How annoying is the lack of quotation marks to you?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

Yes, the tossing is anyone's prerogative. My point was that a book with an unconventional style can't "speak for itself" if it is tossed before the reader even gets into it. I don't think that is a problem, nor do I think people should force themselves to read books with unconventional styles if they are not disposed towards such a thing, anymore than someone who is indisposed to alcohol should force himself to try different wines. But i also wouldn't pay much attention to that person's wine critiques.

Well I must confess I got bogged down less than halfway through at least one of your posts. Can't say exactly why but there seemed to be some possibly long winded obsessing going on. I can be that way myself, so not faulting you for sure.

I am perhaps misreading you but, you seem to be conceding points and contradicting your concession in the next line or two.

In the above post for example I see you saying people should not have to read books if they do not like the style, but the wine analogy implies that their opinions are irrelevant, and that they have not actually read farther than the first few pages. Certainly true in some cases, but doubtful for the majority IMO.

A person indisposed to alcohol with an opinion on wine, would in this case be analogous to a person indisposed to reading and an opinion on a book, regardless the reason., and I am pretty sure most of the people you are quoting and rebutting read on occasion. I am also of the opinion that many have tried to read books that they found the style to be irritating, and completed a few.

I disagree with calling the author pretentious for choosing this style, or saying that it is in any way wrong even if I hate it. Lots of books I hate make it to the libraries, the bestseller lists and are on my mother's TBR list. Not the authors problem if I hate them and I don't even tell my mother I hate them (hate is not to strong a term here) Why rain on her parade and spoil something she enjoys, anymore than refusing to stock red wine which she prefers because I prefer white.

Helen

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I am perhaps misreading you but, you seem to be conceding points and contradicting your concession in the next line or two.

In the above post for example I see you saying people should not have to read books if they do not like the style, but the wine analogy implies that their opinions are irrelevant, and that they have not actually read farther than the first few pages. Certainly true in some cases, but doubtful for the majority IMO.

Okay. All I'm saying is that whether it constitutes a majority or a tiny minority, some people have things that they just won't tolerate. For instance, some people see any major linquistic experimentation as unnecessary and pretentious. Some people just want a straightforward story. Some people want a particular kind of story. When these people pick up a book and see that it is not a straightforward story, or that it does unconventional things, or doesn't tell the kind of story they want to read, they'll put the book down.

That is fine. To go the drink analogy, I personally don't drink alcohol. If I picked up a drink (don't ask me why I'm picking up random drinks) and smelled that it had alcohol in it I'd put it down without tasting it. I wouldn't give it a try. I wouldn't drink the whole glass hoping that I'll eventually like it. I'm already indisposed against it. I'd just put it down, even if there was the possibility that if I did gulp it down it would be amazing.

But I don't how anyone could take me seriously if I then started to critique the quality of that beverage. I might say that alcohol is nasty, but obviously alcohol lovers would rightfully just shrug me off.

A person indisposed to alcohol with an opinion on wine, would in this case be analogous to a person indisposed to reading and an opinion on a book, regardless the reason.,

This interpretation isn't what I had in mind.

A wine is a particular kind of drink, just like soda, milk, juice, water, tea, coffee, sports drink, etc. Different genres are like different kinds of drinks. I may not like a particular kind of drink, and I may say why I dislike that kind of drink in general, but I wouldn't give opinions as to the quality of a particular drink in that "genre." I couldn't give you a valid opinion as to whether a beer is good or bad. I certainly couldn't give valid reasons for what makes that a particular beer good or bad.

[speakingtohe]

@spellbanisher

Won't quote post but seems reasonable viewpoint for the most part. Perhaps I misinterpreted you but it seemed to be what you were saying, and possibly there was some misinterpretation on your part of what others were saying that exception was taken to. As I said I got a tad bogged down and perhaps confused. Personally I think it is a tad pretentious of those who chose to call others pretentious, (not referring to you) but then what am I doing right now.

Helen

[TGS]

I'd just like to point out that my original contribution was a defence of stylistic experimentation and variance from the norm in certain kinds of fiction, against a kind of dismissive rubbishing - or attack - that was characterised by catlady's post - which was by no means the only example of the phenomenon, just the one I responded to. It was not an attack on anyone, so it confuses me why discussions about the aesthetics of literature have to descend into slagging people off. Perhaps I am being a bit disingenuous when I say it confuses me - my suspicion is that it comes from a strong anti-intellectual streak in British and American culture, but that's another topic. Basically, if you don't like work that is challenging, don't read it, and if you do read it don't blame it for pissing you off, would be as brief a summary of my own position as I can manage.

[Julius Caesar]

Incidentally, the use of single quotes are preferred in British English than double quotes. Which one do you prefer: single or double quotes?

[gmw]

As I understand it, the choice of single and double quotes is not regional but publisher based (and perhaps changing over time). I have many UK books, particularly older ones, on my shelves that use double quotes.

I write using double quotes for dialogue because that's the way I have everything set up, and what my fingers are programmed to type. If I ever wanted to change it before publication it would be easy enough - much easier that retraining my fingers. For reading, I don't much care either way.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by TGS

I'd just like to point out that my original contribution was a defence of stylistic experimentation and variance from the norm in certain kinds of fiction, against a kind of dismissive rubbishing - or attack - that was characterised by catlady's post - which was by no means the only example of the phenomenon, just the one I responded to. It was not an attack on anyone, so it confuses me why discussions about the aesthetics of literature have to descend into slagging people off. Perhaps I am being a bit disingenuous when I say it confuses me - my suspicion is that it comes from a strong anti-intellectual streak in British and American culture, but that's another topic. Basically, if you don't like work that is challenging, don't read it, and if you do read it don't blame it for pissing you off, would be as brief a summary of my own position as I can manage.

I am officially f*ing sick of this. ALL I SAID WAS THAT AN AUTHOR NEEDS A GOOD REASON TO DEFY CONVENTION. My exact post: "The problem is that any use of a nonstandard style calls attention to itself, which distracts the reader from the substance--so an author should have a darn good reason to abandon conventional practices of punctuation."

Where do you see an attack? Where do you see "rubbishing"? Where do you see an "anti-intellectual streak"?

YOU are confused? I am completely gobsmacked. My simple statement has been twisted totally out of recognition and I've been held up to ridicule for things I NEVER SAID.

Either quote EXACTLY what I said or LEAVE ME OUT!

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Incidentally, the use of single quotes are preferred in British English than double quotes. Which one do you prefer: single or double quotes?

This is not a big deal to me either way. Being in the US, I'm more used to double quotation marks, but I have no problem reading books that use single ones.

[Ripplinger]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Incidentally, the use of single quotes are preferred in British English than double quotes. Which one do you prefer: single or double quotes?

Like 4691mls, either way is fine with me. If a book is published in the UK, then I fully expect to see the single quotes where a US publisher would use double quotes. That's an expected difference between countries which I'm perfectly fine with adapting to, and in fact, I prefer it the way the book was originally published and would rather not have an "Americanized" version that changes those differences.

[Julius Caesar]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

That's an expected difference between countries which I'm perfectly fine with adapting to, and in fact, I prefer it the way the book was originally published and would rather not have an "Americanized" version that changes those differences.

I agree. I am a purist. Incidentally, do you know if Agatha Christie novels were originally published in the UK with double quotes or single quotes? The Kindle version I bought from Amazon US has single quotes but strangely, the printed facsimile version I bought from Amazon UK has double quotes. I would expect it's the other way around.

[Ripplinger]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

I agree. I am a purist. Incidentally, do you know if Agatha Christie novels were originally published in the UK with double quotes or single quotes? The Kindle version I bought from Amazon US has single quotes but strangely, the printed facsimile version I bought from Amazon UK has double quotes. I would expect it's the other way around.

All of my hard cover Agatha Christie books are reprints from the US, and of course all have double quotes.

All I can think of to really confirm what was originally used is to find a seller of old early editions that has an Agatha Christie book published in the UK, give them a call and tell them you're interested and ask them if they would please check which quotes were used in the book. With all the automated programs and scans and conversions around both public domain and sold, even if an electronic copy said it was as originally typeset, I probably wouldn't trust that info.

[shelle]

Originally Posted by booklover6

I read a book like that once. It was a zombie book. I hated the lack of quotes. I am not sure if I even finished it.

I wouldn't finish it either. Is this a new trend? Never head of it before.

[shelle]

Originally Posted by 4691mls

This is not a big deal to me either way. Being in the US, I'm more used to double quotation marks, but I have no problem reading books that use single ones.

Yes, single quotes would be better than none at all.

[Solitaire1]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Incidentally, the use of single quotes are preferred in British English than double quotes. Which one do you prefer: single or double quotes?

I'd prefer double quotes, but because that's what I'm used to when denoting speech. It also reduces potential confusion when single quotes are used for other purposes such as indicating missing letters and numbers (such as rock 'n' roll and '90s).

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by Julius Caesar

Incidentally, the use of single quotes are preferred in British English than double quotes. Which one do you prefer: single or double quotes?

I'm British, but I was always taught to use double quotes in school. Of course, that was back in the 1980s, and things may have changed since then