Okay, internet. My brain is letting me down so I need to use yours.
I’m writing a thing, and have this sentence:
The bright summer sun casts a human-shaped shadow across a coffee table.
Except, the sun doesn’t cast shadows, the thing blocking the sun (in this case a human-shaped object… spoiler alert, it’s a human) does.
So, what word should I use instead of “casts”? What word describes what the sun does in the process of casting shadows?!
Just tossing this out:
A human-shaped shadow draped itself across a coffee table in defiance of the bright summer sun.
Yeah, I may have to resort to something like that. I’m really hoping, however, for reasons of unfolding narrative to retain the basic structural order of the sentence as: {light source} {shape of shadow} {object on which shadow is cast}
The bright summer sun flung his/her shadow across the coffee table. Had he/she really gained that much weight?
If being is human do you really need to say human shaped? If not human, then maybe they appreciated how they now mirrored the human shape.
The bright summer sun stenciled a human-shaped shadow across a coffee table.
The bright summer sun made a human cast a human-shaped shadow across a coffee table.
I know, not poetic, just pragmatic.
Use a dragon-shaped shadow to add suspense.
I’m not sure I agree with your premise. There are plenty of examples of light casting shadows to be found in novels. And the dictionaries don’t preclude it.
The narrow streets were lit by gas lamps, whose soft light cast soft shadows. (Pullman)
The flames cast queer shadows on the blackened faces and brought queer lights out of the bright, living eyes. (Le Guin)
But I see your problem. So, thoughts:
Blocking the bright sunlight, a human-shaped shadow spews/sprawls/spills/slumps/flops/lolls across a coffee table.
The verb I’d use would probably indicate something about the mysterious human. I’d never use ‘falls’, for example.
I’m with @auxbuss. I do not believe this use of “cast” would be an issue for any reader.
But if it bugs you, then perhaps use the same sentence structure and substitute another, fresher verb for “cast”? E.g., @SCN’s “stenciled” above?
There’s an interesting semantic discussion to be had here. When is a word a word, and when isn’t it? An English speaker might tell you that there are no such words as “gooder” or “goodest”, despite the fact that even a young child would understand what those strings of letters meant.
The word cast in the Pullman example is just wrong. The Sun casts light. The human standing in the sun casts a shadow. The sun doesn’t cast a shadow (unless it’s blocking the light from an even brighter source, I suppose).
In the Le Guin example, the word shadow is wrong, as the example talks about dancing light being cast across blackened faces.
But… in both examples the meaning is well understood by the reader. Wrong, but understood. In my case, however, I’m not comfortable letting it stand. I’m striving to be gooder than that.
Exactly. “Stencilled” is better than “cast” but are there other options?
I tried “the blinding sun burned a human-shaped shadow…” but that implies something far more permanent and destructive.
The bright summer sun hid from a human-shaped shadow across a coffee table.
He wondered: “If that table could think, would it experience a solar eclipse now?”
Even he could stop the sun. He cast a defiant shadow across the table to prove it. Not that it touched her one way or the other.
I never write example sentences for other writers, so allow me to suggest the word “interplay”, as in the way light from the sun works in conjunction with the shape of an object to create a shadow.
PS - I applaud you for this endeavor; it’s fun (sometimes) to complete a quest for exactly the right phrase.
Hmm! I’d break all modern rules of what you shouldn’t do, but then I am old…
The bright summer sun blazed down; a human-shaped shadow was cast across the table in front of her.
But of course, even though people use the passive regularly in speech, it is deemed too difficult to understand in writing. And as for using semicolons …
Mark
Outlines (?)
. . . . . . . .
(I haven’t read the whole thread – in case it has been suggested before now.)
Alternatively:
I think that second one nails it.
Yeah, passive is the perfect solution here, if @pigfender doesn’t know what is doing the casting.
In truth, nothing “casts” a shadow, for that would require “shadowing” to be a sort of causal process, when it is not.(*) You, human, can no more cast a shadow that you can emit sight rays out of your eyes to see the world around you. The shadow is the result of the absence of a causal process (illumination) that is happening all around it.
The above might argue for the idea that “casting a shadow”, since it doesn’t literately make sense, should be thought of as a short form.
The woman [blocked the] cast [of light, resulting in] a shadow[ed area] across the table.
The sun cast [its light on all but] a shadow[ed area] across the table.
Anyway, maybe the sunlight could be said to outline the shape of a human figure?
—gr
(*) I seem to recall an old thought experiment that seemed to show one could break physical laws by making a shadow “move” faster than the speed of light. Only tangentiallt relevant here, maybe.
Breaking physical laws is impossible. Finding out one didn’t fully understand them is.
Indeed, the point of the thought experiment was precisely premised on the impossibility of breaking the laws of nature. If memory serves, the fallacy of thinking uncovered was the idea that the shadow was “moving” around in the first place — that would require there be a causal process occurring that went from one place the shadow fell to the next — and there is no such process.
Gosh, I sure hope pigfender has written that sentence by now!