Style v. Correct usage

[karmadog]

When editing, do you edit for correct usage or consistancy?

For instance, Cormac McCarthy never puts dialogue in quotations, nor does he use apostrophes for contractions. "wont" "cant" "arent" etc. I do not find these quirks distracting because he is gifted enough that it is always clear what is dialogue and as far as contractions, his way makes as much sense as using them. If you were editing his work, would you try to get him to do things properly?

 

[Whispersecret]

Yes. While you may not find it distracting, plenty of folk would, and why risk alienating or confusing even one reader for the sake of a few pixels?

Plus, you run the risk of looking illiterate.

 

[Weird Harold]

Yes. While you may not find it distracting, plenty of folk would, and why risk alienating or confusing even one reader for the sake of a few pixels?

Plus, you run the risk of looking illiterate.

What she said!

If you specifically asked that a quirk be left untouched, I'd probably explain why it isn't a good idea, but honor the request -- it is after all the author's name that will be associated with an "illiterate" story.

 

[karmadog]

let me clarify

I don't mean those examples specifically, although McCarthy has never, to my knowledge been accused of illiteracy. He is a multiple winner of prestigious prizes, including the National Book Award. I probably mentioned him specifically because I am reading one of his books.

What I mean is this: There are many different accepted usages The NY Times has a style manual that differs from the AP manual which differs from Strunk and White, etc. How do you decide what to follow? I find Strunk and White useful, but do not always agree with them.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

IMHO, The NY Times and AP style manuels are geared to journalism while Strunk and White is a better choice for literature.

The pragmatic problem with an un-published or little known author using "eccentric" grammar is it may result in readers (especially editiors and agents) not giving the story a fair chance.

RF

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: let me clarify

...although McCarthy has never, to my knowledge been accused of illiteracy. He is a multiple winner of prestigious prizes...

What I mean is this: There are many different accepted usages The NY Times has a style manual that differs from the AP manual which differs from Strunk and White, etc. How do you decide what to follow? I find Strunk and White useful, but do not always agree with them.

My guide was always, "whatever looks right." I read extensively, and have developed a sense of what works and doesn't work for bestselling authors. Add in a few pet peeves and you get the standards I base my editing on.

McCarthy must be an incredible storyteller. It takes a strong story to overcome an eccentric style. If you're just starting out then it's usually best to stick with "whatever looks right" because that's the way most readers judge the technical quality of what they read.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Don't forget the international nature of audience and reader. "What looks right" is generally what you'd find in commerical fiction these days. Essentially, it all boils down to this:

The point of writing is for the author to communicate his ideas with the reader. The point of punctuation, spelling, and grammar is clarity. Punctuation, spelling, and grammar are not part of the story and shouldn't be part of an author's style. Those conventions are there so that when an author strings a bunch of words together, the person on the other side of the page understands them as the author means them to.

People like McCarthy defy convention with bad punctuation. That's not style, that's simply defying convention. They are not doing their audience any favors because they make themselves more difficult to read over something that's never a part of the story anyway.

James Joyce and Mark Twain used style to make themselves less clear to the audience. Essentially if you're not a Dubliner reading Joyce requires concentration and Tylenol. Twain is easier to read, but if you aren't from America the vernacular is difficult to understand. These things are style.

Compare Twain and McCarthy. Twain's bastardization of grammar had good purpose. McCarthy's bastardization of punctuation has no purpose. You don't notice Twain's bad grammar because it's part of the story. You notice McCarthy's bad punctuation because it's not part of the story.

Does that clarify things any? When you think about style issues, think about their purpose and that gives a good guide. Better than Strunk and the Chicago Manual of.

 

[Shhh]

Qualified general agreement

I think the distinction drawn by KillerMuffin between grammar, punctuation and spelling (convention) and "style" (vernacular as one example) is useful and instructive.
However, I think it's certainly possible for convention, or the various corruptions, bastardizations, mutations, stringent observance of and/or capricious disregard therefor, to form part of a writer's "style".
Kerouac is a great example.

Of course, not many Kerouacs about and anyone who wants to be read and understood should probably, at the very least, be familiar with the conventions they're choosing to mutate as part of their style (but that ain't carved in stone, either).

Name escapes me, as does the exact quote, but one author responded to an editor's complaint about a lack of punctuation by sending a page full of ,,,,,,,,,,,,, ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ::::::::::::: """""""""""
and instructions to, "salt and pepper them throughout as you see fit."

As a loose analogy, I remember being in a bar in Newfoundland one night, listening to an old local fisherman, deep in his drink, telling stories about when he was a child. Anyone who has ever visited an outport in Newfoundland knows the heavily accented near-English spoken there is akin to the mutterings of Brad Pitt in Snatch, except rather less intelligible. Add some 150 proof rum from St. Pierre into the mix and it's a foreign language.

Example: "Jezsit waryat tilla come warya to."
Slowly: "Just sit where you're at 'til I come where you're to."
Translation: "Stay there. I'm coming over."

Nevertheless, despite not catching every word, we all understood the stories he told - in fact (and maybe a little like reading Joyce and not being from Dublin), part of the pure joy of the moment is in that lost bit. In the same way Thelonious Monk implied notes not played, perhaps there's a flavour that comes from not catching every word - a flavour that's more important than speaking, or writing, the Queen's English.

Convention is necessary and can only be disregarded with a certain degree of risk....which is balanced by what we lose if we become slaves to it.

 

[Whispersecret]

All the points made in favor of bucking convention are noted and agreed with. But, you know when they say on TV, "DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME?"

Same idea applies.

If you are a beginning writer, as opposed to the multi-published, paid, do-it-for-a-living-got-a-degree-in-English kind, you almost certainly don't have the skill or knowledge to fuck around with the rules. So don't.

 

[Shhh]

If you are a beginning writer, as opposed to the multi-published, paid, do-it-for-a-living-got-a-degree-in-English kind, you almost certainly don't have the skill or knowledge to fuck around with the rules. So don't.

I don't think it requires any more skill to fuck around with convention that it does to be a slave to it. There's a certain amount of practice involved in being able to communicate in a written medium in the first place, but even so all things are entirely relative.
Who decides when someone has acheived the requisite degree of skill to break with tradition? I doubt the qualification you suggest is workable, or even desireable. Love him or hate him, Bukowski would never have been published at all if one could not both depart from tradition AND be published.
This is largely a question of degree. There's quite a stretch of difference between desperately poor spelling, punctuation and structure on the one hand and askng the reader to accept a slightly expanded role for the elipsis on the other.
In between (and also well beyond the humble elipsis) is a creative process that should draw strength from convention, but also refuse to be limited by it.
Personally, I'm glad my car is able to exceed the posted speed limits...those are for people with more time to waste, anyway.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Shhh,

There are no rules, no right or wrong, when it comes to writing. There are however, conventions which most readers, editors, agents, and critiquers expect to be followed; but none of these "rules" are carved in stone.

There is a noble, if unprofitable, history of experimental literature. So if you want to use ellipsis in an unconventional manner, do so. However, don't ask for feedback, then fuss at critiquers who point out that you are not adhering to the conventions of the craft.

Good luck. RF

 

[Shhh]

Shhh,

... if you want to use ellipsis in an unconventional manner, do so. However, don't ask for feedback, then fuss at critiquers who point out that you are not adhering to the conventions of the craft.

Good luck. RF

Thank you. I shall immediately set the elipsis to work on its new and expanded duties.

While I have previously asked for feedback (in feedback forums), this has nothing to do with that. No one has accused me of either following or departing from convention generally or specifically. This is not a feedback thread, it is a "style vs. usage" thread, in which I posted an opinion about slavish devotion to The Rules of what you so respectfully call "The Craft."

Artists? Arteests? Craftsmen? oops...craftspersons?
Wordsmiths? Scribes? Writers? People not content to bore merely one generation...or something like that.

Furthermore, I am not "fussing" at anyone. I am expressing an opinion. To suggest that I am somehow objecting to a critique of my writing by being so petulant as to argue about it only indicates you didn't understand the topic at hand.

Even if this WERE a case of my asking for feedback, I reserve the right to fuss, at least a little bit, if I were of the honest opinion that the "critic", upon noting the slightest departure from the AP Style Guide (or some such), utterly missed the point.

As KillerMuffin pointed out, Mark Twain ignored convention for a purpose. I ain't no Sam Clemens, or anyone else you might view as "qualified enough" to permit creativity beyond the bounds of simple freakin' punctuation. But I do it anyway.

And when I start bitchin' about something, I'll let you know.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

"And when I start bitchin' about something, I'll let you know." Shhh

Don't bother. RF

 

[Shhh]

Frankly Rhettoric, I don't....

"And when I start bitchin' about something, I'll let you know." Shhh

Don't bother. RF

You didn't really think I was going to give you notice, did you? You knew that was mere hyperbole, didn't you?
Of course you did. How clever of you. You're being sarcastic!
You knew perfectly well my closing line was never intended to be taken literally, and yet you reply as though I were serious. How wonderfully ironic. Oh, you are a witty one, aren't you?
I must make a note so that the next time you beedlessly berate me in a thread you have failed to comprehend I can craft a reply to challenge your effervescent and pithy skill at the rejoinder.

Listen, Rump...next time you decide to condescend to someone without first figuring out whether the game requires skates or not, don't get your knickers in a knot when you get your fingers rapped. I'll start giving you notice about my bitching about the same time I start asking for your advice on how to employ the elipse.

My my, hey hey
It's better to burn out than to fade away.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Well, we're all missing a simple point.

[lecture]

Writing is communication. <-- Write that down. Think "Quiz."

The writer is communication with the reader. <-- consider this concept.

Rules are not written in stone. There is no 5-years for misuse of the comma. A writer can certainly break any and all rules if that writer chooses in the name of experimental fiction.

However. Writing is communication with the reader. The rules are there for one reason, and one reason only. No, it's not so that people can tortured kids in school. It's there so that when the writer communicates with the reader, the reader understands what the writer is trying to communicate. Same rules on both ends means that all of the words make sense to both parties.

A famous guy once said "You cannot transcend that which you do not know." <-- Write that down. You never know what might show up on the final.

If you don't know the rules, how you can transcend them? You can break them to your hearts content, but you can never rise above them.

[/lecture]

 

[Shhh]

Transcendance

Well, we're all missing a simple point.

[lecture]

Writing is communication. <-- Write that down. Think "Quiz."
....
A famous guy once said "You cannot transcend that which you do not know." <-- Write that down. You never know what might show up on the final.

If you don't know the rules, how you can transcend them? You can break them to your hearts content, but you can never rise above them.

[/lecture]

Einstein said that true genius consists of looking at the same old thing with new eyes, "...the eyes of a child."

Sure, it's important to mind convention (useful, even, if one seeks to be understood by the many - or perhaps even just quickly).

I doubt the premise contained in the question, KM, though - namely, that one must know the rules in order to trenscend them.
I'll grant you "most of the time" and "most of the people"...but I cling to the exceptions.

Looking forward to the test. I'm drafting a note from my mother, in advance, excusing me from class that day.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Thank gawd. I wasn't taking notes either. I plan on failing the final.