Parentheses Question

I've seen parentheses usage handled differently in different books, so what's the correct method?

1. He ran to the park (he was running late).
2. He ran to the park. (He was running late.)
3. Some other method?

I've always used the first method.

parenthesis

The second is closer to being correct, but I wouldn't use parenthesis at all with such a sentence.

It's not so much correct vs. incorrect as it is a matter of style and placement. Using parenthesis is like having the narrator tap the reader on the shoulder to give additional information, or take a previous thought on a tangent, or preface an upcoming thought.

So i could use parenthesis like the first example (where i'd be dropping in a short phrase of clarification). It is clearly understood to be a part of the overall thought, just tacked on or stuffed in to describe the concept directly before the parenthesis, and the flow is faster as a result. However, the length here is limited as a result (since a drop-in any longer than this actually starts looking like it needs its own sentence.)

Or, i could use parenthesis like the second example, which would detach it from the main thought.

(And in so doing, i indicate that i'm completely stopping matters to say whatever i'm trying to say, or clarify whatever i've already said, or drift away from the topic. Which can be distracting to the overall flow, but very useful to express a paragraph of thought that wouldn't fit in the flow of a small chunk. [Imagine stuffing this whole paragraph in the middle of one sentence.] Also, a "but, i digress" is often put at the end, to show that the ramble is over and we're going back to the main topic. But, i digress...)

So, to answer your example... the first one might actually be better than the second, because the additional information is just a small chunk that fits well in the flow of the sentence. What makes it look "wrong" is that it's awkward.

He ran to the park (he was running late).

He ran to the park (since it was going to close).

Note the difference; the parenthesis in the first example is stretching back to describe the man, causing a jumbled flow. The second one simply tags along to describe the park, so there's no stretch and the flow is better.

And a final note is that all of my comments apply mainly to non-fiction writing. The only way i'd ever use parenthesis in a fiction novel is if it was humour; Douglas Adams is a good example. In a serious work, though, it's just too intrusive for me (as i said, it's like the narrator tapping the reader on the shoulder).

I don't know that anyone has ever accused Stephen King of setting any standard with regard to punctuation use. However, he utilized some creative uses of the parenthesis in his latest Dark Tower novel. Might be worth a look for those interested.

[throws a pie at LiamJackson] That's not fair, i don't have any copies on hand. Until i can get to a library, i'm going to be itching to know what the heck you mean.

i don't suppose you'd be willing to type out an example?

The second is closer to being correct, but I wouldn't use parenthesis at all with such a sentence.

Click to expand...

The sentence isn't actually in my novel. I thought of it on the fly.

Thanks to all for your input!

Crusader, sorry about that. My copy is on loan. I'll try to retrieve it in the next day or so, and post some examples.

Re:

=) It's very generous of you to take my silliness seriously. But really, if it's an imposition, then there's no rush. Do you happen to recall roughly whereabouts the example(s) occur, in terms of scene? i could then find 'em myself in a library copy...

Re: ( )

arainsb, both examples you gave are correct, but parentheses aren't likely to work well in a novel. In expository prose, they're most commonly used to enclose explanations, background info, caveats, that sort of thing–in other words, departures from the main narrative. In a novel, if a sentence or part of one departs from the main narrative, who can be saying it? Only the author. Having the author turn toward the camera and address the reader went out of style when authors stopped writing "And now, dear reader, I must beg your indulgence as we avert our eyes from our virtuous heroine, for she will shortly occupy herself in removing her garments and stepping into the bath."*

If it isn't the author speaking, it's the narrator, and we're in infodump land.

--------

*Hmm. Did such subtlety appeal to readers of the day in the same way that "Woo-hoo! She's naked" would have?

Re: ( )

Prerenthesis is a separate sentence and must carry it's own punctuation. It isn't just a matter of style. It should only be used when mecessary, and not when the subject of the sentence is close enough to that of the sentence outside prenthesis to merge the two as a single sentence, or when it can stand as a sentence not in parenthesis.

A sentence in parenthesis is an interlude, a way of adding a separate fact on a subject that may be interesting, but that isn't actually needed, and that departs from the subject matter. If you can write:

He ran to the park because he was running late. Or, "Because he was running late, he ran to the park" you don't need and shouldn't use parenthesis.

Parenthesis should only be used when the writer wants to depart completely from the main subject of the sentence outside the parenthesis.

But when parenthesis is used, it must follow the same rules of punctuation as any other sentence.

Parenthesis can be be used in a novel, and frequently is, but it must be used by the narrator and not the writer.

Re: ()

From Strunk & White:

"A sentence containing an expression in parenthesis is punctuated outside the the last mark of parenthesis exactly as if the parenthetical expression were absent. The expression within the marks is punctuated as if it stood by itself, except that the final stop is omitted unless it is a question mark or an exclaimation point.

I went to her house yesterday (my third attempt to see her), but she had left town.

He declares (and why should we doubt his good faith?) that he is now certain of success.

(When a wholly detached expression or sentence is parenthesized, the final stop comes before the last mark of parenthesis.)"

Re: ()

What ever happened to em dashes? They do a great job of setting off part of a sentence, and they're less intrusive than parens. They've become less common within my lifetime.

Re: ( )

I think the fault here is to take something that can quite easily be considered a stylistic choice, i.e. authorial intrusion, and make it into a matter of formal aesthetic. Since the whole matter rests on whether authorial intrusion is bad or good, it is already doomed to failure, as it cannot be proven or disproven.

However, it can be argued whether it is a difficult technique to pull off, and under what conditions it may succeed.

The biggest thing to be aware of is that by allowing authorial voice to enter into the narrative at any point, you as the author have formally announced to the reader that the story is being told to them, and not experienced first hand as though the reader were witnessing it themselves.

One of the advantages of authorial intrusion is that the author is then permitted to withhold key information from the reader in ways that reveal character (such as when a story is told by an untrustworthy narrator), and can also stylize many aspects of the narrative (such as character, setting, plot etc...) since everything then falls under the purview of recollection. Time jumps are also permitted as part of the rules of the game.

For examples of this occurring within the first pages of the novel, look at Jonathon Franzen's "The Corrections", first parenthetical aside is on the 3rd page of text... or at Thomas Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow", also on page 3 of the text (this one, btw, has every device imaginable from asides to disjunctive leaps to dashes etc... all within the opening pages and these are the least of the literary diversions that Pynchon utilizes within the 700 pages of the novel).

- Anatole



"arainsb, both examples you gave are correct, but parentheses aren't likely to work well in a novel. In expository prose, they're most commonly used to enclose explanations, background info, caveats, that sort of thing–in other words, departures from the main narrative. In a novel, if a sentence or part of one departs from the main narrative, who can be saying it? Only the author. Having the author turn toward the camera and address the reader went out of style when authors stopped writing "And now, dear reader, I must beg your indulgence as we avert our eyes from our virtuous heroine, for she will shortly occupy herself in removing her garments and stepping into the bath."*

If it isn't the author speaking, it's the narrator, and we're in infodump land."

Re: ( )

Reph, I use em-dashes all the time.

I do use parenthesis sometimes, if it seems the right thing to do. But mostly, just em-dashes.

Re. ()

I've used parentheses in 1st person POV before, as I was trying to achieve a chatty, familiar kind of tone. Not sure how it worked though.

KJ Parker uses them quite a lot in his Scavenger Trilogy (3rd person POV), and IMO, successfully.

Re: Re. ()

...by allowing authorial voice to enter into the narrative at any point, you as the author have formally announced to the reader that the story is being told to them, and not experienced first hand as though the reader were witnessing it themselves...

Click to expand...

Forgive me for shaking the foundations of modern fiction, but... SO WHAT?

Anybody who's sat around a campfire knows the power of being told a good story. Anybody who delves into a work of fiction has only to flip to the back cover to find the identity of the person who told them the story.

As I child I saw bell-bottom pants go out of style, and now they are back in. As an adult, I understand that they were also in style in the 1940's.

Is it such an egregious death-leap of logic to imagine that one day, omnicient narrators may again feel free to say something like:

"Cynnical, impatient reader, I won't mince words. I'm here to tell you the story of Jerad Parks - an extraordinary guy, if you ignore the Shamansism. This was the product of a misdirected teenhood (in other words, he smoked way too much pot!) but the point is, when it came to grooming poodles, he was the aces!"

Re: Re. ()

Anne Tyler, The Accidental Tourist

The rest of the world was in button-down shirts, but Macon wore a black turtleneck sweater, black slacks, and sandals. (He was passing through his poet stage.)

Macon had once (before he'd grown wiser) reserved a motel room purely on the strength of such a suggestion.

Stephen King, The Body

Vern froze on his hands and knees ("My balls crawled up so high I thought they was trine to get back home," he told us), sure his brother would sense him beneath the porch...

Joe Haldeman, The Forever War

She had no trouble getting us into alphabetical order (she didn't seem to have any higher an opinion of the military than we did) and leading us over to the hall.


The first two books use parenthesis about every third page, and often twice a page, much more than I'd thought they would.

Re: Re. ()

Since you were quoting me, I'll reply...

I'm not sure if you were agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, or agreeing with the original post or disagreeing with the original post... it wasn't quite clear in your writing.

I'm more inclined to believe that you were disagreeing with someone else, as I said that a parenthetical aside is neither good nor bad, only a tool dependent upon the skill of the writer (as is an authorial intrusion)...

Feel free to reply and clarify your position if you want.

- Anatole



Forgive me for shaking the foundations of modern fiction, but... SO WHAT?

Anybody who's sat around a campfire knows the power of being told a good story. Anybody who delves into a work of fiction has only to flip to the back cover to find the identity of the person who told them the story.

As I child I saw bell-bottom pants go out of style, and now they are back in. As an adult, I understand that they were also in style in the 1940's.

Is it such an egregious death-leap of logic to imagine that one day, omnicient narrators may again feel free to say something like:

"Cynnical, impatient reader, I won't mince words. I'm here to tell you the story of Jerad Parks - an extraordinary guy, if you ignore the Shamansism. This was the product of a misdirected teenhood (in other words, he smoked way too much pot!) but the point is, when it came to grooming poodles, he was the aces!"

Parentheses (For Anders Bruce)

I've found "Webster's NewWord Guide to Punctuation" very helpful. Small book, handy to carry around, and it has some excellent examples. In the examples you gave, my opinion would be that parentheses should not be used; the sentence should be reconstructed. In writing, I'm told that the fewer words, the better. So, why not - "Running late, he ran to the park." Using the word "running" and "ran" in the same sentence bothers me, so how 'bout - "Running late, he rushed to the park."
Or - "Being late, he ran to the park." The point being: get rid of the parentheses.
An example in Webster's booklet is:
"Mary I or Mary Tudor (often called Bloody Mary) was Queen of England and Ireland from 1553-58."

Re: Re. ()

Feel free to reply and clarify your position if you want.

Click to expand...

Anatole,

Sorry. I used your quote as a springboard for my own personal rant. It looks like you're new here, so welcome I'm the resident crank who tends to get carried away with obstruse points that nobody can defend.

I mean you no harm. I'm only here to add color.

Re: Re. ()

Nobly said, mr mistook. Now if only Rumsfeld could say the same.