[Matt Q]

"... and I forget all about the snail. Stuck in its jar, its lettuce wilting, the snail’s hatred of me escalates to hitherto unimagined heights ..."

Does "its" in the second sentence refer to the snail or to its hatred? Is it the snail or its hatred that's stuck in the jar? I intended the former, and it initially seem unproblematic. But rereading later, I doubted myself.

And now I've reread it so many times, that I no longer have a clue how it reads.

A simpler case: "Now lost in the woods, John's courage was failing".

Is John lost in the woods, or is his courage? Part of me thinks it obviously reads as the the former, part of me thinks it's obviously a badly constructed sentence and means the latter. I've lost the ability to tell.

Anyone able to put me out of my misery?

Many thanks,

Matt

[W T Clark]

I've always found these questions a little strange. Yes: I guess, with a computerized soul, I can comment that the grammar is ambiguous. But with a humanized "common sense" (whatever that seem to be; here, it is an ability to read intuitively, as well as logically) I can understand exactly that it is the snail, and John, who are the subjects of their grammar. I would say the simplier example is especially so. Beware logic: which can make you look silly with authority.

[Carl Copeland]

I’m pretty sure Mr. Fowler would frown on these specimens, but he’s dead. I’d actually say the simpler one is the more egregious, since you can lose your courage, and would suggest “John felt his courage failing.” It’s much harder to get your hatred stuck in a jar (though I’m capable of it). If there’s no elegant fix, I’d go with Cameron’s common sense. Just be prepared for a few snickering sticklers.

[Yves S L]

There is conscious logic and there is unconscious logic, and there are degrees with which a person is conscious or unconscious of their own reasoning. It has become a fad to favour and promote unconscious logic, because most people are not capable of being aware of their own minds (unconscious logic is a lowest common denominator phenomenon).

In each situation, I personally resolve to the more standard/common rhetorical situation; that is, the snail in the jar, the man lost in the woods. To create a reading of the more nonstandard/uncommon more metaphorical rhetorical situation, then the writer would have to go out of their way to set it up, and set it up properly, and not rely on possible grammatical ambiguity.

[E. Shaun Russell]

I think the "snail" situation is perfectly fine. The "its" is flexible here -- it could modify the snail from the prior sentence, or the snail's hatred. It would have been a bit more problematic if you'd written "its hatred" rather than "the snail's hatred," because that would muddy the waters a bit, but by using "the snail's hatred" it basically resets the referent.

I agree with Carl about the second (simpler) example being a bit more grammatically fraught. For the first one, I have to do some serious mental gymnastics to miss the intended meaning.

For what it's worth, I'm now curious about whether snails can actually feel hatred, and if so, how we would know. Slime-trails in the shape of a middle finger?

[Matt Q]

Cameron, Carl, Yves and Shaun,

Thanks everyone, much appreciated!

Great to have this resolved and particularly to have unanimous agreement. It's been bugging me for a couple of days now.


Cameron,

I don't know that this was a confusion driven by trying to apply (conscious) logic. It was more like at some point I suddenly saw/heard the line differently (a bit like with an optical illusion, when you suddenly see the vase as two faces). And after that I lost the ability to get an intuitive / natural read. I knew it should be obvious to me, but I still didn't have a clue.

Shaun,

Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell

For what it's worth, I'm now curious about whether snails can actually feel hatred, and if so, how we would know.

Trust me, you don't want to find out.


Thanks again all,

Matt

[Jim Moonan]

.
Strictly conjecture, mind you, but my best guess is that snails are full of hatred.

Isn't our existence an optical illusion?
.

[Clive Watkins]

An aside… Patricia Highsmith, “The Quest for Blank Claveringi”.

Clive

[Jayne Osborn]

Hi Matt,

I'm glad you've received sensible opinions and you're happy with them.

No one else has mentioned it, but aside from your original query I'm more concerned with why there are too "all"s in the first sentence:

"... and I forget all about all the snail."

Surely you mean "... and I forget all about all the snail."?

Jayne

[Matt Q]

Jim,

I've always thought of them as gentle creatures. for the most part. This one though, well, let's just say it has issues.

Clive,

I'd never heard of that. I'll check it out, thanks.

Jayne,

Thanks for spotting the typo! Not sure how I didn't see that.