. Which is the tighter, cleaner, more linear sentence?

She removed his shirt, pulling it over his head.
or
She pulled his shirt over his head.

Frequently, when we see this construction, it's because there's some weakness in the verbs. Remove and pull are both perfectly serviceable words, but it may be that the writer wanted a bit more emphasis in the moment. Perhaps she started by penning the clause, She removed his shirt, and then realized it lacked pizzazz or power. So she "fixed" it by slathering on that participial phrase, pulling it over his head, which adds detail and length but still reads a bit flat.

You see the problem? Instead of making the sentence punchier, we just made it longer. We're listing two instances of the shirt coming off, first removing it, then pulling it over his head. It's repetitive.

When I'm editing, the it is the trigger word for me. As soon as I see it laying there in the subordinate phrase like a tiny dead guppy, my eyes jump to the verbs. Are the actions identical? Do we need both verbs? What's the goal of the sentence?

If we're trying to build resonance into the simple act of removing a shirt, think about stronger verbs and companion actions that enhance without duplicating the main action.

What are some companion actions?

- unbuttoning the collar buttons
- sliding fingers over a bare chest under the cloth
- experiencing the feel of the fabric, scratchy, smooth, etc.
- tugging the hem free of the pants
- if he's very tall, stretching to complete the removal
- or coaxing him to bend
- you tell me! Name a companion action in the comments

After the shirt is off, we get loads of other options, too, like seeing the muscle move under the skin, feeling the prickle of chest hair, and so on.

What are some stronger verb choices? Flex your revision muscles now. Think of three vivid, dynamic verbs to describe this action. Strip, peel, what else?

Sometimes the verbs are better, but the sentence still feels flabby.

She pinched the cookie dough, squeezing it between her fingers.

Pinch can be defined as squeezing between the fingers, so even though these are decent verbs, they're duplicative. And again, for my eyes, the it is the trigger. I see it in a subordinate phrase, and the response is automatic. I compare the verbs, pick the stronger one, and excise the weaker.

She pinched the cookie dough.
or
She squeezed the cookie dough between her fingers.

This isn't a (*ahem*) cookie-cutter fix. But add it to your toolkit, and use it well.

Theresa

Introductory clauses COMMA

Here's why introductory elements should usually be set off with a comma:

When I returned home and enrolled in college for the first time I really studied hard.

Question-- what was for the first time? Enrolling in Union College? Then:
When I returned home and enrolled in Union College for the first timeCOMMA I really studied hard.

But what if it's "for the first time I really studied hard"?
Then:
When I returned home and enrolled in Union CollegeCOMMA for the first time I really studied hard.

I know. No matter what, it's not a great sentence. But point is-- it's pretty much incomprehensible without the introductory element distinguished by a closing comma.

The reader needs to know what goes with what. Need that comma!
(Yes, yes, it's paper-grading time again. I need sympathy. And whiskey.)
Alicia

Dependent clauses and commas

Mystery Robin said...

Quick follow up question re: your "because I failed Algebra" example. I thought "because" was always preceeded by a comma, just like 'and' or 'but'.

Is that not a hard and fast rule? Or not a rule at all and I'm just confused?


"And" and "But" are coordinating conjunctions. That is, they (among other roles) connect two independent clauses, and yes, in that case, they are preceded by a comma (or rather, the first independent clause is followed by a comma and the conjunction to the second independent clause). This is called a "compound sentence" because it connects two units of equal grammatical weight (both independent clauses-- can be sentences on their own).

But "because" is a subordinating conjunction, which subordinates or makes a clause subordinate, dependent rather than independent. The dependent clause cannot be a sentence on its own. When you use a dependent clause with an independent clause, this becomes a "complex" sentence-- complex because you are presenting a distinction between the two elements, one being more important (the main/independent clause) than the other.

The "because" (or "although" or "as" or "before" -- there are a couple dozen of these) is called the "subordinating conjunction". The rule is-- when the dependent clause comes first in the sentence, there's a comma after it. But when it comes AFTER the main clause, there's no comma.

I occasionally put a comma in there to separate the independent/main clause from the trailing dependent clause, especially with "because"-- when? I think when it's clearly a conclusion and the comma signifies that, or when it's non-restrictive (not necessary).

But the rule is, dependent clause comma independent clause.... independent clause no-comma dependent clause. Of course, here I go again-- if we know the rule, we can then violate it for a desired effect, as long as we understand the editor might change it back. :)

Let me see if I have a link to a punctuation website.