Writing short, sharp, staccato sentences

[Ray McCarthy]

@Teresa Edgerton, yes but you were fortunately only giving one kind of example rather than a sample of your own writing quality.

Sometimes the well written red herrings are as important as the other. BBC R4 had an interesting program about writing which discussed Agatha Christie. You didn't know which bits were important, but it didn't matter as it was all good. As an aside she had male & female, young and old (Tuppence and Miss Marple) detective heroes. Wrote about places and poisons she knew.

 

[SleepyDormouse]

I found the Lee Child sample hard to read, tiring after a while and I had the 'voice over' of one of those old detective films in my head as I read. I think I would struggle to read a whole book written like this and, as has been said, how do you pick up the pace for more tension when sentences are already very clipped?

But then I like more detailed writing, like Robin Hobb's. I like all the extra detail, all the emotional introspection.

Some people just want the facts, pronto.

 

[KyleAW]

On the subject of punchy, short sentences, just rewatched Watchmen and Rorschach has a great delivery of them. A lot of his narration follows that pattern and is quite effective I think.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Some people just want the facts, pronto

Give them an eBook version of Wikipedia.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I understand that's his character; jerky, on edge, ready to pounce at any moment.

I wonder if the distinctively staccato sentences act like a brand-mark

I found the Lee Child sample hard to read, tiring after a while and I had the 'voice over' of one of those old detective films in my head as I read.

These are very good observations - Lee Child is writing in first person here, so inevitably he's writing in a way that reflects the character's voice and experience.

 

[Toby Frost]

Actually, the thing that turned me off the Lee Childs excerpt the most was the characterisation. To my mind, there's really very little sense of threat at all. The (shocking) arrival of armed police is treated in a blase manner by the narrator, who is so instantly in total control of the (armed!) police and playing mind games with the arresting officer that it's clear that he's another indestructive James Bond type who will either growl or wisecrack his way through the entire novel (alternatively, he could be a Hannibal Lecter type, another blatant authorial Mary Sue). I realise that's very appealing to a lot of people, but it leaves me very cold. If you are going to do that, I think you need a level of introspection or wit (as David Gunn does in Death's Head) that this doesn't seem to have.

 

[MWagner]

The excerpt of Child's opening is stylized, and an extreme example. It seems more about characterization than punchy writing. And I suspect Child is intentionally harkening back to private eye pulp stories.

The Gemmel excerpt is probably a better example of how short, simple sentences can really help with pace and readability. Again, point of view and characterization play a part. When a celtic warrior is remembering his childhood, his recollections will probably be expressed in short, straightforward terms.

Short, simple sentences are easier for readers to parse. In the technical writing field, where readability and clarity are paramount, you won't come across many complex, long sentences. And one of the reasons many modern readers find 19th century fiction difficult to read is the elaborate, meandering sentences that run over several lines of print. Varying sentence length with an ear for cadence is part of the craft of writing effectively. However, a general use of simpler and shorter sentences will make a work read pacier, which is desirable for plot-driven fiction.

There is one type of sentence pacing change I really do like. Stories that are split between multiple viewpoints.

If you have two characters that act and think in different ways, I am happy with a reasonable difference in their sentence structure. There are still limits for me mind, but I do appreciate this form of nuance. It gives a strong indication to the reader of their different identities.

Absolutely. Varying sentence structure, tone, and diction are some of the best ways to differentiate characters.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

In terms of varying language and rhythm the Ken Follet one is a million times better than the Grisham, Gemmell and Child ones. As a result his is a far smoother and quicker read.

The other three use very repetitive sentence starts and construction which actually make them more difficult to read as the reader is stop starting mentally. It's the difference between a fun pop record and a rap.

Interestingly the Ken Follet one also uses more basic and simple word choices. For me his is elegant in the ways the others are not.

This has always been my favourite ever. It breaks every rule imaginable when it comes to starts, but he has this marvellous tone that feels historical but is easy on the modern reader (as of 1950):
Mist Over Pendle by Robert Neill.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0099557037/?tag=brite-21

 

[Ihe]

On the subject of punchy, short sentences, just rewatched Watchmen and Rorschach has a great delivery of them. A lot of his narration follows that pattern and is quite effective I think.

He was no-nonsense through and through.

 

[Rolynd]

I think short, sharp sentences should be a part of your writing armory, not suitable for every occasion but in the right context they fit. I like to write (or try to) in a way where the style almost starts to mirror the context a little bit if that makes sense? That doesn't just mean fast pacey sentences for action (though that too) but also tailored to character.

Like, I love close third because when done well it puts you in that character's shoes almost as closely as 1st person, but it means you aren't limited to just the one view-point for your whole book so you can increase your scale and make it more epic. And with a lot of books in close third the sentence structure and style can then reflect the character whose POV you're on and it gives them their own "voice."

A hard-bitten mercenary type POV will be clipped and blunt, lots of pathos, reflecting their world-view. A Machiavellian scheming grand-vizier type will be less prosaic with more eloquent thoughts and considerations reflected in more complex descriptions and flowery language.

I'm probably getting a bit more technical than my formal writing training (non-existent!) warrants but it makes sense to me!

There is one type of sentence pacing change I really do like. Stories that are split between multiple viewpoints.

If you have two characters that act and think in different ways, I am happy with a reasonable difference in their sentence structure. There are still limits for me mind, but I do appreciate this form of nuance. It gives a strong indication to the reader of their different identities.

Just noticed this from previous page!

 

[KyleAW]

Thanks Rolynd! Was rather happy with the way I worded that

 

[Brian G Turner]

Just to return to this thread - it's not simply sentence use that helps with the pace (though it definitely has its place). Short chapters also help with that - especially if they end by raising questions.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I agree with most of the comments that run in the vein of 'mix short and long sentences, mix short and long paragraphs, mix dialogue with description and narration'. But yeah, writers can learn a lot from the style of newspaper writing. Not tabloids, but actual honest journalism. Shorter words, active verbs, paragraphs no more than 50 words each. Mix length of sentences, but tend towards shorter. Far better to be precise and to the point than boring and long winding sentences that barely have a point or convey information. Lots of dialogue helps too as most readers simply skip the descriptions in between.