Am I misusing this colon?

The bone-rasp sound drilled into Chuck's head: insistent and hungry.

______________________________________


I'm concerned that the sequence may be misleading. I want to say the bone-rasp sound was insistent and hungry, but I am concerned that some readers may think I am describing Chuck's head as insistent and hungry.

Was the correct meaning clear to you upon first reading? Am I misusing this colon?

 

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I think a colon is used to introduce a list or it can be used in a complicated sentence where it is superior to a semicolon, for example, at the start of a series of phases that include semicolons and commas.

A comma would be okay in your sentence. It's unlikely that a reader would think Chuck's head is insistent and hungry.

 

Agree that a simple comma is more appropriate.

 

I got the correct meaning, but I agree a comma would be better.

 

I love them. They grant new dimensions to prose. I've noticed that those who oppose colons and semi-colons are usually people who don't know how to use them. In any case, they never seem to have sound reasons for disliking them.

 

How can they be ugly? Do you mean, like, actually graphically unattractive, or is it sort of a "they have ugly souls" ugliness?

 

They're not ugly. They're beautiful. What's more is that they help make the whole sentence beautiful. Not using them is like cooking without onions.

 

Homer's right. Go into the woods, find some ritually sacrificed animals, and they'll be covered with colons and semicolons. Freakin' weird, man.

 

That was beautiful!

 

I think your use is correct; it announces a noun phrase. I also think it's a good sentence.

 

Are you counting "insistent" and "hungry" as nouns?

 

Comma.

And semicolons are a wonderful thing.

 

Ahem. Pardon me while I gouge out my eyeballs.

 

Heh.

Looking at the Vonnegut sentence from the article:

Kroner’s belief [was] that nothing of value changed; that what was once true is always true; that truths were few and simple; and that a man needed no knowledge beyond these truths to deal wisely and justly with any problem whatsoever.

Do others agree that the semicolons are actually incorrect here?

 

Yes, I was expecting a phrase or a clause (I don't know what they're called--phrases or clauses) with a comma in between the semicolons.

 

Or:

"The sound of the bone rasp, insistent and hungry, drilled into Chuck's head."



I also believe the example ChickenFreak gave called attention to is wrong—I'm not positive the technical reason, but I feel instinctively that semicolons shouldn't be used like that, only when there are phrases or clauses or generally other comma uses within each section

But I very well might be mistaken

 

I believe the "that" in each sentence is what renders the semicolons unnecessary in this example. Because "that" works as a conjunction, commas would be appropriate.

"That" removed, the semicolon would be necessary to connect the clauses otherwise it would be a series of comma splices.

 

Y'all have a lot of free time, insistent, hungry; or perhaps persistent, satiated.

 

As the others have said, the colon is misused, and one must never misuse one's colon: One never knows what crap may emerge.

The example sentence could be rewritten to take a colon, like this, perhaps:

The sound drilling into Chuck's head was like a bone-rasp: insistent, hungry, without mercy.

In fact, my gut feeling tells me the "and" is the biggest reason the example should have a comma instead.

 

Thanks for the help. This specific example has become academic, as I have the sentence from the manuscript. Still, it is important to use colons properly so I appreciate the imput.