Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47666
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47666
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

The thing is the two say very different things, this one:

> I stumbled to the ground and hit my head. I got back up. The walls and floors seemed to be moving

makes it clear that for the POV character they are **aware** that the walls and floors _aren't_ really moving even as they are experiencing it.

Whereas in:

> I stumbled to the ground and hit my head. I got back up. The walls and floors started to move

it's..fuzzier. They _aren't_ thinking clearly enough to be cognizant of that distinction in the moment.

I've (unfortunately) taken a few knocks to the head over the years and in more severe cases the latter scenario definitely happens. It takes a second or so for your conscious brain to catch up and apply reason to what it's perceiving, so when I read those two passages I'm automatically drawing parallels to my own experiences and the second speaks to me of a more severe knock and a greater level of impairment.

There is also the matter of tense to consider - if the perspective of the book is that of a definitively past tense first person account where the POV character recounting the story from a reference frame beyond the action (e.g. it's a journal or a tale being told to another character etc) then putting the mistaken perception as if it were "fact" is clunky at best.

If you've got a particular dislike for the word "seem" itself then there are other ways to express the same thing without it:

> I stumbled to the ground and hit my head. I got back up. For a moment it felt as if the walls and floors were moving.

Original score: 4