Passive Voice - Help Please!

[Ursa major]

Whether the verb is "was" or "was deserted", the subject of that verb remains "The wooden bridge straddling the river".

It seems to me that the sentence is, in effect, an example of

X because Y,
​

where X is the bridge being deserted and Y being that those who were once on or at it (no sniggering, please, YouKnowWho) are either eating or on the way back to their cars**,

In effect, in the examples, I've been using because in its guise as a conjunction: A is B because C did D.

We could use "because" as an adverb: A is B because of C (e.g. I am here because of you). Now "A is B" is

The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted
​

So what is C? If we use a melodramatic example, it could be

(because of) the troll.
​

which has the advantage of not requiring a verb or part thereof (although the reader might add, in their mind, "living under it"). Or, to move back to the original:

(because) of being abandoned for the evening.
​

But the "being abandoned" is still attached to the bridge, not to those who have now left. Can we get away with having no verb after the first comma? I can't see how, but this is a near as I can get:

The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted, everyone having left to eat dinner at the adjoining restaurant or return to their cars.
​

which is a bit of a cheat, because the verbs are back (eat and return); but I have inserted a present participle (if that's what it is) in an attempt at legerdemain. (As before, I've not attempted to capture the dialect/use of words of the original.)



** - One has to assume that either the people eating (not waiting to be served or reading their menus) left the bridge long before those heading for their cars, or the cars are parked a long way from the restaurant, or I've completely misunderstood what "away back to" means.)

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Oh, dear, sorry everyone. Um, if you three can't decide if it's terrible or okay, I might take the practical line of attack and assume I'll get away with it as voicey and not too horrific.

Away back to just says they've left to go somewhere, but doesn't denote a timescale or distance.

 

[Erin99]

The sentence is implied, is the best I can come up with. We're told the bridge is deserted because of the (yes, I was wrong!) adjective "deserted", so the next bit goes on to say why. Readers fill in gaps in sentences; this sentence just has lots of gaps:

"The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted; the last of the tourists were already eating dinner at the adjoining restaurant, or they were away back to their cars."

I've written sentences like that loads. Sometimes, the gaps add variety to a paragraph. It's not voicey or horrific - just normal.

 

[Ursa major]

The sentence is implied, is the best I can come up with. We're told the bridge is deserted because of the (yes, I was wrong!) adjective "deserted", so the next bit goes on to say why. Readers fill in gaps in sentences; this sentence just has lots of gaps:

"The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted; the last of the tourists were already eating dinner at the adjoining restaurant, or they were away back to their cars."

I've written sentences like that loads. Sometimes, the gaps add variety to a paragraph. It's not voicey or horrific - just normal.

Trouble is, you've quoted my version (the one with added verbs ), not Springs's original.

 

[Erin99]

That's me being unclear again. Sorry, just had bad news about my aunt, so I'm not focusing.



The quote in my post was me showing what the implied sentence is saying, without its gaps. Springs' version is just the gappier version - and acceptable. I've seen that kind of construction done a million times in books, and I do it myself.

"The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted; the last of the tourists were already eating dinner at the adjoining restaurant, or they were away back to their cars."

"The wooden bridge straddling the river was deserted, the last of the tourists already eating dinner at the adjoining restaurant, or away back to their cars." <==Much shorter, and still with the same meaning.

 

[Ursa major]

Ah, I see.


Okay, I still don't like the "gappy" version - because if things are left out (such as like the "living under it" in one of my examples), I'd prefer what remains to make sense grammatically (so I don't stumble over the sentence) - but if that's how the PoV character wants to write it, it's not my job to veto them.

 

[Erin99]

Readers don't think in terms of "grammatical", though. They fill in gaps without thinking about it. If something's implied, readers' minds process it accordingly.

In Arabic and Hebrew, people don't write vowels, but readers automatically fill in the gaps without them having to think about it.

I like writers who use implication and fragments and different ways of writing a line. Variety! That's not to say I'd want every sentence to be so, though.



[This is all just my opinion, as ever, so please don't think I'm being horrid or anything.]

 

[Sunseal]

Oh my gosh, you guys are going to rip me apart when I post my first work for critique!! (Thankfully, I still have some more posts before I'm allowed to put any up )

 

[prizzley]

There seems to be a shortage of verbs./QUOTE]

Technically perhaps, but the sentence flows well as it is and makes perfect sense. "Away back" - I can hear the accent. Leave it in.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Oh my gosh, you guys are going to rip me apart when I post my first work for critique!! (Thankfully, I still have some more posts before I'm allowed to put any up )

Don't worry, we won't! Just let us know it's a first crit. We'll say what we think, but no one will be hard about it. (Or we get trodden on by hob-nailed boots.)

The dissection of my sentence that went on (I stuck with the gappy version, btw, sorry Ursa), was to someone everyone who contributed knew was experienced at getting crits, wah-haing, and then getting up again.

 

[prizzley]

Oh my gosh, you guys are going to rip me apart when I post my first work for critique!!

You have to learn to grow a thick skin sometime. We'll help you do that necessary thing sooner.

 

[Ursa major]

Technically perhaps, but the sentence flows well as it is and makes perfect sense. "Away back" - I can hear the accent. Leave it in.

As I said, it's not my place to veto things, but I have to disagree.


Can I just say that this sentence bothers me because it's adding iffy grammar on top of a non-standard usage**.

Because there is this (perfectly valid) non-stand usage, the readers unfamiliar with it will have to do extra work to parse the sentence. (This is still perfectly valid.) It is at this point that some people may begin to wonder about the rest of the sentence and its missing verbs.

As an analogy, think of those jumps at Aintree where the horse and rider are fine jumping the fence, but are rather disconcerted (or worse) by the extra drop on the far side. It's the combination that may be a problem.




** - Note that the non-standard usage is perfectly fine with me; as I said in earlier posts, I had trouble when trying to provide examples containing "away back" simply because I don't know how it's meant to be used in all situations, only the one in this sentence; I was worried about suggesting something that wouldn't work with that usage.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

There seems to be a shortage of verbs./QUOTE]

Technically perhaps, but the sentence flows well as it is and makes perfect sense. "Away back" - I can hear the accent. Leave it in.

Thank you - didn't see this earlier. the accent thing is important.

Because there is this (perfectly valid) non-stand usage, the readers unfamiliar with it will have to do extra work to parse the sentence. (This is still perfectly valid.) It is at this point that some people may begin to wonder about the rest of the sentence and its missing verbs.

And it's the first line of the book... which gives me a double quandry. Which rules for that first line? Voice or grammar? Because - and for me this is the big thing - with the extra verbs it is not how a Norn Irish voice (who talk quick and miss things out and lapse into idiom) would say it.

I think, in this case, I know I am breaking a grammar rule and feel the need to establish the voice (possibly only in my mind, although Prizzley indicates it has translated) is the ultimate goal here.

So, breaking a rule knowingly to acheive a desired effect in the first line. Ulp.

But Ursa's comments have made me think more clearly about why I want the line this way.