I'm trying to describe the medieval practice of keeping a hostage at court to make sure the land/person the hostage comes from behaves. (Think Theon Greyjoy from Game of Thrones) I'm questioning my wording, though. Here's the sentence: "And to ensure he followed through -- his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage against his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding." Is the use of "against" here correct? It sounds funny to me, but I can't think of a way to re-phrase it.
We need a bit more context. Is Gracelyn a hostage to ensure that her father doesn't do the king's bidding, or that he does?
Here's the sentence: "And to ensure he followed through -- his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage against his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding." Yeah, as you suspected, against is not the correct word here. Also, I would approach the sentence in another way... To ensure he'd follow through, his daughter, Gracelyn, was moved to the palace in Medoma-- an unpleasant reminder that it was the king he served.
I think the word you're looking for is "despite" Despite his continued efforts to do the king's bidding, his daughter Gracelyn still got taken as a hostage to Medoma. Also, you need "was" for "was taken". Unless it's a deliberate fragment and it makes sense in context with the previous sentence?
I still think we need more. How about giving us the two or three sentences that came before this one—which isn't even a complete sentence as it stands? And maybe one or two just following? I tried to rearrange this, and stopped, because I actually don't know how this began or where it's going, or exactly what you're trying to say. (I don't need the plot of your story, just the structure of these few sentences together.)
If you want him to do the King's bidding, then I think it's wrong. You could say "taken to Medoma as hostage against his continued failure to do the king's bidding" and I believe it would be correct.
"Against" is the correct word. It may be a bit of an archaic usage, though I just found that same usage from a 2006 history text. It's not "against" that's the problem, but the words that come after, which, at least to me, convey the opposite of what is intended.
@jannert Sorry, here's more context. "He had been a young merchant, overconfident and zealous, using a loan from the Crown to get his business going. A bad deal sent him tumbling into debt. Not long after, a rider showed up in Amberfield, with a proposition from King Jereth. All debts forgiven, in exchange for his cooperation. Certain tasks to accomplish. And to ensure he followed through -- his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage against his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding." Although I like the way @Iain Sparrow rephrased it. Less convoluted. @Steerpike Maybe that's why my brain threw it in there. I just didn't use it quite right.
I mean, really, the whole paragraph needs work, but I figured I'd start with the most glaringly obvious problem, which is this annoyingly convoluted sentence that started this whole thing, lol.
As I was doing more looking, I actually found a usage that lines up with exactly what you're doing here. But it still seems wrong to me, and it was in a blog post so I'm not convinced it should be relied on.
I think that against is right. Against can be used to evaluate a good thing with a bad thing: "The benefits must be weighted up against the costs." "I took out a loan against my house." This is particularly like the second sentence: A good thing (given money/being free), with the requirement to do something we'd rather not (make the repayments/do what the king wants), with some collateral (the house/daughter). What bothered me about the sentence was the lack of verb. Instead of: "And to ensure he followed through -- his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage against his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding." I think you want: "And to ensure he followed through -- his daughter, Gracelyn, was taken to Medoma as a hostage against his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding."
I'd move the "ensure" to later in the sentence... And his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage to ensure his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding."
Yes. I kept wanting to stick 'ensure' in there near the end ...to 'ensure his continued efforts to do the king's bidding.' But that meant the first 'ensure' in that sentence would need to be changed to something else. After seeing the whole thing, I would do as @BayView just did, simply drop it altogether. Bayview's suggestion doesn't change your meaning, but the passage reads more accurately.
And his daughter, Gracelyn, taken to Medoma as a hostage to ensure his continued efforts to do the king’s bidding - 'To' is much better than 'against' Gracelyn was taken hostage to ensure her father's continued compliance. Generally I think a person is said to be 'taken hostage' rather than 'taken as a hostage' - it would depend on your style of writing of course as well. Is it important where Gracelyn was taken to or is the point that she was taken hostage? If the context infers the she was hostage to ensure compliance to the king then perhaps you don't need to specify that explicitly?
