Many old works of prose contain phrases which separate two phrases, things called parentheticals or embedded phrases. Do these constructions make it hard for the reader, or do they give the reader pleasure by giving them a small challenge, the sentences having a certain degree of sophistication?
I enjoy them if they're otherwise engaging. I don't see them as challenging, but it can certainly establish a 'voice' for the narrative.
Not a challenge unless the parenthetical interjection contains syntax that allows it to possibly read as still part of the initial syntax. Dumb example: There were twenty-seven, of those we could even count, that were red. Again, dumb example, but see how if you miss the initial comma, of those can trip the reader by being either part of the main train, or the header of the interjection?
Parentheticals were originally supposed to make things easier for the reader. I use them all the time in personal prose, less often in fiction.
Life is full of parenthetical things that can't be expressed any other way. Shit, all my best zingers are tangential asides that don't work directly.
It depends on the sentence. Parentheticals can needlessly convolute a sentiment. (or) Parentheticals, though not all, mind you, can convolute a sentiment (needlessly, I might add.) Others are fine.
I personally (that is to say myself, of my own opinion) like parentheticals and feel that they lend a certain air of sophistication; especially as they can often be found in classic novels of the kind produced by (though not limited to) authors like Dickens. Although, I am inclined to opine, it could be argued that a book like Oliver Twist (though undoubtedly a classic of English Literature) opens in quite a convoluted (though undoubtedly admirable) style that seems terribly affected - and palpably complex - to a modern audience: to wit, a reader of to-day. Joking aside though, I am quite fond of this style of prose. It can be elegant and aesthetically pleasing if used sparingly. Best not to overdo it though.
They're okay. I don't think they make it harder to read, but can get tiresome if overused. They can mess with rhythm, and also have the risk of becoming a tactic employed avoid proper compositional skill. Full prudish disclosure, I even found Pratchett's parenthesis usage to be a bit high. Just a small smidgen. This reminds me of a novel. I can't remember its name, but it was about an overgrown/flooded post-apocalypse. There were giant gators and hover boats, skyscrapers underwater. Florida? Anyway, it frequently had half-pages (sometimes more) of prose interjected into a sentence via em-dashes. It made for some pretty long interruptions, to say the least.
I'm terrible with this. I use parentheses (in the UK they are called 'brackets') all the time. Not sure why this is the case. I guess I always think of ways to qualify what I've said, which brings on the parentheses or dashes. I always have to go through what I've written and remove most of them by re-jigging sentences so I don't need them any more. The problems come when what's inside the 'brackets' goes on for too long. When the rest of the sentence finally pops into view, the reader has forgotten how it began.
