Subject, verb. Repeat as necessary.

I find some authors harder to read than others, because the way my brain works when I read. After the subject, I assume the first word that can be a verb is a verb. Many authors, though, have a style that doesn’t fit this way of reading, forcing me to re-read sentences. (Bruce R. McConkie is a big one when it comes to this. I would be finished with his Messiah series if it weren’t for the pain his writing style gives me.)

Today while reading “Dare to Prepare” by Ronald M. Shapiro, I read this sentence: “Not only do Ray and his department [end of subject, next comes verb] head [a verb meaning “to lead”] peers [the direct object] face [wait, what?]….” I thought he was going somewhere like this: “Not only do Ray and his department head peers into the next century, blah blah blah, jibber-jabber, jibber-jabber, clang clang clang.” Then I had to start over and read: “Not only do Ray and his department head peers [end of subject, next comes verb] face the normal budgetary tug-of-war that define [sic] any such entity; they also are highly competitive achievers at the pinnacle of their game” (209).

Of course, the subject-verb disagreement might not have been too helpful with this sentence, either. The tug-of-war defines, not define. But my point is that the word “head” can be a noun or a verb, and some authors use words like that indiscriminately. “The model and designer drug people annoy me.” The subject is “model and designer drug people,” but it could just as easily be “model and designer,” and they’re drugging people. It’s not until the sentence is nearly over that it becomes clear what’s happening. Inserting the word “that” before “annoy” and the subject goes from poisoners to heroes. Or, possibly, if you’re listening to a Missourian, insert the word “what” and the subject is dragging people: “The model and designer drug people what annoy me.”