Why do Run-on sentences feel so right?

[Rizla]

Here's an example.

There was nothing friendly about her, she contained no softness, so why was she trying to help?

I think the first two parts of the sentence should contain a connector (And), but it feels right as it is. The comma could be replaced with a semi-colon, but...

What feels right? Should the first comma be replaced with a stop or a semi-colon. Should an And be inserted?

Never mind what the grammar books say. What feels right to you? Perhaps I'm not seeing the grammar that allows this, or perhaps I'm too close to see that it sounds wrong.

[Dr. Drib]

None of it feels right to me.

The run-on sentences (for me) makes the reading feel choppy and disjointed.

[Dr. Drib]

(Original)
There was nothing friendly about her, she contained no softness, so why was she trying to help?

(1)
There was nothing friendly about her; she contained no softness. So why was she trying to help?

(2)
There was nothing friendly about her. She contained no softness: So why was she trying to help?

(3 - words added by me)
There was nothing friendly about her. She contained no softness, and that made me wonder: Why was she trying to help?

[BetterRed]

I'd probably prefer something like

She was a hard, unfriendly bitch; so why was she trying to help?

[gmw]

I think the example was probably intended to be a parenthetical phrase. As in:

There was nothing friendly about her (she contained no softness), so why was she trying to help?

The problem being that the centre clause reads as a complete sentence. So a correction that might avoid changing the writer's intention could be something like:

There was nothing friendly about her, no softness at all, so why was she trying to help?

[Nabeel]

I think the original version sounds more spontaneous: more like stream of consciousness style. It's as if someone was talking to themselves. The other versions sound more like formal English.

I don't think any of them automatically sound more right than the others.

N.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think the example was probably intended to be a parenthetical phrase. As in:

There was nothing friendly about her (she contained no softness), so why was she trying to help?

The problem being that the centre clause reads as a complete sentence. So a correction that might avoid changing the writer's intention could be something like:

There was nothing friendly about her, no softness at all, so why was she trying to help?

Yep. You're grammatical analysis is correct and your solution is elegant. It maintains the intended style, removes the grammatical "error" and improves on the original. Thanks for the clarification.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Nabeel

I think the original version sounds more spontaneous: more like stream of consciousness style. It's as if someone was talking to themselves. The other versions sound more like formal English.

I don't think any of them automatically sound more right than the others.

N.

I agree. I suppose thought is a form of internal dialogue and will "break" grammar sometimes.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drib

None of it feels right to me.

The run-on sentences (for me) makes the reading feel choppy and disjointed.

On reflection, I agree. The run-on is choppy.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Rizla

On reflection, I agree. The run-on is choppy.

Rizla:

IME, as a reader, mind you, there are exceedingly few authors who can pull off a run-on sentence and make it sound "right." Generally, it's a hot mess. The greats can do it, because they're deliberately playing with it. It's an internal thought (as previously mentioned), or someone's breathless statement, but generally, they oughtn't be used throughout in a book, story, etc.

I'm beta-reading something right now that has this VERY problem--one run-on sentence after another. I suspect it's a language issue (English is not the writer's first language), but still--it's hard to read. With those writers that do have English as their cradle language, 99% of the time, it's simply because they don't have a solid foundation of English grammar and punctuation, and it shows. The more "self-publishing" without governors (editors) that occurs, the more instant gratification-publishing, the more we'll see this type of thing show up in published books, I fear.

Writers of late aren't the products of writing classes (online or otherwise), critique groups, etc., so these types of errata aren't being eradicated through learning, like they would have been (by and large) in the "olden days." ;-) That does NOT mean that every self-pub or Indy-pub or artisanal-pub is BAD or doesn't know how to write. I'm simply saying that the former (usually) lengthy process of someone having to write, write and write for 10,000 hours prior to publishing, of attending courses, groups, writer's seminars, etc. has sort of gone the way of the dodo, so naturally, what those who make these mistakes would have learned by doing all that stuff is also gone.

Offered FWIW.

Hitch

[AnnGirdharry]

hello Rizla,

For me, run on sentences read and sound alright in moderation - as long as the writer knows how to use them to effect and not as the main writing style of the whole book.

In the example you give, the main sticking point (for the reader) is not knowing the relationship between the woman being talked about and the talker.
If you've made this clear before and we all by now know the quality of their connection then the sentence will (I feel) sit nicely, since we will understand the feelings of the speaker and where this sentence is coming from (emotionally speaking).

If, however, we know nothing or little of their connection, this sentence may tend to jar the reader or irritate them.

For me it's about build-up and context. Then, IMHO run-on sentences can actually sound pretty good and give the effect of 'immediacy'.

have a good day,
Ann Girdharry

[HarryT]

You have to understand the rules before you can know when it's appropriate to break them. I have no issue with a writer who has a thorough understanding of how to write grammatically-correct English deciding that it's appropriate in particular circumstances to break with standard grammatical conventions. Unfortunately, though, most authors who do it are just ignorant.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You have to understand the rules before you can know when it's appropriate to break them. I have no issue with a writer who has a thorough understanding of how to write grammatically-correct English deciding that it's appropriate in particular circumstances to break with standard grammatical conventions. Unfortunately, though, most authors who do it are just ignorant.

This. About a million times this.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You have to understand the rules before you can know when it's appropriate to break them. I have no issue with a writer who has a thorough understanding of how to write grammatically-correct English deciding that it's appropriate in particular circumstances to break with standard grammatical conventions. Unfortunately, though, most authors who do it are just ignorant.

+100, on top of Cinsajoy's million. Can't say it strenuously enough. It's already a struggle to try to read authors that don't understand some of the very fundamental rules of writing without trying to slog through run-on sentences that "sound cool" to someone who doesn't understand what's wrong about them.

As an example (not run-on sentences, but something similar), there's a cadre of writers at the KDP who simply don't understand the difference between ellipses and em-dashes, and persist in misusing both. A BUNCH of them. They argue, against all evidence, that ellipses are to be used for a break in speech, an abrupt break in speech, and that the em-dash is to be used to trail off, (or for something else I can't recall).

It's not only mind-boggling, it's frustrating. When other writers tell them that they are incorrect, and point them to myriad sources showing them the correct use of both, they're ignored. I absolutely don't understand WHY on earth the misusing authors would persist in so doing; I can only assume that to fix their work is either too much labor, or too tedious, or they think that fixing it now would admit that they were wrong earlier--but I make a point of knowing who these writers are, and steer clear of their works (most of which, fortunately, are in genres or have plotlines that wouldn't appeal to me, anyway, but still....).

To me, this is the same thing. Misusing punctuation out of ignorance, willful or otherwise, is the same thing as constructing run-on sentences without understanding what rules one is breaking. When done masterfully, a run-on sentence can convey something important; but when done either in ignorance, or without a high skill level...well, suffice it to say it's like reading all those books out there where the author didn't indent the narrative paragraphs, but indented the dialogue paragraphs; or where they didn't use dialogue tags, thinking that they're unneeded; or don't use beats to move things along. There's art, and then there are simply manuscripts that not only should never have been released, but should never have escaped.

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

+100, on top of Cinsajoy's million. Can't say it strenuously enough. It's already a struggle to try to read authors that don't understand some of the very fundamental rules of writing without trying to slog through run-on sentences that "sound cool" to someone who doesn't understand what's wrong about them.

As an example (not run-on sentences, but something similar), there's a cadre of writers at the KDP who simply don't understand the difference between ellipses and em-dashes, and persist in misusing both. A BUNCH of them. They argue, against all evidence, that ellipses are to be used for a break in speech, an abrupt break in speech, and that the em-dash is to be used to trail off, (or for something else I can't recall).

It's not only mind-boggling, it's frustrating. When other writers tell them that they are incorrect, and point them to myriad sources showing them the correct use of both, they're ignored. I absolutely don't understand WHY on earth the misusing authors would persist in so doing; I can only assume that to fix their work is either too much labor, or too tedious, or they think that fixing it now would admit that they were wrong earlier--but I make a point of knowing who these writers are, and steer clear of their works (most of which, fortunately, are in genres or have plotlines that wouldn't appeal to me, anyway, but still....).

To me, this is the same thing. Misusing punctuation out of ignorance, willful or otherwise, is the same thing as constructing run-on sentences without understanding what rules one is breaking. When done masterfully, a run-on sentence can convey something important; but when done either in ignorance, or without a high skill level...well, suffice it to say it's like reading all those books out there where the author didn't indent the narrative paragraphs, but indented the dialogue paragraphs; or where they didn't use dialogue tags, thinking that they're unneeded; or don't use beats to move things along. There's art, and then there are simply manuscripts that not only should never have been released, but should never have escaped.

Hitch

Some overuse em-dashes for all dialog. I am not sure if it was the dashes, the indents or the double spacing that makes that hard to read. I have seen all three used in a few books.

Oh while we are on ignorance, if you are writing about traveling, learn how to read a map. Bigger numbers do not equal bigger roads. Sorry but if you have someone hitchhiking from Amarillo to El Paso, they are more likely to catch a ride on I-27 than on farm road 2876 (or some other big number. They needed to stay in Texas.
On that one, they went through Snyder, Abilene and San Angelo.
For those without a Texas map, all three of those towns are east of Amarillo and El Paso is west.