Quotation Marks - WSJ

[Ed]

A discussion about punctuation is going on in the rejections thread, but I'd like to move it here, where it's more visible. I'll continue it by pointing out that there was an excellent article in the WSJ yesterday about quotation marks and how they've fallen out of favor with "trendy" authors. The article is short, so reading it won't cost you more than a few minutes:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122489468502968839.html

But regardless, I'll sum up. Absence of quotation marks in dialogue, the author argues, makes dialogue appear in whispers and as only an extension of what the writer of the dialogue says. It does not belong entirely to the characters, or in an acceptable volume. Not only do I love this article because I agree, and because the author states so eloquently what I have only intuited, but I'm thrilled because it's not hidden away in some academic or literary journal. It's in a widely read national newspaper, back near an article about a Project Runway winner.

Proper punctuation is not going anywhere on my watch. While not everyone can be taught about their use, I can, at least, prevent abuse. I find many people, in not knowing how to use a punctuation mark, will simply avoid it, even if that avoidance creates problems with clarity. The comma has fallen into this category, as well as the hyphen (especially in the case of hyphenated adjectives). But I do believe that we are all learning if we are willing to learn. While Constant Content is a place where a basic knowledge of written language usage is a prerequisite, we're all involved in the goal to improve.

[Lor]

Good read Ed,

Personally, I'm a purist. I want the dialogue to tell me it's dialogue. I want it in-my-face. I've started to read books of this nature and never got through them.

To me, it comes across as pretentious, sloppy and lazy and does little as an art form. There are other ways to comtemporize ( if that's a word) literature without messing with the traditional rules. Good writers write without those gimmicks.

In the example shown, the dialogue was flat with or without quotation marks. Who's saying what and to whom? Where's the characterization. And yet, the author is well-respected. I don't get it. A matter of taste, I suppose. Good flic though. :)

I think what I found even more disturbing in the article is that "... nearly half of Americans do not read books at all." Perhaps it's the lack of quotations in the dialogue.

Thanks for sharing this.

Lor

[DSWaltenburg]

This is why I don't generally read any current fiction titles. I may be wrong in my opinion, however, I think that if the author expects ME to determine who is saying what to whom and when, then perhaps they should pay me to read the book instead of paying them to be so lazy.

Of course this marks me as completely 'dated' and out of touch with pop culture, but so be it.

I know I have issues with semicolons and hyphenated adjectives, and I'm constantly struggling with what looks good in my mind versus what is expected or appropriate. Everybody needs a refresher course now and again!

Thanks for the article!

[BarryDavidson]

It's hard to tell anymore. Some "trendy" authors are using the 'single' quotation from time to time. It drives me nuts when they switch between the two. However, I don't blame the authors as much as the editor and publisher. I've seen editors tear a piece apart, and what's left little resembles the original writing.

[Amy W]

I just finished reading "Seeing" by Jose Saramago, a book with no quotation marks and barely any paragraphs. Saramago used commas to separate the dialogue, but there were rules. If the comma was in the middle of a sentence, then you knew Character A was still talking because the word following the comma was not capitalized. If the word following the comma was capitalized, then Character B was talking. Except when the first word following the comma was "I", then you really had to stop and figure out who was talking. Confusing, but oddly enough once I got used to it, the story was easy to follow. I think in this case the author really did want to quiet the character's voices to allow his own voice to be the only one the reader could hear. Either that, or my theory is right - authors are just too lazy to have to press shift so many times when they're typing up their manuscripts!

And some British publishers use the single quotation - though I've seen some use double.

[Lor]

I'm not a fan, but I think this form only "appears" lazy. It probably requires a great deal of careful thought. Hope it's not the way of the future. I'll be back to reading Michener all over again. :)

[Ed]

I think it shows extreme attention to detail, but this must also transfer into readability. Some authors are more successful at this than others. If it's possible to forget the omission of quotation marks after getting used to it, and all is still clear, then the author was successful. If, at page 20, the reader is still struggling to make sense of what's being said or thought by whom, maybe the author has been less successful.

[BarryDavidson]

I think I've violated my own standards. I was rereading the humor piece I submitted recently, and notice that I'd taken out all the quotation marks. I don't remember doing it, but without proper formatting it wouldn't be as clear is it was intended.

Here's what I mean...


From the studios that brought you the hit CD’s STFU: A Love Story, and Capital Hill: Shredding in the Dark comes a new mega hit CD with songs based on the New York Times bestseller, The US Congress by Ima Whore.

This fantastic CD features a series of number one billboard hits like, I’m Just a Texas Druggie, Please Don’t Pull the Trigger, and We’re Listening. You’ll dance the night away to songs like, We Don’t Leak Secrets, or cuddle with your loved one to, Oops I’ve Cut the Budget Again. And who can forget the classic, The Rich Get Richer and I Don’t Care?

But Wait! Order in the next fifteen minutes and we’ll include the bonus track, I Duped Em for Four More Years.

[BarryDavidson]

In another thread:

[quote="HayleyWriter"]
You may like to rework the sentence again, but the idea is to reduce the need for too many commas in the one sentence. [/quote]


Who's idea is it? I'm still having trouble finding out exactly when publishers and editors were given the right to alter punctuation and sentence structure. I'm not making fun of you, or trying to be mean. It just drives me nuts to see yet another person buy into the crap publishers have been spewing for the past couple of decades.

I like commas. They let me know where to pause briefly within a sentence, and can change the context of a sentence if placed correctly. If I truly wanted short sentences I could read my youngest daughter's "Learn to Read" books.

Personally, I want books and writing to stay safe from what I call, "The Dumbing Down of America." It has gotten worse since GOALS 2000, and the NCLB Act. Ask yourself the question, "Would most of the great works of the 20th century have been published if they were judged by today's standards?"

Somehow, within the last twenty years or so, publishers and editors have decided that people are too stupid to read big sentences, and that writers must not use commas much. Even if each and every comma in the work is grammatically correct.

On a final note, ain't is now in the dictionary. My old teachers are probably furious.

[Ed]

Clarity trumps all, and wordiness is simply Victorian. Longer sentences create more opportunities for confusion. It's the writer's job to make sentences work, not the reader's job to figure out what the writer is trying to say.

Case-in-point: Academics sometimes tend to write long, rambling sentences. Their thinking patterns are sophisticated, and so is their work. However, when a researcher can't determine what the author means in a published paper, despite the researcher's equal level of sophistication/education, then the work is for naught. You can't use a quotation as a supporting argument if the meaning of the quotation is ambiguous.

Good writers recognize the need for both types of sentences. An article written in entirely sentences that are composed of nothing but subject-verb-object sets is poorly written. So is an article that is written entirely with compound sentences, especially when the two halves of the sentence don't directly relate to each other.

Commas are necessry when they are necessary. But sentences can be bogged down by commas. It's often best to structure a sentence in such a way that only necessary commas are present. Many writers use commas as crutches, when a simple reworking of the sentence would eliminate awkward construction. Clauses can rudely interrupt. Usually the information should wait and be presented within a new sentence. If that information will be heard more clearly if it waits, then it should be made to wait.

[BarryDavidson]

[quote="Ed"]Clarity trumps all, and wordiness is simply Victorian. Longer sentences create more opportunities for confusion. It's the writer's job to make sentences work, not the reader's job to figure out what the writer is trying to say.[/quote]

I'll agree with you there. Those whom I have a problem with, are the people who attack comma placement for no other reason than because they "feel" that the author has used too many commas. I call them "Comma Nazis" most of the time. You might know the type I'm referring to. They don't actually read the content. They just go through and strike commas regardless of the clarity and flow.

[Ed]

I've never personally encountered this, but I can think of two reasons why this would happen:

The publication has a certain style/tone, and it wants to enforce some level of homogeneity across the board.
The editor may be insensitive to that aspect of writing, or may have given up because comma misuse is so common.

I would like to say, as an addendum to my last post, that successful web writing depends upon a certain level of obviousness. Websites want a wide readership; the widest readership does not exceed (something like - not sure of the exact statistic) a 6th grade reading level. Are people searching for information on the web going to linger if they have to work to understand the information they find? No. Are they interested in improving their vocabularies? Maybe, but they don't want you to help them do it.

Any advice given must be mindful of those just starting out in writing. Some writers have an innate sense about word and punctuation placement, others haven't yet reached that point. Getting to that point takes a great deal of time an energy, and if you didn't spend that time and energy when you were killing time during summer breaks as a kid, you have to spend that time and energy now - after you are already tired from work, when your child is vying for your attention, or in place of another necessary task.

[Celeste Stewart]

[quote="Ed"]Getting to that point takes a great deal of time an energy, and if you didn't spend that time and energy when you were killing time during summer breaks as a kid, you have to spend that time and energy now - after you are already tired from work, when your child is vying for your attention, or in place of another necessary task.[/quote]

The above is an excellent example of a long sentence that is completely clear. Why is it clear? Because of punctuation. Notice the dash? A lesser writer might have used a comma which would have made the sentence confusing. Long, complex sentences don't necessarily confuse readers; flowery language, wordiness, and the author indulging in his or her own "personal" literary conventions confuse readers.

[Ed]

Could be said better in another way, I'm sure. But I am glad it was clear.

[Celeste Stewart]

Well, it could have said "and energy" instead of "an energy," but it's a forum post. . .
:)

It's still a great example of a long sentence that is crystal clear thanks to punctuation.