I forgot to address this in my last comment, but I didn’t want to ignore it, because I think you make an important point here, and one that makes me wonder if the shrinking page numbers and commonly stated prohibition against “too many” descriptive words has created this conversion of the participle to something else (and not a gerund or other grammatically sound structure). Then the more common it becomes, the more acceptable/readable the sequential construction becomes and the more it seems grammatically sound to authors and readers alike.

Janine, your initial thought was that this was not a book for you, but I don’t see how you can NOT read it now. I would be happy to send along my copy if you want to try it!

I do think there’s something fairly unusual and original — in attempt if not in execution — going on in Broken Wing, and I am interested in what’s next from Ms. James. It is certainly not the same old same old in historical romance, which is one of the main reasons we are all talking about it despite the reservations.

As for that second sentence you cite, yes, I think both of those things can happen simultaneously, that one can enter in the process of opening the door. Is that what the author intended? I don’t know. FWIW, though, I read the “it” in that next sentence as referring back to “inside” not “door.” Just my reading, of course, as is my gloss on that first sentence.

Okay, now that I’ve read the comments, I might as well weigh in on the skyward look/bow sentence. I agree that the sentence begins with a present participial phrase, but I don’t agree that it’s incorrect in structure (modification). I got the sense that Gabriel was bowing to the sky as he looked toward it, rather than having one action take place after the other. Had the author wanted to suggest the latter, she could have simply begun the sentence with the word “after.” But again, I saw the actions as unproblematically simultaneous.

I see what you are saying, Robin. If he was bowing as he looked at the sky, then the structure is not incorrect. I’m sorry I misread the sentence and mentioned it at all if that’s the case.

(Incidentally, what do you think about “Opening the door, he stepped inside”? Do you think those two actions can happen at the same time as well?)

But I’m glad you agree that the implication of that sentence structure is that the two actions (looking and bowing) are taking place at the same time. It’s probably anal of me, but I don’t agree with Kristie that a comma can temporally separate the participial phrase from the rest of the sentence.

The thing is that I see writers using that structure as if the participial phrase isn’t acting as a modifier, so I’m not surprised that some readers now read it that way too. IMO it’s become a common grammatical error, and I’ve come across it enough times that perhaps I’ve come to expect it and even (in this case) to see it where it wasn’t present (if Gabriel was bowing as he looked toward the sky — a possibility that didn’t occur to me).

More generally, I do think there is a difference between grammatical incorrectness and a certain lack of discipline in one’s prose.

I agree. The author’s choice to use the same structure in three sentences in a row in the section Jessica quoted seemed like lack of discipline to me rather than a grammatical error.

Incidentally your review at DA today made me think that perhaps I should try the book despite my reservations about the prose.

As I went back to edit my post, I scrolled up to the original quote and saw this:

“Opening the door, he stepped inside. Moist and seething, it smelled of whiskey and rum, tobacco and semen.” “It” no doubt refers to the air in the room, but the way it follows the previous sentence seems like an indication (grammatically) that it references the door. Obviously it’s unlikely to be the door that smells of whiskey and rum, etc., but the structure of the paragraph seems clumsy.

I wonder if, were I to read the book, its content (which is so obviously intriguing and emotionally powerful) would be enough to overcome my inclination to reach for a red pen when I read even small sections of this author’s prose.

That said, the prose in Broken Wing was IMO melodramatic and not always particularly tight or concise. Sometimes that bothered me and sometimes I read past it depending on how engaged I was in the moment of the action.

More generally, I do think there is a difference between grammatical incorrectness and a certain lack of discipline in one’s prose. Sometimes undisciplined prose can be confusing, sometimes incorrect, and sometimes, IMO, it can be transcendent and brilliant, depending on how it hits the reader. I found James’s prose as more undisciplined than grammatically incorrect most of the time, FWIW.

I noticed that about “swathes”, too, but what else to call it? Ribbons? LOL. That sense of “historical sweep” was unmistakable, and sometimes I love that, as in Outlander, but in this case, it took me out of the story somewhat.

(OT, but I think I’ll wait a few days before adding the DA review link next time. Usually my reviews come weeks or months (or years) later than the big blogs, so the pingback from RRR doesn’t interrupt the comments. I am very sorry about that. Still learning.)

And ITA with you about the friendship between Gabe and Sarah and the way the book is hero-centric in a new way. Which I definitely think is related to the quest (YA-ish) aspect of Gabriel’s journey.

~Barbara