Is it bad grammar or writing to separate the subject (in this example, John) with the parts that make up the subject (John's feet), like this: The alarm told him he had only ten minutes to get ready. His feet hit the ground running on their way to the bathroom before they suddenly tripped, and John fell on his face. Does this sound weird, and is there a better way to say this comedically?
I'm fine with -- his feet hit the ground running (for the bathroom) - but on their way and before they suddenly tripped sounds a little too anthropomorphic to me. I don't know if it's bad grammar or just the logic -- all of him tripped. I'd maybe try out a few more sentences to work out your tone. If you want comedy you could emphasis the separation that his feet were ahead of his half-asleep body resulting in his fall. Or even break up the sentences. His feet hit the ground running. The rest of him lagging behind resulting in a complete wipeout leaving him face down in his shower mat. - example.
Thanks, peachalulu! Yes, I was worried about the "they" part too. I'm definately open to changing up the sentence. The only part I'd like to keep (if possible) is "John fell on his face." One of the reasons I broke up John and his feet is because, in the next scentence, I go into what he tripped over. So for ex: His feet hit the ground running on their way to the bathroom before they suddenly tripped, and John fell on his face. What the? He looked over to see he had slipped over a pair of woman’s stockings. John is typically an extremely neat and controlled person and I'm trying to evoke the feeling that things are suddenly happening out of John's control. And he's also not fully aware of his surroundings.
The main danger is having the subject too far away from its verb. You have two clauses (feet hit . . . they suddenly hit) and both of those subjects/verbs are tight together, so you're fine. And don't mistake this for a rule. It's just a consideration when you're shaping the sentence. It will fix things far more often than it breaks them. As far as your sentence goes, I wouldn't worry about subject/verb distance.
Thanks, Seven Crowns! So is this a non-issue? I'm worried that the sentence still sounds strange or doesn't flow right. If it seems ok then I guess I'll keep it the way it is for now. Although I'd love to make it better, I'm just not sure how.
There's a certain awkwardness to it, but it's not from subject/verb distance. And I can't really say if it's "wrong" unless I knew the paragraph it was in, because sometimes awkward is best. Especially if it matches tone/voice (as @peachalulu said, which was all 100% right, IMO). Flow comes from contrast. These two sentences both use a sort of stuttering personification (not an insult, it's a useful effect) and so they feel similar. So even though they have different messages, they seem the same. The sameness works against you. Usually. There's always exceptions. If one sentence were shifted, the other might align with it perfectly. In that sense, neither is wrong. It's the connection that's jarring, strangely, because the pieces are too similar. Sentence 1's personification is an "alarm telling." Sentence 2's is "feet" that seem to be the actor. I guess that's more synecdoche (the part represents the whole) but again, it's a non-agent acting like an agent, just like the alarm. You are also jumping across targets. You go from alarm to he (John) to feet to John. That bounciness might actually be okay because it makes things frantic, but since the lines are already indirect it might weaken the message. I'll try to keep that bounciness, but it will be contained in its own line. The other line(s) will be quick and to the point. The alarm read 6:58. John leapt from bed. He smashed into the closet door, stepped on the dog and was bitten soundly in return, and with his shirt halfway on, staggered to the bathroom to fall flat on his face. So now it finishes in a tangled grammatical structure but it doesn't feel wrong. That's because of the quick one-two leading into it. You get a contrast in that. I did two lines coming in to build a tricolon. The last part (the long line) contrasts with the first two. For example: Harry, Ron, Hermione. (plain, plain, elaborate) (male, male, female) These tricks show up all the time. You file them away and use them where they fit. I guess I should also say that if you rely on one trick (quick-quick-long) that becomes a pattern that defeats itself. The rhythm should be always shifting. I also didn't tell that John was late, because the last line shows it. That way the story builds in the reader's mind and is greater than what's on the page. Anyway. Aim for contrasts. Use simplicity as your default.
Wow, what a neat trick! Thank you, Seven Crowns! Your line definitely sounds way bouncier, snappier, and smoother than mine. So as not to copy you, but applying your teaching to my original sentence, would it look something like this: The alarm read 6:58. His feet hit the ground running. On his way to the bathroom, he suddenly tripped, and John fell on his face. What the? He looked over to see he had slipped over a pair of woman’s stockings. It's nowhere as sophisticated as yours. It's like the elementary version (haha) where I'm just applying the basics of the pattern to the original wording, but I think it helped fix the sentence because it sounds less weird to me. Although now it reads a bit plain. Let me see if I can add a little more spice to it. Thank you for your help! Not only did it make the sentense less awkward, but you also taught me a new trick along the way!
It's pretty good. Because "trips" are sudden you can crunch that one line together. The alarm read 6:58. John's feet hit the ground running. On his way to the bathroom, he tripped and fell on his face. What the? He looked over to see he had slipped over a pair of woman’s stockings. I like the ending! Good job.
Aw, thank you, Seven Crowns, for the extra touchup and encouragement! I'm definately learning from these arrangements. Writing is so much more an art than a science. Although, I don't have an innate talent for words, this kind of practice is really helpful!
As far as the pronouns go, I like this: "A pronoun refers back to the next previous logical noun" - J.D.Ray (yes, ours!) As far as your sample goes, we don't have a previous noun, so we don't know what 'His' refers to. If in the previous sentence you were featuring John, you could carry on with "His feet hit the ground running." But if this is the start of a chapter or story? No. @Seven Crowns is right. It's not a good idea to force your reader to guess—even for a short time—who or what a pronoun refers to.
Thanks, Jan! Yes, agreed. The sentence is at the middle of a paragraph, but I'll keep this in mind to make sure not to fall into the trap.
