0

Can I say the sentence below about a girl who runs at her house and then hits her head and it bleeds,

She hit her head on the door and there was blood.

I'm not sure about this sentence firstly because "there was". Can it mean "it bled"? And should I say "there was blood on it" or "there was blood on her head" instead?

  • "there was blood" is fine. The reader will assume that she bled, from her head, as a result of hitting it on the door. – Michael Harvey Nov 19 '19 at 20:02
1

It is a correct, but dramatic way of writing. It makes the narrator seem distant and detached from the events. It is dehumanising, since most people have an emotional response to seeing someone get injured, but this narrator seems disconnected.

This can be good writing if this is the impression you want to give. But if not you can say "she started to bleed". Using "she" as the subject is humanising. We are writing about the person, not the blood.

| improve this answer | |
1

Yes. That is an absolutely fine way to say it. If I was saying it, I might say: "She hit her head on the door and cut herself," but the way you said it is perfectly good.

| improve this answer | |
0

That works, but the reader could interpret that the blood was already there, even though you're trying to say that she caused the blood. Instead, to create more of a cause-and-effect relationship, say "After she hit her head on the door, it got stained with blood" or simply "She hit her head on the door and bled". Saying "it bled" could imply that the door bled, even though that wouldn't make sense.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.