Is the flow of tenses in the sentence proper? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowSequence of tenses?Sequence of tenses questionTenses in the sentenceSequnce of tenses in the sentenceback shifting of tensesSequence of tensesSequence of tenses while describing scientific findingUnsure about sequence of tenses in the following examplesequence of tenses in quoting others
How should I support this large drywall patch?
Plot of histogram similar to output from @risk
What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?
Would a completely good Muggle be able to use a wand?
What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"
Would this house-rule that treats advantage as a +1 to the roll instead (and disadvantage as -1) and allows them to stack be balanced?
Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)
No sign flipping while figuring out the emf of voltaic cell?
Why do professional authors make "consistency" mistakes? And how to avoid them?
If/When UK leaves the EU, can a future goverment conduct a referendum to join the EU?
Is it professional to write unrelated content in an almost-empty email?
I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin
I'm self employed. Can I contribute to my previous employers 401k?
Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?
If the updated MCAS software needs two AOA sensors, doesn't that introduce a new single point of failure?
How to count occurrences of text in a file?
Rotate a column
The exact meaning of 'Mom made me a sandwich'
Is it my responsibility to learn a new technology in my own time my employer wants to implement?
What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?
What is the value of α and β in a triangle?
Why don't programming languages automatically manage the synchronous/asynchronous problem?
Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr
How many extra stops do monopods offer for tele photographs?
Is the flow of tenses in the sentence proper?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowSequence of tenses?Sequence of tenses questionTenses in the sentenceSequnce of tenses in the sentenceback shifting of tensesSequence of tensesSequence of tenses while describing scientific findingUnsure about sequence of tenses in the following examplesequence of tenses in quoting others
"The fine particles of grief which would flow out from the people he sat and listened to and helplessly tried to comfort, seeped inside him and there they had continued to envelop his heart, letting less inside or get outside with each layer that formed on top."
I would like to know if the tenses of "would flow," "seeped," and "had continued" work properly.
And aside from grammar, is the sentence too complex, tedious, or long to be emotive?
Thanks to all who would look into it.
past-tense sequence-of-tenses
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
add a comment |
"The fine particles of grief which would flow out from the people he sat and listened to and helplessly tried to comfort, seeped inside him and there they had continued to envelop his heart, letting less inside or get outside with each layer that formed on top."
I would like to know if the tenses of "would flow," "seeped," and "had continued" work properly.
And aside from grammar, is the sentence too complex, tedious, or long to be emotive?
Thanks to all who would look into it.
past-tense sequence-of-tenses
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44
add a comment |
"The fine particles of grief which would flow out from the people he sat and listened to and helplessly tried to comfort, seeped inside him and there they had continued to envelop his heart, letting less inside or get outside with each layer that formed on top."
I would like to know if the tenses of "would flow," "seeped," and "had continued" work properly.
And aside from grammar, is the sentence too complex, tedious, or long to be emotive?
Thanks to all who would look into it.
past-tense sequence-of-tenses
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
"The fine particles of grief which would flow out from the people he sat and listened to and helplessly tried to comfort, seeped inside him and there they had continued to envelop his heart, letting less inside or get outside with each layer that formed on top."
I would like to know if the tenses of "would flow," "seeped," and "had continued" work properly.
And aside from grammar, is the sentence too complex, tedious, or long to be emotive?
Thanks to all who would look into it.
past-tense sequence-of-tenses
past-tense sequence-of-tenses
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
asked Mar 20 at 18:19
PsyPhiPsyPhi
32
32
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44
add a comment |
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Since sat is not a transitive verb here, the sentence is lacking a prepositional phrase if we're strict about it.
... sat beside and listened to
or something like that. But if you give the author the artistic license to treat the verb as "sit-and-listen-to" then it's grammatical; it is an often-used colloquialism.
The people I sit and listen to all say the same thing: it costs too much.
or compare:
The people I go and visit were not at home.
The drivers of the delivery vans the kids run and jump on curse "the little bastards".
The sequence you ask about is fine.
The fine particles ... seeped inside him
and there they had continued to envelop his heart
The relative clause "which would flow ...." is not relevant to that sequence.
P.S. I did find this a little jarring:
... letting less inside or [less] get outside
since "inside" and "get outside" are not quite parallel structures.
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
|
show 5 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490607%2fis-the-flow-of-tenses-in-the-sentence-proper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Since sat is not a transitive verb here, the sentence is lacking a prepositional phrase if we're strict about it.
... sat beside and listened to
or something like that. But if you give the author the artistic license to treat the verb as "sit-and-listen-to" then it's grammatical; it is an often-used colloquialism.
The people I sit and listen to all say the same thing: it costs too much.
or compare:
The people I go and visit were not at home.
The drivers of the delivery vans the kids run and jump on curse "the little bastards".
The sequence you ask about is fine.
The fine particles ... seeped inside him
and there they had continued to envelop his heart
The relative clause "which would flow ...." is not relevant to that sequence.
P.S. I did find this a little jarring:
... letting less inside or [less] get outside
since "inside" and "get outside" are not quite parallel structures.
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
|
show 5 more comments
Since sat is not a transitive verb here, the sentence is lacking a prepositional phrase if we're strict about it.
... sat beside and listened to
or something like that. But if you give the author the artistic license to treat the verb as "sit-and-listen-to" then it's grammatical; it is an often-used colloquialism.
The people I sit and listen to all say the same thing: it costs too much.
or compare:
The people I go and visit were not at home.
The drivers of the delivery vans the kids run and jump on curse "the little bastards".
The sequence you ask about is fine.
The fine particles ... seeped inside him
and there they had continued to envelop his heart
The relative clause "which would flow ...." is not relevant to that sequence.
P.S. I did find this a little jarring:
... letting less inside or [less] get outside
since "inside" and "get outside" are not quite parallel structures.
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
|
show 5 more comments
Since sat is not a transitive verb here, the sentence is lacking a prepositional phrase if we're strict about it.
... sat beside and listened to
or something like that. But if you give the author the artistic license to treat the verb as "sit-and-listen-to" then it's grammatical; it is an often-used colloquialism.
The people I sit and listen to all say the same thing: it costs too much.
or compare:
The people I go and visit were not at home.
The drivers of the delivery vans the kids run and jump on curse "the little bastards".
The sequence you ask about is fine.
The fine particles ... seeped inside him
and there they had continued to envelop his heart
The relative clause "which would flow ...." is not relevant to that sequence.
P.S. I did find this a little jarring:
... letting less inside or [less] get outside
since "inside" and "get outside" are not quite parallel structures.
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
Since sat is not a transitive verb here, the sentence is lacking a prepositional phrase if we're strict about it.
... sat beside and listened to
or something like that. But if you give the author the artistic license to treat the verb as "sit-and-listen-to" then it's grammatical; it is an often-used colloquialism.
The people I sit and listen to all say the same thing: it costs too much.
or compare:
The people I go and visit were not at home.
The drivers of the delivery vans the kids run and jump on curse "the little bastards".
The sequence you ask about is fine.
The fine particles ... seeped inside him
and there they had continued to envelop his heart
The relative clause "which would flow ...." is not relevant to that sequence.
P.S. I did find this a little jarring:
... letting less inside or [less] get outside
since "inside" and "get outside" are not quite parallel structures.
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
edited Mar 22 at 10:12
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
answered Mar 20 at 18:40
TRomanoTRomano
17.9k22248
17.9k22248
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
|
show 5 more comments
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
Thank you for your comments on the grammar. About the phrase, it was meant to be as "letting less (come) inside or (letting less) get outside." It's fine in that case right?
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:39
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
It's not ungrammatical even as is, just a stylistic judgment. It would read more smoothly IMO if you didn't omit the verb "come" or if you did omit the verb "get".
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:45
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
I just didn't add anything before 'inside' because I wanted it to have a little poetic effect and not be very straight forward.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 19:48
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Not sure why you'd be aiming to be other than straightforward when you're presenting an extended metaphor of sedimentary seepage.
– TRomano
Mar 20 at 19:51
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
Then it would be even more straightforward if I would describe what is not coming inside or getting outside; it's not the grief, which keeps getting in.
– PsyPhi
Mar 20 at 20:00
|
show 5 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f490607%2fis-the-flow-of-tenses-in-the-sentence-proper%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
I can’t understand what this sentence means. How can “grief” be divided into particles, and how can the envelope a heart? This sentence needs to be reduced or divided into three parts in order to be clear. Btw, if you need to ask “is this ok?” it’s usually an indicator that something isn’t ok, and should be scrapped or rewritten from scratch.
– michael_timofeev
Mar 22 at 16:07
Emotions aren't exactly solid objects that can be broken down into smaller particles. It's a metaphor. The readers' imagination would make emotions exist as particles, drops, sheets, whatever. If people can imagine the existence of a God then they can surely imagine a much less preposterous existence of particles of grief.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 13:35
if you have to explain what your writing means, then the writing wasn’t successful. Stick with images that make sense to your readers. The metaphors should pull people into the story not make them say “huh?”
– michael_timofeev
Mar 25 at 13:38
It also means that maybe the reader can't or isn't willing to stretch their imagination to that extent. And I don't have a problem with it. I am not going to baby them by using simple words and sentences. Admittedly, the sentence might be excessive enough that the emotion itself might get lost in the sentence. So making it less complicated could be a necessity, but the metaphor isn't a problem for me.
– PsyPhi
Mar 25 at 19:44