Punctuation is Punk

[29wordsforsnow]

I'm currently proof-reading a quite long story and applied the standard recommendations for complex/compound sentences which put in a lot of commas. Close to the end, I stumbled upon this

In many cases, especially nowadays, editors prefer to eliminate commas if the sentence makes sense without it. This is true even when connecting two complete sentences. Simply put, the general perception is that commas impede readability. Basically, too much punctuation can leave the reader more confused than enlightened.

How are you handling this? Reducing use of commas to an absolute minimum, or stick with your English teachers and reduce their use of red pen ink?

Thanks in advance for some enlightment to this problem.

 

[SisterJezabel]

I'm currently proof-reading a quite long story and applied the standard recommendations for complex/compound sentences which put in a lot of commas. Close to the end, I stumbled upon this



How are you handling this? Reducing use of commas to an absolute minimum, or stick with your English teachers and reduce their use of red pen ink?

Thanks in advance for some enlightment to this problem.

I add them where I think they're needed. Interesting the quote above has quite a few (imo required!) commas!

 

[Nouh_Bdee]

Yeah, if their desired level of commas matches what they used in their description, I'm good with it. Otherwise, I feel like it would diminish readability.

 

[KeithD]

I'm currently proof-reading a quite long story and applied the standard recommendations for complex/compound sentences which put in a lot of commas. Close to the end, I stumbled upon this



How are you handling this? Reducing use of commas to an absolute minimum, or stick with your English teachers and reduce their use of red pen ink?

Thanks in advance for some enlightment to this problem.

Here I guess it doesn't matter. I edit for mainstream U.S. publishers, however, which, while giving some latitude to established high-profit authors, include reader-friendly general editing guidelines that, in the case of the some twenty-five publishers I've edited for over the years, include use of the comma for complex/compound sentences and series. They do this to provide the clearest road map for readers in negotiating the text. Conversely, the publishers are increasingly dropping the need to set short introductory phrases off with a comma (and the Chicago Manual of Style sanctions doing so without defining what "short" would be).

Here, which is not publishing for profit, internal consistency would be the best guidance.

 

[Charrla]

It's true that the trend now is to use fewer commas, but only when cutting commas will not affect clarity or meaning. Take this sentence: "Cheryl looked outside, and, in doing so, became cold." This sentence has commas everywhere one could possibly put a comma. It would fit right in at The New Yorker, a publication which famously uses a lot of commas. But an editor going full-force with the fewer commas trend might write: "Cheryl looked outside and in doing so became cold." That's extreme, though. I would not do that, though the two clauses are almost short enough to get away with it. A happy medium would be to retain one or two commas. But yes, that is the direction things are going in.

 

[Athalia]

It's true that the trend now is to use fewer commas, but only when cutting commas will not affect clarity or meaning. Take this sentence: "Cheryl looked outside, and, in doing so, became cold." This sentence has commas everywhere one could possibly put a comma. It would fit right in at The New Yorker, a publication which famously uses a lot of commas. But an editor going full-force with the fewer commas trend might write: "Cheryl looked outside and in doing so became cold." That's extreme, though. I would not do that, though the two clauses are almost short enough to get away with it. A happy medium would be to retain one or two commas. But yes, that is the direction things are going in.

I'm in the fewer-commas camp (except for the so-called "Oxford Comma," which is at times indispensable), but they do serve a purpose. I would have re-cast your example as "Cheryl looked outside and, in doing so, became cold." That comma could be dispensed with easily. But the other commas served a purpose of regulating pace, indicating the place where a speaker would pause slightly.

There's a story that James Thurber told. As best I can recollect it, it went like this:

The sentence was [I think]"After dinner, the men repaired to the den." He was asked by an editor if he could justify the use of the comma there. "I can explain that one all right," he answered. "It gives the men time to stand up after pushing their chairs back."

(James Thurber could be a scourge for editors. After he caught some editor trying to correct a split infinitive in his copy, he thundered "When I split an infinitive, it's going to to damn well stay split!)

 

[JJA122]

I like to keep my moderately complex sentences to one comma. Whenever I read something with the "new-yorker" style, I'm confused why anyone would talk like that.

 

[Athalia]

Whenever I read something with the "new-yorker" style, I'm confused why anyone would talk like that.

I've been reading the New Yorker for decades now, and I'm still confused what's meant by the New Yorker style.That use (some would say "overuse") of the comma is certainly a part of their non-fiction, but I haven't seen it in any of the quotations in the fiction they publish. They, too, realize that nobody talks like that. But people do read and write like that.

Interestingly, the piece that James Thurber wrote that contained the comma that he defended was published in the New Yorker magazine.

 

[Tigersman]

I've had no formal training as an editor but I tend to employ the less commas the better approach. I also employ the "breathing test" approach. This is where taking a breath before continuing on would be appropriate.

 

[PleasePeesMe]

Agreed

That's why I'm a fan of commas.

 

[SimonDoom]

I completely disagree with the quoted advice. It's a trendy belief, but I see no reason to believe it's true. Commas enhance meaning and readability. They clarify rather than confuse. There's a reason they exist and are in use.

In a short sentence you can get away without a comma without any problem if you are striving for a certain kind of effect.

Such as:

He took the poison and he died on the spot.

As opposed to:

He took the poison, and he died on the spot.

I see no problem with that, although I would usually insert the comma here, and convention would say you should use it because you are joining two independent clauses with a conjunction.

But in a long sentence (such as one you quoted, which has plenty of commas), commas greatly enhance meaning and understanding. If you get rid of them, you are, in my view, elevating fashion in prose style over good sense and comprehensibility.

 

[KeithD]

I see no problem with that, although I would usually insert the comma here, and convention would say you should use it because you are joining two independent clauses with a conjunction.

U.S. "Convention" is actually more forgiving than that for independent clauses in the example you give. Chicago Manual of Style 16, 6.28: ". . . If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted unless the clauses are part of a series. . . "

 

[neci]

fuck punks

 

[SimonDoom]

U.S. "Convention" is actually more forgiving than that for independent clauses in the example you give. Chicago Manual of Style 16, 6.28: ". . . If the clauses are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted unless the clauses are part of a series. . . "

Right. I should have been a bit more careful with my words. That's why I gave the example I did. I think it's one where CMOS would go either way, although some old-school grammar primers might be more insistent on the comma.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I completely disagree with the quoted advice. It's a trendy belief, but I see no reason to believe it's true. Commas enhance meaning and readability. They clarify rather than confuse. There's a reason they exist and are in use.

Being a fan of the long sentence, I wholeheartedly agree. Punctuation was invented for a reason, and the reason hasn't changed - clarity of meaning.

The recent go around about "Oh I dont like fullstops because theyre rude" just means comprehensibilty goes out the door when you apply it to it's illogical conclusion where does a sentence end and where does it begin?

(Adding the inevitable spell-check error to the sentence.)

Besides, where would the wombat be? Eats roots shoots and leaves .