A writer friend had the following change made by her editor: "they walked hand in hand across the street" - was changed to - "hand in hand they walked across the street." Why is the latter better than the former? Thanks...
Sounds like what you want to emphasis -- by putting hand in hand first, rather than embedding it in the sentence its the reader first image.
There's a subtle change in emphasis. I wouldn't say one's better than the other though. Another editor might change it back. These types of edits just can't be guessed. The second example stresses "hand in hand" more because there's a pause after it (even without the comma, you'll hear it). It's separated from the action, which draws it out more. The editor liked that, but like I said, another might prefer one smooth line, kind of an effortless phrasing. There's another that stresses the "hand in hand" even more: "They walked across the street, hand in hand." Choices, choices . . .
I generally employ this change in word order to break the monotony that comes from starting multiple sentences in a row with pronouns. Though, one is not better than the other. In trying to figure out why the editor suggested the change, it's best not to think of the sentence as inside a vacuum (I feel like I've used this word too many times this week). I'd be willing to bet the change was to cull a monotonous cadence within the paragraph, but that's just one possibility.
I think there's a slight clarity improvement -- putting 'walked' and 'across the street' next to each other rather than injecting 'hand in hand' between them and associating walking with being hand-in-hand rather than going across the street (if that makes sense; it makes sense in my head but I don't know that I'm conveying what I mean). It is very minor. The meaning was clear in the original phrasing. I prefer the edit, though, myself.
I think the syntax is a matter of voice. They both have a different feel, but I would use..... walking across the street hand in hand... to give it that froward momentum....to just tell the story you could revert back to....hand in hand they walked across the street.
The second line is much better... Hand in hand they walked across the street. Personally, if I can eliminate beginning a sentence with The, They, She, He, and several other (lazy) words, I do it. In this case her editor was right, the sentence is better for the change.
This was my take on it, that the change was to emphasize that the hand-holding part is the focus of what the characters are doing, moreso than the act of them crossing the street.
Ah now we get into showing and get rid of the cliche... cuffing her hand to his they walked across the street
I think it would depend on context - rhythm, variety, emphasis, etc. ETA: On a side note - hopefully your friend could just ask the editor why the change was made? In my experience editors make suggestions, not changes, and any editor should be able to explain the rationale behind any suggestion.
My suspicion would be that there were a whole load of they did this they did that sentences, so the editor wanted to change it up for a bit more balance There's nothing wrong with either form and neither is inherently stronger than the other, but if the context is They walked out of the door They ran down the side walk They crossed the street hand in hand They kissed in the rain Then you, sorry, your 'friend' need to eliminate some of those they s from the beginning of lines
Thanks everyone for your comments - pretty much what we thought but with some interesting nuances. Seven Crowns - The sentences were told to me in conversation and 'may' have lost a comma in the process. big soft moose - I love how you imply it is really my writing and that I am hiding the fact like a guilty secret - "I am asking for 'a friend' who has an 'embarrassing' rash under their--". I can't comment on your reference to possible multiple uses of 'they' but I will forward this thread to my 'friend' as I am sure I - ahem - 'she' will be interested. Thanks again everyone - this site looks like a valuable resource for the writer (or wannabe).
