Would anyone be able to explain to me in words of one syllable or less why I have it in my mind that:

'The man ran down the corridor and out into the morning sun..."

is less good than;

'

Running down the corridor, the man was dazzled by the bright sunlight outside..."

Is it because the verb is different and in its active form which frees up the sentence for some more words, so more efficient in a way, less words for more action, as it were.

Or is it just a matter of taste. Strunk and White are very helpful saying 'brevity is a by-product of vigour', but I wondered if anyone had a clearer way of putting this.

Also this is not to be confused with a passive sentence, but is about voice.

Or have I just made all this up and might need to go and sit in the corner wearing a triangular hat...?

Many grateful thanks if anyone can help.

This may be just personal preference, but I don't like sentences that start with -ing (danged if I can remember the term for it right now!). It suggests that the two actions are similtaneous; the man is dazzled by the sun as he is running down the corridor. He may well be... but it pulls me out of the story.

So I prefer your first sentence... not much help, I'm afraid

Dee

Okay, here's how I understand it:

'The man ran down the corridor and out into the morning sun..

Modern convention actually favours the first sentence. It prefers the active voice and clear, simple sentences. (Sometimes far too much so, IMHO, but that's how it is, currently). The view these days is that too much passive voice slows down the action - obviously in the first sentence, that's not a good thing. (I don't actually think there's anything wrong with using the passive voice appropriately. However Americans in particular seem to get very hot under the collar about it. They also seem to assume the presence of 'was' or were' indicates the passive, for some reason.)

Running down the corridor, the man was dazzled by the bright sunlight outside...

Using a gerund to start a sentence is pretty much slapped wrist time these days. I honestly don't know why, but it seems to be accepted wisdom that it's not the thing to do. You can slip the occasional one in, but generally they are pretty much frowned on. In the second sentence, you'd probably be pulled up on 'bright' as well - bright is not necessary, as you've already said he was dazzled, which implies brightness.

Is any of this helpful?

I much prefer your first sentence.

It happens, as Naomi says, to be stylistically in vogue too, but that's not why I like it. It's cinematic. I can see a person doing something and really appreciate the change in his circumstance. It makes me not only see the sun outside, but the traffic, and I feel the air on his face.

The second sentence is sluggish. We don't know who is running until second half of the sentence, so we can't visualise it immediately. And he doesn't go anywhere. He's caught in aspic between the corridor and the outside sun. Does the sun come in from outside through the windows? It is physically impossible for him to be simultaneously running down the corridor in the present continuous and also outside experiencing sunshine, so he must still be inside. Or is he? Confusing, non-visual, weaker writing imo.

Like Dee I'm wary of ing verbs opening a sentence (not to say never use them, but they trip people up so often. I'd be a rich rich gal if I had a pound for every time I've had to correct a dangling participle, e.g. Running along the corridor, the outside sun streamed down on the man. Which means the sun is running down the corridor. Your participle at least has a subject, but they still trip the reader up.

By the way, I really really really like your first sentence. It has clarity and vigour and simplicity and energy. I'd read on and on if I came across writing like that. It's a superb opening line for a short story. If you decide not to use it, let me know, as I'd like permission to nick it.

<Added>

Sorry - not Naomi, Astrea.

Funnyvalentine, it isn't a case of active vs passive at all, in the grammatical sense.

The man ran down the corridor and out into the morning sun...

'ran' is an active form of the verb. To be passive the sentence would have to be

The corridor was run down by the man, and the sun was gone out into by the man.

So don't worry about that.

What is going on here, as Astrea says, is that here

Running down the corridor, the man was dazzled by the bright sunlight outside...

the first verb we meet is what David Crystal just calls an -ing form and I call a participle. (It isn't actually a gerund, btw Astrea, though they look identical: a gerund is the form of the verb which can work as a noun, as in "The Running of the Deer was delightful" "the cooking of the dinner went ahead")

As Dee and Astrea suggest, many writers and editors these days have a bit of a reflex against sentences which start like this, and I tend to as well. On the other hand it's often the first way that writers try re-arranging things when they become aware that they have too many stentences of the straightforward subject-verb-object structure of, say "The man ran down the corrider".

I think there are two reasons to have your alarm bells go off when you find your sentence is starting with an -ing participle.

1)A sentence like this doesn't actually quite make sense: he presumably isn't dazzled by the bright sunshine outside when he's still in the corridor, but only when he gets outside.

These is an incredibly common mistake, and it's one reason why (sorry) I (and dozens of editors) tend to approach a sentence like this expecting it to be wrong or even nonsensical. The worst examples of these are things like:

Galloping along the beach he had left his briefcase behind. Running down the street he had forgotten to shave that morning. Walking briskly down the street he would be late for the office

And the true dangling participle, which I've never forgotten since my English teacher said it:

Bubbling briskly the witch stirred the powder into the cauldron

(Which is when the particple doesn't belong to the noun which follows it, and glorious absurdity results...)

It would make sense to say

Running down the street he did up his shirt-buttons.

because the action of doing up the buttons really does happen WHILE he's running.

It's more of a style issue once we've got to here, rather than grammar and sense. But I think the reason that so many of us have a slightly allergic reaction to sentences starting with a participle is that it sets the nature of the sentence as continuous. So it does work if the main verb - 'did' in my example - is also a continuous sort of action, such as doing up the buttons. The nature of the two actions fit together, if you like.

Where it gets a bit awkward is where what's been set up as a continous, ongoing sort of action, suddenly turns out not to be: "Running down the street he was bitten by a dog".

And in your example, similarly, 'dazzle' is also something which interrupts the continuous action, even if it then itself continues: presumably he opens the door, or suddenly gets to an angle where the sun is coming throught the window.

If you do want to fit the continuous -ing sort of action with a more finite thing happen then I'd suggest re-casting the sentence a bit as in things like

He ran down the corridor and into dazzling sunshine As he ran down the corridor the sun struck through the far doors and dazzled him. He was running down the corridor through patches of dazzling sunlight when...

or whatever...

Emma

Would anyone be able to explain to me in words of one syllable or less why I have it in my mind that: 'The man ran down the corridor and out into the morning sun..." is less good than; 'Running down the corridor, the man was dazzled by the bright sunlight outside..."

The first is ok, it's the second that's wrong for reasons already given.

A submission is liable to be read by a junior agent or the intern and they call sentences begining with -ing words 'gerund phrase openers', and ones with overuse of 'was' 'passive voice' which is why the second sentence is worse than the first.


'The man ran' rhymes a bit which may be why it looks wrong. 'The boy ran...' or 'Gerry ran...' would be fine


- NaomiM

they call sentences begining with -ing words 'gerund phrase openers', and ones with overuse of 'was' 'passive voice' which is why the second sentence is worse than the first.

Grrrr. They don't need to know grammatical terms, but if you do use them, you should use them correctly.

That equation of "was" with passive voice drives me absolutely BANANAS. It's sooooooooo ignorant.

Emma

I feel your pain, Emma (the confusion between submission, query and pitch drives me up the wall), but such is the way of the world.

Just popped on to add that it would be a boring world if people avoided everything deemed to be 'wrong'. Instead use responsively and in moderation - although moderation may mean once a year, rather than once a night.

A submission is liable to be read by a junior agent or the intern and they call sentences begining with -ing words 'gerund phrase openers', and ones with overuse of 'was' 'passive voice' which is why the second sentence is worse than the first.

- wehat, really?? If so, that's very depressing. Surely, junior agents are better educated?

One of the reasons I don’t like sentences which begin with a participle (thank you, Emma!) is that, while they're usually meant to convey continuous action, I'm always aware of a hiccup between the two halves.

Running down the corridor, - hic - the man was dazzled by the bright sunlight outside.

Or is it just me?

Dee

On the other hand it's often the first way that writers try re-arranging things when they become aware that they have too many stentences of the straightforward subject-verb-object structure of, say "The man ran down the corrider".

Thank you so very much everyone for this - it's so helpful. I think the above is exactly what I do. I feel like I've had too much narrative action, everyone running, jumping etc everywhere I start to slip in gerunds to break it up a bit, when maybe I don't need to and I think I thought by doing this I was making it more active - when actually was just making grammatical error!
So then Emma and Naomi the use of the word 'was' when attached to a verb is not passive, but some folk believe it is? Is that right and why is that?
Crikey - it would be pretty hard to write without it.
Thank you so very much for eveyone's help with this - briliant!
Have great writing days.

Dee, 'hiccup' is exactly right - I shall call it that from now on.

So then Emma and Naomi the use of the word 'was' when attached to a verb is not passive, but some folk believe it is? Is that right and why is that? Crikey - it would be pretty hard to write without it.

It would, wouldn't it.

Passive does use 'was' a lot:

The man was beaten The dog was beaten by the woman He was manhandled by the thugs and (please don't try this at home) The team was led by the archaologist, who was astonished to be beaten by the thugs who were scarred by years of abuse.

But of course it is also part of verb phrases in active voice:

He was running down the street (which is NOT passive, although it's arguable that "he ran down the street" is more dirctly energetic)

and, most simply of all, it's a verb on its own:

He was a hat-maker
She was a marine archaeologist.

and it gets confusing because was + participle can also behave like an adjective (can't remember the proper grammatical term):

I was scarred.
I was bored.

Emma

Thank you so much Emma - I've got this now - and really appreciate all your help...again...!