Dumbing down the Books - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

***Mister Underhill*** · 11-13-2003, 01:31 AM

This point of grammar seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Surely you don’t mean to argue that “Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves.” is a grievously faulty sentence? The author’s meaning is clear; we don’t literally need to guess what was “borne”. As far as I know, the professor isn’t guilty of a habit of violating the rule you cite in a way that repeatedly leads to confusion in his prose. Good style is all about being effective, and as long as that end is achieved no rule of grammar is sacrosanct.

If, Bb, you’re trying to make the point that the professor is at least occasionally guilty of confusing constructions, I personally think you’d gain more ground arguing something like his queer idiosyncratic habit of using a simile construction to build suspense, a trait which has in my opinion led directly to the legendary confusion surrounding Balrog wings (cf. this post for some examples and analysis I made in a long-ago pro-wing argument). But then again, this technique works as often as not, and even the confusion over Balrog wings has led to many enjoyable hours of debate, so I reckon I can hardly classify even this quirk as a serious fault.

[ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

11-13-2003, 01:31 AM	#15
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	This point of grammar seems to me to be much ado about nothing. Surely you don’t mean to argue that “Borne upon the wind they heard the howling of wolves.” is a grievously faulty sentence? The author’s meaning is clear; we don’t literally need to guess what was “borne”. As far as I know, the professor isn’t guilty of a habit of violating the rule you cite in a way that repeatedly leads to confusion in his prose. Good style is all about being effective, and as long as that end is achieved no rule of grammar is sacrosanct. If, Bb, you’re trying to make the point that the professor is at least occasionally guilty of confusing constructions, I personally think you’d gain more ground arguing something like his queer idiosyncratic habit of using a simile construction to build suspense, a trait which has in my opinion led directly to the legendary confusion surrounding Balrog wings (cf. this post for some examples and analysis I made in a long-ago pro-wing argument). But then again, this technique works as often as not, and even the confusion over Balrog wings has led to many enjoyable hours of debate, so I reckon I can hardly classify even this quirk as a serious fault. [ November 13, 2003: Message edited by: Mister Underhill ]