Emily Bronte compound-complex sentence question

Natalie Fay · May 10, 2011

Hey people! I'm new! And I'm looking forward to meet you all

So, to the point. I have learned that you can't put a comma between two main clauses, because that would consist on a ugly and stinky comma splice. Even if you stuff some independent clause in the middle — still the comma is inappropriate. However, on Wuthering Heights there is an excerpt that intrigued me:

"Mr. Linton summoned me, and with great difficulty, and after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation, but she was all bewildered, she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody."

We have more then one main clause here, and everything is separated by commas. How can that be?

Your help is greatly appreciated.
Thank you.

maestrowork · May 10, 2011

Well... the conjunctions "and" and "but" connect the clauses:

Mr. Linton summoned me,
and
with great difficulty
and
after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation
but
she was all bewildered

Up that this point it's all okay -- just a long sentence. But I have a problem with the last part, because it looks very much like a comma splice to me there. It's missing an "and," it seems, or a semicolon:

... she was all bewildered; she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody.

Xelebes · May 10, 2011

Many older books have problems with grammar. It's not like they were being written and edited by grammaticasters.

Lillie · May 10, 2011

She's Emily Bronte.
She can do what she wants...

Natalie Fay · May 10, 2011

It is grammatically incorrect, but she is Emily Bronte so that makes it okay. Alright. Thank you guys

Terie · May 11, 2011

Natalie Fay said:
It is grammatically incorrect, but she is Emily Bronte so that makes it okay. Alright. Thank you guys

It's less 'she's Emily Bronte' and more that she was writing in an era before many of our current grammar rules were codified.

Also? Brits care a heck of a lot less about comma splices. Oxford's reference manuals say they're wrong, but they're extremely common over here in all kinds of writing, from very formal to highly informal.

But the main takeaway here is not to use 19th-century writing style as a guide to current usage unless you're intentionally mimicking 19th-century style.

Samantha's_Song · May 11, 2011

I'm a Brit and recently read Jane Eyre, I was appalled by the writing, don't even get me started on what I thought of the story. Anyway, English schooling doesn't teach grammar or good punctuation (I never even knew what grammar was until I started teaching myself French). so if it was dismal in the 1960's and 70's, when I was at school, it was obviously bad when the classics were written too.

Bufty · May 11, 2011

That's not a fair comparison, Sam.

It's comparing apples and oranges.

When Jane Eyre was written, Bronte's style of writing was perfectly acceptable and in tune with the grammar of her day. We are talking about 1847.

Samantha's_Song said:
I'm a Brit and recently read Jane Eyre, I was appalled by the writing, don't even get me started on what I thought of the story. Anyway, English schooling doesn't teach grammar or good punctuation (I never even knew what grammar was until I started teaching myself French). so if it was dismal in the 1960's and 70's, when I was at school, it was obviously bad when the classics were written too.

Samantha's_Song · May 11, 2011

I'm not particularly picking on her grammar, like I said I never even knew what it was until around 12 years ago, the only reason I'd actually heard the word before was because there were grammar schools, I didn't know it had anything to do with actual language. Some of the punctuation didn't make any sense to me, I'd have to re-read parts over again to get it. But I'm mostly talking of great big paragraphs of dialogue, especially by Rochester, never any breaks for bodily movements etc. If it came out now, instead of back then, I'd have hated to be her beta reader.

Bufty said:
That's not a fair comparison, Sam.

You are comparing apples and oranges.

When Jane Eyre was written, Bronte's style of writing was perfectly acceptable and in tune with the grammar of her day. You are talking of 1847.

Samantha's_Song · May 11, 2011

I will give Charlotte her due though, she did make me cry when Jane's friend died at the boarding school. Only one other book has ever done that to me.

Jamesaritchie · May 11, 2011

The short answer is that a conjunction can join what a comma cannot. This sentence jars our modern sense of what good style should be, but it really violates no rules of grammar, other than needing one more conjunction.

This is not my style, but even if I were to write it today it would be: "Mr. Linton summoned me, and with great difficulty, and after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation, but she was all bewildered, AND she sighed, moaned, and knew nobody."

This sentence is all one statement, all on a subject, and the conjunctions make it perfectly grammatical.

maestrowork · May 11, 2011

Without the last conjunction (or a semicolon), though, it's a comma splice and thus is grammatically incorrect.

mscelina · May 11, 2011

If I got this sentence in a manuscript today, I would flag it and ask the author to rework it.

But when I read this sentence in its original form, it doesn't bother me at all. Bronte wasn't writing according to modern grammatical rules, therefore I don't apply those rules to her fiction. Just makes it easier all around.

maestrowork · May 11, 2011

mscelina said:
But when I read this sentence in its original form, it doesn't bother me at all. Bronte wasn't writing according to modern grammatical rules, therefore I don't apply those rules to her fiction. Just makes it easier all around.

But how did grammar rules differ then? I'm not sure I buy that argument. I was reading Pride & Prejudice (Austen died one year before Bronte was born), and her grammar was fine even for today's standards. There were some stylistic elements that are very different, but not grammar. The only thing that jumped out at me was her use of the semicolon, which did not adhere to today's rules.

Dawnstorm · May 11, 2011

maestrowork said:
Without the last conjunction (or a semicolon), though, it's a comma splice and thus is grammatically incorrect.

A semicolon would mess up the structure, though, since the clause attaches to the "but", which is itself separated by a comma from the rest of a sentence. So having a stronger separator within the but-section isn't really a solution, IMO. (I'd actually defend the sentence as it is even today. I'm fine with the comma splice.)

Natalie Fay · May 11, 2011

mscelina said:
If I got this sentence in a manuscript today, I would flag it and ask the author to rework it.

I believe that is the point: nowadays it would be flagged, which implies the sentence is not correct (for today standards if you prefer to put that way).

But let's keep the sentence in mind. I noticed you guys corrected the "she signed" placing a semi-colon or a conjunction, and I agree. But... in my opinion there are three independent clauses:

Mr. Linton summoned me
we managed to restore her to her sensation
she sighed

Do you think "we managed to restore her to her sensation" is okay without any conjunction or semi-colon? Or maybe put a dash? I like the dash better in this case.

"Mr. Linton summoned me, and with great difficulty, and after resorting to many means — we managed to restore her to her sensation, but she was all bewildered; she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody."

maestrowork · May 11, 2011

As an editor, I'd probably rewrite it:

Mr. Linton summoned me. With great difficulty and after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation. But she was all bewildered; she sighed, moaned, and knew nobody.

maestrowork · May 11, 2011

Dawnstorm said:
A semicolon would mess up the structure, though, since the clause attaches to the "but", which is itself separated by a comma from the rest of a sentence. So having a stronger separator within the but-section isn't really a solution, IMO. (I'd actually defend the sentence as it is even today. I'm fine with the comma splice.)

You're right... the structure is f!#@ (pardon my French). Maybe an em-dash or a colon before "she sighed"?

I just don't like the comma splice, especially in a long compound sentence like that. The kind of comma splice I like is for emphasis and structure (it's really just a list with the last "and" implied):

He came, he saw, he conquered.

Dawnstorm · May 11, 2011

Natalie Fay said:
"Mr. Linton summoned me, and with great difficulty, and after resorting to many means — we managed to restore her to her sensation, but she was all bewildered; she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody."

That dash doesn't really work: You're separating the adverbials from the rest of the clause with a dash (for no good reason I can discern).

maestrowork said:
Maybe an em-dash or a colon before "she sighed"?

Out of the two, I'd probably go with a colon.

Mr. Linton summoned me. With great difficulty and after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation. But she was all bewildered; she sighed, moaned, and knew nobody.

That's probably the most likely way to edit it today. Shorter sentences.

***

As for the editor role-play thing (except for mscelina, who - if I'm not mistaken - is an editor): If I were one, I'd refuse to edit the sentence before I'd seen all the script. (And having read the book: the sentence is no exception. If I'd flag that, I'd be flagging more than half the text. Basically a triangle: author style, house style, editor style.)

B.D. Eyeslie · May 11, 2011

Natalie Fay said:
Hey people! I'm new! And I'm looking forward to meet you all

"Mr. Linton summoned me, and with great difficulty, and after resorting to many means, we managed to restore her to her sensation, but she was all bewildered--she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody."

I'd go with an em dash after bewildered, leaving everything else as-is.

rugcat · May 11, 2011

but she was all bewildered, she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody.

Instead of considering the words after "all bewildered" as a separate clause indicating actions, you could look at them as a series of descriptions of her mental state and circumstance, i.e.,

She was bewildered

She sighed

She moaned

She knew nobody

I'd say it's style, not a comma splice. Putting in a semicolon after bewildered subtly changes the sentence.

Chase · May 11, 2011

Samantha's_Song said:
I'm not particularly picking on her grammar, like I said I never even knew what it was until around 12 years ago, the only reason I'd actually heard the word before was because there were grammar schools, I didn't know it had anything to do with actual language.

Good Emily imitation, Sam. At least three comma splices.

maestrowork said:
Without the last conjunction (or a semicolon), though, it's a comma splice and thus is grammatically incorrect.

Whatever the style back then, without changing words, Maestro has the best punctuation fix for now.

Dawnstorm · May 11, 2011

rugcat said:
but she was all bewildered, she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody.

Instead of considering the words after "all bewildered" as a separate clause indicating actions, you could look at them as a series of descriptions of her mental state and circumstance, i.e.,

She was bewildered

She sighed

She moaned

She knew nobody

I'd say it's style, not a comma splice. Putting in a semicolon after bewildered subtly changes the sentence.

I thought of that, but I have two problems with that interpretation:

1. Syntactically, the two ands are not repeating the subject, so they're different from the first co-ordination. If it were a co-ordination of clauses, I'd expect something like this:

"but she was all bewildered, she sighed, she moaned, and she knew nobody."

Maybe without the "and".

2. Semantically, "she was all bewildered" is on a higher level of abstraction than what follows.

To me, the comma-splice interpretation just makes more sense; I get a more natural structure out of it.

But whether it's a comma splice or not, I still think it's a matter of style. As I said, I'm fine with the comma splice. I wouldn't touch it.

MarcMcClure · May 11, 2011

Interesting

Maybe it is the "GIVE IT TO ME NOW" generation, or maybe it is something else, but the long, complex and flowery speech patterns of yesteryear are now considered 'wrong,' even though they are not.

In the 1800s, the average person left school by the end of the 6th grade, yet look at the beautiful letters written by civil war soldiers - with no computers and no spell check! We now force everyone to stay in school an additional 6 years, and yet they're coming out stupider all the time (error intended). A long, complex sentence is too "confuberifying ... me no entender ... please to make shorter sentence so brain can process."

Unfortunately, that means that a beautifully written book from 100 years ago would not get published today - or at least it would be a much more uphill battle to publication than it already is.

Look at how Kennedy spoke, how Lincoln spoke, or how MLK, Jr. spoke. For all of our advancement, those speeches, originally written for the ear of the common man, are too complex for the majority of people today. There is nothing wrong with the writer, or even what is written. The problem lies with the audience. And while we write because we enjoy writing, we must tailor our work to our audience, or an audience we shall have not.

maestrowork · May 11, 2011

rugcat said:
but she was all bewildered, she sighed, and moaned, and knew nobody.

Instead of considering the words after "all bewildered" as a separate clause indicating actions, you could look at them as a series of descriptions of her mental state and circumstance, i.e.,

She was bewildered

She sighed

She moaned

She knew nobody

I'd say it's style, not a comma splice. Putting in a semicolon after bewildered subtly changes the sentence.

Well... we can argue that, but the structure isn't parallel. I'd go with "she sighed, she moaned, she knew nobody" or even "she sighed, moaned, knew nobody." But as is now, it's a bad construct:

She was bewildered,
she sighed,
and moaned,
and knew nobody.

So it's a comma splice and not a series.

Emily Bronte compound-complex sentence question

Fear the Death Ray

Delerium ex Ennui

practical experience, FTW

Writer is as Writer does

At least I don't need backing-up

Where have the last ten years gone?

At least I don't need backing-up

At least I don't need backing-up

Fear the Death Ray

Teh doommobile, drivin' rite by you

Fear the Death Ray

punny user title, here

Fear the Death Ray

Fear the Death Ray

punny user title, here

Lost in the Fog

It Takes All of Us to End Racism

punny user title, here

Dammit Jim! I'm a doctor, not a ...

Fear the Death Ray