Current state of punctuation.

[Codger]

I'm reading a novel by Cormac McCarthy ( (c) 2005), and am really enjoying it. There is one problem, and it's not limited to this author. Rules I struggled to learn about proper punctuation are completely ignored. I find it distracting to read, and have not adjusted to the "deficiencies": no dialog quotation marks, uneven use of apostrophes (dont, wont, goin,I'm, it's), incorrect use of period/question mark, e.g., "Where does he work."

Is this a new trend? Is it lazy writing? Is it sloppy editing? I'm enjoying the book, but as a writer, I'm troubled by this.

Am I being hypercritical? I must've wasted a lot of time in English class. And my teachers must have been terribly misinformed.

[maestrowork]

It might be a weird literary trend. Not sure. I know Chuck Palahniuk did that, too.

[Elizabeth Slick]

No, you are not alone!
I am also troubled, AND annoyed. Why do they get to be published when there are a dozen other authors who USE punctuation? I don't know. It is troubling.
There is another author who apparently thinks they are so "unique" that they do not have to use quotation marks when someone is speaking. There are plenty of other good books out there that use punctuation as they are supposed to. I will save my time for those.

[Jamesaritchie]

I'm reading a novel by Cormac McCarthy ( (c) 2005), and am really enjoying it. There is one problem, and it's not limited to this author. Rules I struggled to learn about proper punctuation are completely ignored. I find it distracting to read, and have not adjusted to the "deficiencies": no dialog quotation marks, uneven use of apostrophes (dont, wont, goin,I'm, it's), incorrect use of period/question mark, e.g., "Where does he work."

Is this a new trend? Is it lazy writing? Is it sloppy editing? I'm enjoying the book, but as a writer, I'm troubled by this.

Am I being hypercritical? I must've wasted a lot of time in English class. And my teachers must have been terribly misinformed.

Every last misuse of punctuation in his novels is intentional. Incredibly stupid, in my opinion, but there have always been writers who did exactly this. What this is is "art." Which, again in my opinion, should be spelled 'art. I'll leave it to you to fill in the missing letter.

You didn't waste your time in English class. Writer's like do this are no different than modern "artists" who call a pile of sugar packets art. Too, you'll always have another flock of dummies who pay a hundred thousand dollars for this same work of "art" that they could get at any supermarket for a few bucks,

[Mallika]

I'm unable to read and enjoy books that follow odd punctuation patterns. It's just too distracting and/or annoying to me.

[johnnysannie]

It's not a new trend by any means. A small number of writers have done this for decades. Read "Some Came Running" by James Jones and you'll note how he left off apostrophes too.

It may work for a few but I do my best to adhere to correct punctuation.

[Gillhoughly]

Write to the "author's" editor and offer to take up a collection to send the poor deprived fellow to a remedial class for fifth grade English.

Then mention since he's above the proper use of the language and its punctuation rules that YOU took the trouble to learn, then you're above purchasing/reading any more of his books. If you want to see that sort of thing you can always buy from Publish America.

Money. The bottom line is always money.

Note--it's to his editor. I did that years back for an otherwise good writer who fell down repeatedly on his research. His next book was much better.

Oh, yeah--I sent it via snail mail ANONYMOUSLY because I intended to submit work to that house in the future. There was no need to torpedo my career by slamming another's work!

[Bufty]

I forget the name of it, but last week I flicked through a book which had been recommended by a chat show book group and discovered every paragraph was preceded by double quotes. If a character spoke, their dialogue was in single quotes within the double ones. I guess it was supposed to give the impression the whole novel was being spoken, but it seemed weird.

[Ordinary_Guy]

...Is this a new trend?
Perhaps we've entered a new, um... "period" in the use of punctuation?
Is it lazy writing? Is it sloppy editing?
I've never read the guy but I think James mentioned it's intentional.

To me, that kind of flouting of "the rules" comes off as a gimmick. Unless I know the writer is exploring some odd linguistics, the style immediately makes me suspect the writer's concept. It's one thing to be cutting edge in the hopes of being clearer or better able to communicate. It's something else to be different just for the sake of being different (which tells me the writer's central plot/theme isn't good enough to stand on it's own).

[Ordinary_Guy]

Every last misuse of punctuation in his novels is intentional. Incredibly stupid, in my opinion, but there have always been writers who did exactly this. What this is is "art." Which, again in my opinion, should be spelled 'art. I'll leave it to you to fill in the missing letter.
So you're saying the writer is just 'arting around? ;)

I have to agree. The style isn't much more than hot air and definitely not something I'd want to get behind.

So to speak.

[Anonymisty]

I find myself alarmed by the YA trend for books to be written in netspeak. (you know...the strange code people invented to make IM go quicker - things like "OMG!!!1 UR so kewl! LOLOL!!!!!!")

I work in a middle school library, and I try to read all the new books when they arrive, so I can make recommendations for the students. But when TTYL came in, I just couldn't read it. Made my head hurt.

[zarch]

Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorites. With regard to the lack of question marks ("Where does he work."): his books are about simple people. Ranchers, cowboys, rugged guys whose speaking may be so abrupt and gruff that their short questions do sound like statements.

Also, he's certainly not the only writer to (for the sake of dialect) drop the -g off of -ing words. That dialectical construct is so constant in ALL of his books, he probably doesn't feel the need to qualify it with an apostrophe anymore (or ever).

As far as the contractions and quotation marks go, who knows? Maybe his style serves as a reflection of his characters--simple, without regard to rules. Or maybe he just plain likes the way it looks on the page.

Personally, I don't put him in the same group with e.e. cummings in terms of look-at-me-everybody-I'm-different sort of rule-breaking.

Cormac McCarthy is an established and excellent author. He certainly doesn't rely on gimmicks.

[rwam]

In general, maybe it's a form of arrogance. But I think there's an exception. For instance, if it's a narration and the narrator is a child or only semi-literate and the reader wouldn't expect correct punctuation.

Otherwise, I find it very annoying.

[HapiSofi]

Some authors have enough clout to get away with artsy punctuation. That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[priceless1]

No, you are not alone!
I am also troubled, AND annoyed. Why do they get to be published when there are a dozen other authors who USE punctuation? I don't know. It is troubling.
There is another author who apparently thinks they are so "unique" that they do not have to use quotation marks when someone is speaking. There are plenty of other good books out there that use punctuation as they are supposed to. I will save my time for those. This is a case where it takes two to rumba. We've had a number of manuscripts cross our desks that lack quotation marks and punctuation. These haven't been mainstream works, but rather innovative literature. Writers in this genre differentiate themselves with a particular style of writing and the lack of punctuation. This is not a mistake, but is done on purpose. It's, uh, art. Whether the manuscript is allowed to remain this way is ultimately up to the editing team.

Personally, it drives me insane because I come from the old school where your paper was lined in red ink if you forgot a period or comma. To see this particular aberration entering mainstream fiction is, I feel, a huge mistake because we're already suffering from a dumbing down trend. If anything, blame the editors for supporting the movement.

[Soccer Mom]

Whew! This just pushed all my buttons. This is my number one pet peeve. Punctuation is not about art! @#*! It is about communicating. The rules of punctuation are designed to help clarify a writer's meaning. The placement of a comma can completely change a sentence's meaning.

FYI- They aren't blazing a new trail at all. A New England writer (Timothy Dexter, 1747-1806) wrote a book without any punctuation. That's right. A Pickle for Knowing did not contain a single period or comma.

A later edition featured a page filled with nothing but punction. The concept was that a reader could take the punctuation and use it as he saw fit. So much for this new trailblazing art. I first heard about this in one of my Pocket Idiot Guide to Grammar books. (I highly recommend this as a handy reference to keep beside the desk.)

I say just write the darn thing and punctuate so I can figure out what the @#$! you mean.

[kbax]

I think it's a mistake to write/publish like that. Isn't the whole point to captivate the reader, to involve him/her in the book? If I pick something up and start reading, and I get 10 words into a paragraph before I realize that this is a character speaking, that jolts me right OUT.

To me, it seems incredibly counterproductive.

[priceless1]

I think it's a mistake to write/publish like that. Isn't the whole point to captivate the reader, to involve him/her in the book? If I pick something up and start reading, and I get 10 words into a paragraph before I realize that this is a character speaking, that jolts me right OUT.

To me, it seems incredibly counterproductive.
kbax, dialog is put on a separate line and will sometimes have an en dash or two dashes to signify that it's dialog.
Example:
--I dont care what you think punctuation is so five minutes ago

[zarch]

Look folks, I'm a English teacher, so I am annoyed by poor mechanics (born of ignorance) just as much as anyone else. I really don't think McCarthy is trying to be trendy or is arrogant.

What about sentence fragments? I use 'em in my fiction. In fact, they are sometimes important where my style is concerned. And I am far from alone (lots and lots and lots of writers use fragments). And in the hierarchy of writing errors, fragments rank WAY above punctuation errors.

And another "trend" I'm noticing: failure to insert a comma between two independent clauses. LOTS of writers are getting away with this, too.

Sometimes punctuation is intrusive. If I'm submitting a piece to Shakespeare Quarterly, everything is rulebook perfect. To Glimmer Train? Maybe not. Depends on what exactly I'm trying to say. See all these frangments?

Ah, whatever. At any rate, to suggest that Cormac McCarthy and his editor don't realize they are publishing books with incorrect punctuation is silly.

[maestrowork]

I think in many cases, it's not really about "art" or being "different." It's more about "hey, look at me. I am so clever and so different and artistic and avant garde and I don't play by the rules." It's more about the writer than the writing. The story comes second.

[veinglory]

I don't think sentence fragments are the same thing. They are pretty conventional in fiction. There is also a lot of leeway between the 'lot's of commas' and 'only a few commas' crowd--an so on.

But not marking dialogue? What exactly is the point?

[Soccer Mom]

I don't mind fragments and some grammatical errors. Especially if it is First Person POV. You are hearing someone's thoughts. But I hate trying to be arty and different just for the sake of being arty and different. It jars me out of the story and makes it difficult for me to read. I'm used to seeing quotes in quotation marks. Anything else bugs me. If it is hard for a reader to figure out what is going on or if it takes the reader out of the story, then what is the point? I think a lot of it is very self-indulgant. Like Maestro said. "Look at me. I'm an artist."

[Codger]

Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorites. With regard to the lack of question marks ("Where does he work."): his books are about simple people. Ranchers, cowboys, rugged guys whose speaking may be so abrupt and gruff that their short questions do sound like statements.

Also, he's certainly not the only writer to (for the sake of dialect) drop the -g off of -ing words. That dialectical construct is so constant in ALL of his books, he probably doesn't feel the need to qualify it with an apostrophe anymore (or ever).

As far as the contractions and quotation marks go, who knows? Maybe his style serves as a reflection of his characters--simple, without regard to rules. Or maybe he just plain likes the way it looks on the page.

Personally, I don't put him in the same group with e.e. cummings in terms of look-at-me-everybody-I'm-different sort of rule-breaking.

Cormac McCarthy is an established and excellent author. He certainly doesn't rely on gimmicks.

There are always fans who serve as apologists for their favoite artists. This does not mean that their idols are right.

As I said, I'm enjoying the book, but my enjoyment is somewhat diminished by his erratic punctuation. I don't think I'll read any more of his stuff. There are many authors who think highly enough of language that they faithfully follow the generally accepted rules in order to effectively communicate their ideas.

I'm certain that strict adherence to the "rules" happens when editors cease being enablers of the "I gotta be me" authors, and fulfill their duty as final arbiter of content. If they are intimidated by big name authors, then they serve no function other than that of a rubber stamp.

It's probably awkward for an editor to cross grammatical swords with top selling writers. I guess that literature has its prima donnas. Maybe publishers should just save the money and not assign anyone to edit authors who have sold a million (or some large number of) books. Send 'em straight to press.

[priceless1]

I think in many cases, it's not really about "art" or being "different." It's more about "hey, look at me. I am so clever and so different and artistic and avant garde and I don't play by the rules." It's more about the writer than the writing. The story comes second.
That may or may not be true, Ray. Ultimately it's the decision and general philosophy of the editing team as to what types of editing rules they'll abide by. This includes sentence structure, such as the use of fragments, and punctuation. I consented to read one manuscript that had no punctuation, and it nearly blinded me. Never again.

[Summonere]

keend oof leeik doz whu spil “dialogue” “dialog”
is |
notter |
sumfeeng |
misting |
nuh? |
suppidat |
fo shizzle |
|
v
(Peevis, my pet)

(I shIll right a hole nAvel in this proze
dowwit curls hair from yor feet
to the boughtums uff yor toes
)

.

-------------------------------------
after application of clarity bifocals
-------------------------------------

I merely iterate what others have already said. Art. Yes. An attempt to suggest upon the page what cannot be accurately conveyed there.

The balancing act pits what is expected against what you can get away with, and what makes sense.

[Ordinary_Guy]

Sometimes punctuation is intrusive. If I'm submitting a piece to Shakespeare Quarterly, everything is rulebook perfect. To Glimmer Train? Maybe not. Depends on what exactly I'm trying to say. See all these frangments?

Ah, whatever. At any rate, to suggest that Cormac McCarthy and his editor don't realize they are publishing books with incorrect punctuation is silly.
I don't think anyone is under the impression they didn't realize it

...And you're right, the writing style is best adapted to the venue that will show it.

However, where these writers are free to express their style, readers are free to not like it. Some, obviously, do like it – and bless that crowd for giving the unpunctuated writers a fanbase.

For the rest of us (at least those that have a negative opinion of it), the unpunctuated novelty is a hinderance. Instead of conveying the simplicity of a character's speech, it muddles meaning by taking away our usual tools used for judging cadence of speech.

It's like building a house without using nails. Sure, you can stack wood just right and maybe even score 15 minutes of recognition from the arthouse (outhouse?) crowd. If that's what you're aiming for, great! OTOH, if you use nails to join the wood together, you've got a structure that's going to both last longer and find a wider audience.

As for fragments, I can see the comparison of flouting the grammatical rules – but linguistically, it's apples and oranges. Even a series of simple, declarative statements – including run-on statements – can still be bracketed by quotation marks to set it aside from the rest of the narrative. Fragments, though, are naturalistic. While I can't quote you poll numbers, I'd be willing to bet that most folk take fragments in stride (we think and speak in fragments). As long as punctuation sets the fragment apart...

[zarch]

If my students saw me now...defending a writer's right not to punctuate. I still think he has his reasons for most of what he does. The lack of quotation marks? Who knows. All I do know is the editor makes the final call, there.

And for crying out loud, hubris is exaggerated pride. It's a fatal flaw. Cormac McCarthy is not doomed because he jacks around with punctuation.

His Cities of the Plain is the only book to date that's brought a tear to my eye.

Regards,
Zarch the Cormac McCarthy apologist

[katiemac]

I forget the name of it, but last week I flicked through a book which had been recommended by a chat show book group and discovered every paragraph was preceded by double quotes. If a character spoke, their dialogue was in single quotes within the double ones. I guess it was supposed to give the impression the whole novel was being spoken, but it seemed weird.

This style drives me up the wall. It bothers me even more than messing with punctuation. I think I've read enough poorly contructed emails and IM conversations to be able to deal with some "artsy" punctuation--although it's certainly a test of wills when it comes to a whole novel--but the constant quotations? They make my eye twitch.

[Mallika]

I find myself alarmed by the YA trend for books to be written in netspeak. (you know...the strange code people invented to make IM go quicker - things like "OMG!!!1 UR so kewl! LOLOL!!!!!!")

I dislike netspeak even on the internet. I cringe when I see someone write something "r u ok?" instead of "are you okay?"


Example:
--I dont care what you think punctuation is so five minutes ago

Funnily enough, this is exactly how Spanish books (at least the ones I've seen in Spain) treat dialogue. I'm not used to this format, so even if my limited Spanish skill suddenly transformed into native-level fluency I'd find those books awkward to read in the beginning.

[pdr]

I go for grammatical punctuation any day, yet I can't help thinking of e e cummings and what he did for poetry by ignoring certain aspects of punctuation.

[veinglory]

IMHO cummings' poetry was great but isn't the missing link of poetic evolution. He is embedded in a cohort who experimented in similar ways.

[blackbird]

I've read a lot of great novels that do not use traditional quotation marks. These novels were skillfully written and did not need them; I was never lost or confused. Granted, they may have gone through many drafts to arrive at that stage of polish, but all I'm saying is that having read so many great novels without traditional quotation marks I have begun to question the age-old reliance on them. On the other hand, I've read many bad novels WITH quotation marks that often left me utterly confused as to who was speaking.

[Codger]

I've read a lot of great novels that do not use traditional quotation marks. These novels were skillfully written and did not need them; I was never lost or confused. Granted, they may have gone through many drafts to arrive at that stage of polish, but all I'm saying is that having read so many great novels without traditional quotation marks I have begun to question the age-old reliance on them. On the other hand, I've read many bad novels WITH quotation marks that often left me utterly confused as to who was speaking.

Bad writing cannot be saved by good punctuation, but good writing can be destroyed by bad punctuation.

[zarch]

I forget the name of it, but last week I flicked through a book which had been recommended by a chat show book group and discovered every paragraph was preceded by double quotes. If a character spoke, their dialogue was in single quotes within the double ones. I guess it was supposed to give the impression the whole novel was being spoken, but it seemed weird.

Was it The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova? If so, there are several narrators, and when anyone but the original narrator is speaking (actually telling the story), she (Kostova) quotes the narration. That is mechanically correct...and it's also mechanically correct to use single quotes to indicate dialogue within quoted narration.

Even if it wasn't the Kostova book, I suspect that's what you were seeing.

[Cath]

FYI- They aren't blazing a new trail at all. A New England writer (Timothy Dexter, 1747-1806) wrote a book without any punctuation. That's right. A Pickle for Knowing did not contain a single period or comma.

Apparently Wuthering Heights was also written (only slightly later than the above) without any punctuation - I wonder how well known that would be now if someone hadn't gone through and edited it in somewhere in the mid-1800's.

Just goes to show these new folks are hardly ground-breaking!

[Higgins]

I dislike netspeak even on the internet. I cringe when I see someone write something "r u ok?" instead of "are you okay?"



Funnily enough, this is exactly how Spanish books (at least the ones I've seen in Spain) treat dialogue. I'm not used to this format, so even if my limited Spanish skill suddenly transformed into native-level fluency I'd find those books awkward to read in the beginning.

Especially for emphasis and quotation (for example in French or German texts). James Joyce used some annoying conventions. Seems to me you want your reader to get through your text and have an imaginative experience with a minimum of fuss, so you should use the most common current conventions. Iain Banks wrote some very oddly deconventionalized language in Feersum Ingine, and it was kind of annoying even though I think Iain Banks is the greatest.

[blacbird]

Every last misuse of punctuation in his novels is intentional. Incredibly stupid, in my opinion, but there have always been writers who did exactly this. What this is is "art." Which, again in my opinion, should be spelled 'art. I'll leave it to you to fill in the missing letter.

I completely agree, and I otherwise think McCarthy is a great writer. But this fetish is nothing more than a gimmick, as far as I can see. I've even gone so far as to type a typical page from one of his novels and re-punctuate it in normal fashion. Guess what? It didn't detract from the power or meaning of the passage one angstrom. So what's the point?

It's worse when a writer of lesser ability than McCarthy does it. I'll put up with it from him, but not from many. Life is too short.

caw.

[icerose]

I don't understand the lack of puncuation either, or the dumbing down of books for the lowest common denomitator.

Shouldn't we, as writers, be working to bring up the lowest point through our writing? If they continually are fed bad examples, what then are they going to exemplify?

It reminds me of those writers who think capitalizations are merely a style preference, one in which they don't have to follow.

[RG570]

This is strange, because everyone's accusing these guys of dumbing down their work, but I see it as the exact opposite.

I don't really much care that it's "gimmicky" or not. That might be the case with some, but I think all the examples in this thread have been honest works of art. Self indulgent, yes, but that's not a bad thing.

I just think that slamming these types of styles based solely on the details of their mechanics is like pooh-poohing a surrealist painting of a horse because it's not a photorealistic depiction of a horse.

Of course, I am one of those "dummies" who likes things like stacked sugar packets and free jazz. I see no reason to say you must only have kitsch, or have self indulgent art; there's room for all of it.

[janetbellinger]

I think it's important the author's meaning be understood by the reader. Unfortunately, that can be impossible without some use of punctuation. I do not like to see shortened net speak either and it's not exactly original new ground.

[Carrie in PA]

Our society as a whole is "dumbing down". It's horrid.

I love punctuation. :tongue

ETA: I despise netspeak. My DH uses it when we're instant messaging and it drives me NUTS!!

[blacbird]

Self indulgent, yes, but that's not a bad thing.

Usually, it is.

caw

[janetbellinger]

RG, if a book is good enough, I'd overlook the punctuation abnormalities. Unfortunately, usually it is not. There are no quick fixes. It all has to come from the writing.

[Aubrey]

While I love an author to put his or her signature on their writing, I don't see why this have to be accomplished by making it look like you forgot every grammar rule you ever learned. With most writers it's pretty easy to see their stamp just from the style of writing. It speaks for itself, why make it shout by using strange or no punctuation?

[janetbellinger]

There are occasions when it's appropriate, even advisable to use punctuation to change a word. For instance, once the editor of a local newspaper changed the word oppossum to 'possum, in an article I'd written. The editor made the change in the interest of rhythm in the sentence and I think he was right to do so.

[pdr]

IMHO cummings' poetry was great but isn't the missing link of poetic evolution. He is embedded in a cohort who experimented in similar ways.

I'll call you on that, veinglory. Who were his fascinating, experimenting American poet cohorts?

A lot of poets tinkered but I think ee was the only one who could and did throw away all the rules and still make the words dance. And not only dance, but make sense.

I've watched 18 year old jocks read ee and enjoy poetry for the first time.

[Nickie]

It's definitely a new trend. I often 'talk' online with young people, and their use of language is completely different from mine (although I'm adapting!). I don't mind to use this 'internet' language when chatting, but as a publisher and editor I won't allow sloppy language in any of the books published.


Nickie