The two examples you give aren't equivalent. They tell different stories.

In your first example, we look on the scene from outside. The narrator is a witness that observes what happens. In your second example, we experience the scene more from inside James. The narrator is (or almost is) the person who experiences the events.

Which version is better, depends on what effect you want to achieve.

The principle that old information should precede new information is mostly relevent for non-fiction. In non-fiction the reader seeks understanding and the text should strive to facilitate that.

In fiction, on the other hand, the reader seeks an experience. The text should therefore do whatever creates that experience for the reader. And that experience might not be ease of understanding.

I am of the opinion that your approach to understand writing (that is, the production of texts) with the help of linguistics (that is, the analysis of texts) doesn't work well. That is a constructive approach, where a text is built from syntactic elements following grammatical rules. The effect will be stiff and unnatural.

The knowledge required by writing is more like the knowledge that you acquire when you learn to ride a bike or swim. That is, a movement that you do not learn by explanation and understanding, but by emulation and feeling your body.

Writing is best learned in the same way: not consciously, but unconsiously, by reading a lot and writing a lot. And like swimming, it will eventually click, without you understanding or being able to explain exactly what you do that makes it work.

The two examples you give aren't equivalent. They tell different stories.

In your first example, we look on the scene from outside. The narrator is a witness that observes what happens. In your second example, we experience the scene more from inside James. The narrator is (or almost is) the person who experiences the events.

Which version is better, depends on what effect you want to achieve.

The principle that old information should precede new information is mostly relevent for non-fiction. In non-fiction the reader seeks understanding and the text should strive to facilitate that.

In fiction, on the other hand, the reader seeks an experience. The text should therefore do whatever creates that experience for the reader. And that experience might not be ease of understanding.

I am of the opinion that your approach to understand writing (that is, the production of texts) with the help of linguistics (that is, the analysis of texts) doesn't work well. That is a constructive approach, where a text is built from syntactic elements following grammatical rules. The effect will be stiff and unnatural.

The knowledge required by writing is more like the knowledge that you acquire when you learn to ride a bike or swim. That is, a movement that you do not learn by explanation and understanding, but by emulation and feeling your body.

Writing is best learned in the same way: not consciously, but unconsiously, by reading a lot and writing a lot. And like swimming, it will eventually click, without you understanding or being able to explain exactly what you do that makes it work.