>"It was a dark and stormy night; the rain fell in torrents — except at occasional intervals, when it was checked by a violent gust of wind which swept up the streets (for it is in London that our scene lies), rattling along the housetops, and fiercely agitating the scanty flame of the lamps that struggled against the darkness."
Ask any English undergrad to explain why this line is bad and they'll make a fool of themselves. Common explanations include
>dark night is a pleonasm
There are bright moonlit nights.
>starts with "It was" "It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen." —George Orwell, 1984 (1949)
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" —Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife." —Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice (1813)
Failing this they'll usually regurtitate back a canned response like "it's purple prose" without any ability to elaborate further.
So tell me Veeky Forums, why is this line bad? And if you weren't taught in school that this line was supposed to be bad, would you be able to discern its quality yourself? Be honest.
Juan Jenkins
I don't think it is dreadful, but the addition of (for it is in London that our scene lies) makes it sound comical. It reads as if the narrator forgot to mention that detail earlier and it breaks the rythmn of the sentence.
I would split the sentence in two, ending the first at up the streets. The next would read: 'The wind rattled along the housetops and fiercly agitated the scanty flames of those lamps which struggled against the darkness.'
The third sentence would be the better place to introduce the scene. We have a brodding description which is then followed by a confirmation.
Ryan Baker
Actually: 'The wind rattled along the housetops, fiercly agitating those lamps struggling against the darkness.' Sounds better.
Jackson Smith
>those lamps why
Juan Lopez
Not a native speaker so never was exposed to that as quintessential bad example. To me it's bad because: - "dark and stormy night" immediately sounds like an ambience cliché - the cut to "except at occasional intervals" is very inelegant and shifts the focus of the sentence further into a detail we would have assumed to have only been penned to set the scene and frankly don't give this much of a shit about, nor were expected to be asked to coming from that beginning, - the aside "for it is in London" is another layer intruding YET AGAIN into the sentence, and what's worse, with what follows, interrupting it while the grammatical subject (the rain or the wind, we can't say yet) is still hanging; it also wants to paint a wider characteristic of the setting than what the description is currently concerned with, feels like it should have come before or after - more stuff we don't care about coming afterwards
but it's not offensively bad.
Grayson Green
expect by reading this thread you've already been exposed and are biased
Brayden Powell
didn't even know what a pleonasm was desu, thanks
i know this intro has reached meme status (imo undeservedly) but it is definitely pretty boring as scene setting goes. all the stuff you quoted that starts with "it was" features something unusual or an assertion
lamp flames struggling against the darkness is also cliched but it doesnt really matter that much
in conclusion unfairly maligned but its dull
Ryder King
Literally the only thing bad is the aside, which makes it sound like it's parodying a Shakespearean play.
Parker Cruz
obviously. Was replying to OP's "if you weren't taught in school"
Nathaniel Robinson
You're right: 'fiercly agitating the lamps that struggled against the darkness' is much less clunky.
