Post History
While Lauren is correct about the grammatical difference, the actual impact on the reader is virtually nil. It isn't at this level that texts have impact on readers. The levels on which text chiefl...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-03T20:41:51Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25595 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:48:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25595 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:48:50Z (almost 5 years ago)
While Lauren is correct about the grammatical difference, the actual impact on the reader is virtually nil. It isn't at this level that texts have impact on readers. The levels on which text chiefly impact readers are images and stories. Worrying about the difference between two grammatical structures that present the same image or tell the same story is largely a waste of time. An editor may decide to tweak it at some point in the publications process, but it is not going to make or break a story. There is definitely a problem with the image, as Lauren points out. Vultures circle the weak and dying, not the healthy and strong. This is the sort of trouble you can run into when you think and write in stock phrases. They don't always go together to create compelling and evocative images. Even this would be forgiven though, if the larger story were compelling. Again, if the story is compelling, these are things an editor will fix. If you are worried about the effect on the reader, focus your attention on the bigger picture, the things that actually affect the reader.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2016-12-20T21:22:03Z (almost 8 years ago)
Original score: 1