I'm not comfortable with this...
I'm just looking for some feedback on how to make this sound better.
When he finished, he vanished. There was no smoke, no flash of light, and no trace of him remained. The coffee table returned to its original place. Abra, the King of all Djinn, was gone.
Before I started reading the answers, I thought, "Remove the and", so it does look like that's a general consensus. I might even put a fullstop, which would make it three short sentences. Then, perhaps the last two sentences could be joined to change the pace. But, I'd definitely move Abra was gone before the table moving back. Makes sense?
When he finished, he vanished. No smoke, no flash of light. No trace of him remained. Abra, the King of all Djinn, was gone, and the coffee table magically (?) returned to its original place. .
|link comment||answered Apr 11 '12 at 22:54 A Clil To Climb Contributor|
I like the stuccato rhythym, and too stubbled over the and. But I'm also pausing with remained.
There is something appealing about "There was no smoke, no flash of light, no trace." but I can't quite say that's it either. Typing/thinking out loud here. What if became beat, beat, pause, beat --> "There was no smoke, no flash of light ... no trace of him remained."
I don't know. This is why I write non-fiction.
|link||answered Apr 11 '12 at 23:11 Jeff Pribyl Grammarly Fellow|
I agree with deleting "and" and I'm sort of stuck on "of him" in the same sentence. No trace of his presence (?) existance (?) it just feels like it should be a word or phrase other than him. No clue/evidence/sign/hint that he had ever been present. Or maybe I'm overthinking. No trace remained.
I like the last sentence as is. It sounds like it is the very final word on the subject, nothing more can be said. Elvis has left the building.
|link||answered Apr 11 '12 at 23:30 Patty T Grammarly Fellow|
Hero of the day
Person voted on the most questions.