Help punctuating this sentence please?

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by kyteflyer

This. The semi-colon joins the two parts elegantly. Gregg, is this part of a conversation? It might make a difference, if it is...

It's a character's interior monologue.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I think you're right but I think technically the coma should be there.

Love your typo.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I think you're right but I think technically the coma should be there.

Not really. The comma is wrong, as initially written. However, your sentence; do what you like.

Hitch

[Gregg Bell]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Not really. The comma is wrong, as initially written. However, your sentence; do what you like.

Hitch

Not really? The grammar police have no wiggle room. I don't like the comma (yes, comma, not coma) there. I don't think I'll put it there. But I think the rules of grammar say it should be there. But I could be wrong.

I am in a coma when it comes to commas.

[JwkOKC]

Originally Posted by Gregg Bell

I think the rules of grammar say it should be there. But I could be wrong.

I am in a coma when it comes to commas.

In any creative effort, only the creator determines the applicable rules. Many so-called rules of grammar are nothing more than one person's preferences, petrified like so much wood with the passage of time.

The best reference for such questions that I have yet located anywhere is at http://www.grammarbook.com/ which is a great site with many examples for almost any question one might pose. Note that I have no connection at all with it -- I'm just passing along a discovery.

When it comes to punctuation, I personally follow a musician's approach and use it to phrase the flow of the text. A period means a full rest, a semi-colon is a half rest, and a comma is a quarter rest. Em and En dashes provide ties and other fractional rests. And if it sounds right to my ear when I read it aloud (or do so mentally) then it's right to me -- and the grammar police can pound sand.

I suspect my attitude is a minority viewpoint. However very few editors have mangled my efforts in the years since my first national publication in 1949...

[pendragginp]

I like and agree with this.



The fuddy-duddys pounding sand.

[Hitch]

I don't disagree that the dialogue, etc., is entirely up to the writer/creator. However, when he asks for assistance in punctuation, I'd assume that he wants it to be correct.

Gregg: if the sentence stays in the word sequence that you first typed--the commas are certainly better than not. The bigger problem is, the sentence is clunky as hell, and the semi-colons seek to put the breaks in to help it along. So, yes; if you leave it as-is, then the commas are necessary. It's even worse (sorry) without them.

@JwOKC and @pendragginp, the problem is, encountering a lot of sentences like this will turn those readers off who DO care about those things. If I were to read a book--or start to read one--that had a lot of sentences like that, either with or without the commas, it would make me either put the book down or not buy it. I'm as happy as the next guy to give the author creative license, but poorly-constructed sentences, paragraphs, etc., get in the way of a reader's enjoyment of a story.

Many writers have the power to craft stories that so enthrall the reader that they don't see the sentences, flaws, et al. That's a wonderful thing. But many more writers don't have that power. The entire point of good grammar is for it to be INVISIBLE, and the same thing is true in fiction--that it simply disappears, not visible to the reader. Visible grammar errors are definitely the enemy of the reading public.

Just my $.02. Obviously, I'm in the minority.

Hitch

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I don't disagree that the dialogue, etc., is entirely up to the writer/creator. However, when he asks for assistance in punctuation, I'd assume that he wants it to be correct.

Gregg: if the sentence stays in the word sequence that you first typed--the commas are certainly better than not. The bigger problem is, the sentence is clunky as hell, and the semi-colons seek to put the breaks in to help it along. So, yes; if you leave it as-is, then the commas are necessary. It's even worse (sorry) without them.

@JwOKC and @pendragginp, the problem is, encountering a lot of sentences like this will turn those readers off who DO care about those things. If I were to read a book--or start to read one--that had a lot of sentences like that, either with or without the commas, it would make me either put the book down or not buy it. I'm as happy as the next guy to give the author creative license, but poorly-constructed sentences, paragraphs, etc., get in the way of a reader's enjoyment of a story.

Many writers have the power to craft stories that so enthrall the reader that they don't see the sentences, flaws, et al. That's a wonderful thing. But many more writers don't have that power. The entire point of good grammar is for it to be INVISIBLE, and the same thing is true in fiction--that it simply disappears, not visible to the reader. Visible grammar errors are definitely the enemy of the reading public.

Just my $.02. Obviously, I'm in the minority.

Hitch

This in a nutshell.
If you are good, you can get away with a lot. But you have to prove you are good first.
And you can't do that if your grammar for style choices throw out your reader.

No offense to JwOKC, but to me em dashes in dialog look stupid especially if it written like this:
---Hitch said blah blah blah!!!--

--Cin responded bleep bleep bleep.--

--Hitch screeched who who who???--

--Cin screamed get over your style and write a readable book--

By the way that was a pain to write.

[JwkOKC]

Oh, I agree completely that your example of (mis)using dashes is quite horrible. I'm not certain that I could have brought myself to create it!

I think it was the late William Allen White who advised would-be writers to always replace "very" in their manuscripts with "damn" -- because in his time editors would conscientiously delete the latter, but might not do so for the former. His point was that neither was necessary in most writing. Despite my example a few lines above, I think the same rule applies to the use of dashes!

@Hitch: Gregg's original question doesn't really provide enough context to let me determine whether it was seeking generic guidance, or extremely specific comments. Had I been answering it, in isolation, I would have said simply that the first version, with two commas, was my preference.

Were I a member of the grammar police, I would have muttered dire things about "comma fault."

With the later explanation that it was part of an internalized monologue, but with no knowledge of the character's persona, culture, or background, I would not have been able to offer meaningful comments. That's why I suggested the link to the "Grammar Blue Book" site as the most useful reference I know.

You can see that it's a much more complex problem than it appears at first glance! It's much more important that a character be self-consistent, than that his or her internal thought structure confirm to any specific set of external rules. A strict grammarian should be internally strict; an uneducated drifter might never follow accepted rules.

[Catlady]

Proud member of the grammar police here.

Just as a writer needs to follow spelling rules, he or she needs to follow grammar rules. Creativity can still thrive within the rules. Liberties can sometimes be taken (e.g., in a first-person narrative, dialog, internal monologue), and a distinction can be made for formal and informal writing. But rules exist for a reason: they facilitate communication and understanding. And isn't the reason for writing a desire to communicate?

[JwkOKC]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Proud member of the grammar police here.

Just as a writer needs to follow spelling rules, he or she needs to follow grammar rules.

I've no quibble at all with this statement. Each and every sentence (using "sentence" in its strictest linguistics sense) must be easily parseable, and to succeed, must convey the concept which the writer intended.

However the generally accepted rules of grammar (assuming that any are actually generally accepted) need NOT apply to, for example, a character's internal monologues (as in the subject of this thread). That's where "writer's choice" rules.

It's a case of apples and oranges.

Lately I've been trying to read some of the Uncle Remus stories; they fail miserably, to me, because of the extensive dialect makes it almost impossible to establish the mystical trinity of author-reader-viewpoint that's so essential to the suspension of disbelief. Nevertheless they seem to have survived the test of time. In writing, no such things as unbreakable rules exist. However certain conventions are essential, and good grammar on the part of the author -- but not necessarily the viewpoint character -- is one of the most important of these.

Some years ago I worked closely with an entrepreneur who almost spoiled me as a writer because he never edited my copy. He also worked closely with John W. Campbell, the legendary SF editor (and ham radio operator), and Wayne once told me that Campbell's copy was always atrocious, replete with spelling errors and poor grammar. When Wayne chided the legendary editor about it, the reply was, "Cleaning up the copy is what secretaries are for!"

We all need good editors to clean up our copy. We need to concentrate more on making it come to life in the first place.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by JwkOKC

I've no quibble at all with this statement. Each and every sentence (using "sentence" in its strictest linguistics sense) must be easily parseable, and to succeed, must convey the concept which the writer intended.

However the generally accepted rules of grammar (assuming that any are actually generally accepted) need NOT apply to, for example, a character's internal monologues (as in the subject of this thread). That's where "writer's choice" rules.

I indicated that internal monologue was one possible exception.

Some years ago I worked closely with an entrepreneur who almost spoiled me as a writer because he never edited my copy. He also worked closely with John W. Campbell, the legendary SF editor (and ham radio operator), and Wayne once told me that Campbell's copy was always atrocious, replete with spelling errors and poor grammar. When Wayne chided the legendary editor about it, the reply was, "Cleaning up the copy is what secretaries are for!"

Well, that remark makes me think the editor was a pretentious, disrespectful jerk.

[HarryT]

I honestly don't see why it's any more difficult to write grammatically correct, correctly-punctuated and correctly-spelled text than text with poor grammar, incorrect punctuation and poor spelling, with the possible exception of someone writing in a language that's not their native language. We're all (presumably) taught the rules of grammar, punctuation and spelling at an early age. I'm constantly amazed by the number of presumably well-read people here at MR who don't appear to know that "it's" is not a possessive pronoun.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by JwkOKC

I've no quibble at all with this statement. Each and every sentence (using "sentence" in its strictest linguistics sense) must be easily parseable, and to succeed, must convey the concept which the writer intended.

However the generally accepted rules of grammar (assuming that any are actually generally accepted) need NOT apply to, for example, a character's internal monologues (as in the subject of this thread). That's where "writer's choice" rules.

It's a case of apples and oranges.

Lately I've been trying to read some of the Uncle Remus stories; they fail miserably, to me, because of the extensive dialect makes it almost impossible to establish the mystical trinity of author-reader-viewpoint that's so essential to the suspension of disbelief. Nevertheless they seem to have survived the test of time. In writing, no such things as unbreakable rules exist. However certain conventions are essential, and good grammar on the part of the author -- but not necessarily the viewpoint character -- is one of the most important of these.

Some years ago I worked closely with an entrepreneur who almost spoiled me as a writer because he never edited my copy. He also worked closely with John W. Campbell, the legendary SF editor (and ham radio operator), and Wayne once told me that Campbell's copy was always atrocious, replete with spelling errors and poor grammar. When Wayne chided the legendary editor about it, the reply was, "Cleaning up the copy is what secretaries are for!"

We all need good editors to clean up our copy. We need to concentrate more on making it come to life in the first place.

When I was in college, we had to read an Uncle Remus story. I discovered the best way to do that was let the neighbor's 6 year old read it. Oh and tell her momma to quit trying to correct the English.
According to the professor, yes a child will do better at dialects because they are just now learning and won't mentally try to correct it.

As to my em dash example, that was how one "writer" literally did it.
But same said author didn't read a map key and thought bigger numbers meant bigger roads.

[JwkOKC]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Well, that remark makes me think the editor was a pretentious, disrespectful jerk.

He may well have been; I never met him although I did get a personal rejection letter from him once (and never submitted anything to Astounding/Analog again).

All of us who get involved with writing and editing have to be somewhat arrogant to expect payment for what another friend once described to me as "a skill learned by the third grade." In Campbell's case, I think his comment had more to do with Wayne's payment schedule of $20/published page which led Campbell to submit first drafts rather than take the time to polish anything at all.

However his rejection letter was rather acidic -- although directly to the point -- and at the time I was far too inexperienced (and too arrogant myself) to realize what it meant to get more than a printed rejection form, especially from the top editor in the genre.