Reading Comprehension Quiz -- What does this MEAN?

[sekiharatae]

[Poll #1784008]

I was reading reviews on Amazon, and someone quoted this sentence from Gardens of the Moon, the first book in a ten book series by Steven Erickson. Now, I love fantasy, but ten books sounded a bit much... and the more reviews I read, the more it sounded like it would not be my thing. Main characters introduced in one book only to disappear for a few more before resurfacing? Plotlines introduced, abandoned, then picked up again volumes later? That sounds frustrating to me. Add in that it sounds like it has twenty or so 'lead' characters, and I think not.

But what really really killed it for me was this quote. I hate sentences like this. They may sound great, but when you take it apart, it makes no sense. I hate that people get applauded for it -- where has reading comprehension gone?  These books are apparently chock full of sentences like this one, and that would drive me bonkers.

Comments

[yuenmei.livejournal.com]

I'm too frustrated to even vote. I loathe Erikson. The first PAGE of the first book is devoted to describing ONE WEATHERVANE in the most complicated, annoying language ever. It ANGERS me.

[laura-josephsen.livejournal.com]

I was going to go with option number 2, but given that I had to read the sentence about ten times to try to sort it out, I went for the first option.

I don't mind long series--heck, I'm co-writing a long series--but I do like to understand what I'm reading. O_o

[kokoronagomu.livejournal.com]

a tower has sardonic reserve...

a fork has patient goodwill.

one makes as much sense as the other.

i can't take option number one because although it makes no sense it does in no way resemble 'pretty'.

[kokoronagomu.livejournal.com]

...floating down the sound resounds around the icy waters underground...

pink floyd lyrics make more sense.

[lrdrandallslady.livejournal.com]

Legal-ease makes more sense to me than this garbage. It's like he took as many big, fancy words as he could and strung them together to make it look like he's some well-educated, well-read god of the English language but instead, he ends up looking like a fool to those of the rest of us with a bit of common sense. I went with option #4 and that was after too many read throughs and looking at my choice of answers.

I do wonder... in the review in which this was quoted, was the reviewer using it as an example of good or bad writing? Just curious :)

[jamethiel]

The problem with this sentence is it is a comma splice. Each sentence is complete in and of itself, and it changes subjects halfway through.

(I would never let this by if I was a beta)

The correct version would be:
Crokus shared something of the tower's imagined sardonic reserve for the pretense so rife in Majesty Hall. This emotion of his uncle's that had seeped into the lad (Beta note: EPITHETS MUST DIE) Crokus over the years.

It's still as clunky as all hell. If this is third person limited, he's completely failed to convey it effectively, if it's third person impartial, WHY GOD WHY?!? (Third person impartial is notoriously hard to do well, and few people are Jane Austen or Tolkien.)

In summation: bad writing.

[quoth-the-ravyn.livejournal.com]

@_@


Okay, I can read complicates crap. Comes with my English degree, but wtf? What is the point of that? I mean, clearly someone has to enjoy it, or it wouldn't have been published, but that just... that's egotistical writing is pretty much the only name I have for that.

How is that even enjoyable?

[elanor-pam.livejournal.com]

I stabbed at a meaning, but seriously, it sounds more like a bot strung some words together.