# Punctuation - flow vs grammar



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

A comment I get now and then from readers is that my prose feels stiff and stilted. It's grammatically correct, but it's dry and lifeless.

One of the reasons for this seems to be my use of punctuation. From what I understand you're meant to use a comma if you connect two clauses with a word like _and_ or _but_. This seems simple enough, but it seems it can also disrupt the flow of the text.

According to The Punctuation Guide, you can omit the comma when the two clauses are closely connected and short. That makes sense, but it also feels a bit arbitrary. How short is _short_, and how closely connected is _closely connected_?

I get that this is something you'll have to judge on a case by case basis and that there's no hard and fast rule for it. It's a matter of taste and feel, right? Intuition.

What are your thoughts on this? When do you make exceptions to the rule in favour of reading flow?

Here's an example sentence:


> Trula tilted her head, and her voice filled with sympathy.


I originally wrote it like that, but I'd probably remove the comma here. The first clause is kinda short, and the two clauses can be said to be closely connected.


----------



## Devor (Sep 17, 2017)

I don't personally consider the comma here optional.  In fact I would read it as being wrong.

I would probably make that one two sentences.  But it depends.  I try to vary the sentence structure within a paragraph, so if the rest of the paragraph is short sentences, I would end up leaving it longer.

Grammar and commas aren't going to be the solution to your language issues, though.  Flow is the kind of thing that takes a course a crit partner or an writing exercises book to work on.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

I have no problem in my own writing omitting or including commas wherever I want to in order to achieve a certain effect, and I see a fair amount of that in published writing. But I agree with Devor that this alone isn't sufficient for the proper flow. 

With the example sentence, either way would be fine with me. I'd probably write it without the comma if I were writing a lean, action-oriented story. Otherwise I may well leave it.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2017)

Agreed, I think.  The comma is necessary, but that structure isn't.  I'd join the second with another clause, and leave it there or make the first clause standalone.



> Trula tilted her head.  When she broke the silence, her voice was full of sympathy. "I understand that..."





> Trula tilted her head, and her voice filled with sympathy as she went on.



Basically, it depends on context and the surrounding pattern.  I always keep half an ear on the sentence rhythm, to the point of not consciously thinking about it anymore.  (Of course that natural flow of mine is probably a little boggy). I don't think the solution should be to remove grammatically necessary/highly recommended commas.  ...I mean, I've definitely _done_ that while writing, but I wouldn't leave it that way in a finished, polished piece.  Just because there are so many other options for varying flow that wouldn't have the possibility of raising a "is this proofread?" flag in the reader's mind.

As I'm thinking about this, of course there are exceptions.  But like any stylistic boundary-push, I'd leave it for situations where you want to emphasize the language for extra drama or rush of pace.  Not for an average dialogue-tag.

Edit to add:



> Trula tilted her head and added softly, "I understand that..."


Doesn't need to be longer either.  There's always a lot of options.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

I think it depends on what you're writing. If you read a lot of thrillers, or even faster-paced horror novels where the action is always moving quickly, you see the elimination of commas that are technically necessary (as well as other instances of ignoring rules of grammar) all the time. This is in the most popular examples of these works, sold by large publishers. And, of course, if you're writing in a modernist style, or utilizing a stream of consciousness in your approach, you will likely adapt the grammar to fit the narrative style. There are little, if any, hard and fast rules here. It's about what you can make work. If dropping punctuation works for the narrative, that's fine. If restructuring works better, then you go with that.

If examples in modern thriller writing aren't compelling, see also Hemingway, who omitted commas all the time (for example, by running together multiple independent clauses without them or any other punctuation).

Within genre, John Scalzi talks about this, and about how when copy editors put commas into his work on strictly grammatical grounds (which he admits they're supposed to do), he takes them out again as a matter of pace and style.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

Fascinating discussion.

I'm mostly of the camp that says use the comma before the conjunction when you have two independent clauses, but I've found myself naturally wanting to eliminate it sometimes—a kind of instinctual, knee-jerk reaction—when in my head the clauses aren't _quite_ independent things. In my lackadaisical commenting on forums, I sometimes do eliminate the comma, without much concern. But the thought gives me a little more trouble when writing something I'm wanting polished.

I think the suggestion others have given is good: a sentence can be rewritten to remove the instinctual doubt heh.

But something like this (maybe?) doesn't trouble me as much, and I've encountered it before:

_Sylvia opened her mouth and the music flowed._*

I can't say I'm 100% comfortable with that, I'm not sure it's a great example, but I can't remember specific examples off-hand.

In a case like that, "opened her mouth" and "the music flowed" are essentially identical things. At least, written like that, the implication would be that they are what you called "closely related," and the author might want to signal that these actions are inseparable, basically identical.

The example from the site you linked is interesting:

_Elizabeth flew to the conference and Nancy drove._

Reading that, I'd have no problems. I'd probably not even notice there's a missing comma. How are these "closely related"? The narrator seems to to be describing one thing, as if asked, "How did the two get to the conference?" Even if not asked, the implication is that only one thing is being described, i.e., their "joined" trip to the conference (not really a joint trip.) I suppose you could rewrite it like this:

_Elizabeth flew to the conference while Nancy drove._

—Although there, it's weird because it makes the plane trip and road trip seem to happen entirely concurrently, the trip lasting just as long by plane and car.

If I were trying to separate these two independent clauses to create _contrast_, I'd use the comma:

_Elizabeth flew to the conference, but Nancy drove._

*Edit: Come to think of it, if I used that sentence in a story...and I've been trying to "feel" how it would appear...I think it'd work if the act of Sylvia's singing were already introduced before the sentence. So suppose someone is threatening her with something and says she must sing or else, but she's resisting. Then she sees the fear in the eyes of the sister she's supposed to be protecting. So she opens her mouth and sings.

A standalone sentence without that kind of  foreshadowing or intro might not work as well....


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2017)

True.  My experience is limited by the fact that I haven't read many thrillers, and have no desire to re-read Hemingway.  However, based on what I've read of Svrtnsse's writing, and knowing that he's writing in a kind of folktale-fantasy genre, perhaps somewhat slower-paced stories (if I'm not mistaken), I don't think leaving out commas is necessary.  Although Svrt is experimenting with style?  Yeah, it always depends.  An editor who understands your work is the best bet.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Fascinating discussion.
> 
> I'm mostly of the camp that says use the comma before the conjunction when you have two independent clauses, but I've found myself naturally wanting to eliminate it sometimes—a kind of instinctual, knee-jerk reaction—when in my head the clauses aren't _quite_ independent things. In my lackadaisical commenting on forums, I sometimes do eliminate the comma, without much concern. But the thought gives me a little more trouble when writing something I'm wanting polished.




What would you do with the following:

“Often Miss Stein would have no guests and she was always very friendly and for a long time she was affectionate.”

That's a line from a Hemingway story. It's a fairly typical example of what some people have called Hemingway's "war on commas." I don't agree with the war on them--other writers I like, like Joseph Conrad, used them with great proliferation. But in the Hemingway example, if you put in commas where they're supposed to go I think it screws things up.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

Nimue said:


> True.  My experience is limited by the fact that I haven't read many thrillers, and have no desire to re-read Hemingway.  However, based on what I've read of Svrtnsse's writing, and knowing that he's writing in a kind of folktale-fantasy genre, perhaps somewhat slower-paced stories (if I'm not mistaken), I don't think leaving out commas is necessary.  Although Svrt is experimenting with style?  Yeah, it always depends.  An editor who understands your work is the best bet.



Folktales strike me as typically exhibiting a more formal writing style. I'd be open to one written in a more lean, modern style, but if the story goes back and forth between the two--some portions written more formally, and suddenly changing--I'd be less likely to go with it. When I think of fantasy stories that are in the vein of fairy tales, I often think of Angela Carter, who wrote anything but lean prose.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> What would you do with the following:
> 
> “Often Miss Stein would have no guests and she was always very friendly and for a long time she was affectionate.”
> 
> That's a line from a Hemingway story. It's a fairly typical example of what some people have called Hemingway's "war on commas." I don't agree with the war on them--other writers I like, like Joseph Conrad, used them with great proliferation. But in the Hemingway example, if you put in commas where they're supposed to go I think it screws things up.



The Hemingway example feels like a list to me, heh. Tell me what you had for dinner. I had steak and mashed potatoes and cream corn. Tell me about Miss Stein. She would have no guests and she was always very friendly and for a long time she was affectionate.

Heh. That's just my feeling, or how I experience that sentence.

There's another term, I don't remember it, for the opening sentence of _A Tale of Two Cities_, in which independent clauses are linked only by commas and no conjunction. Maybe it's anaphora, although that's a repetition of the first words in successive clauses (just looked that up, heh), so I'm not sure it's 100% applicable to this discussion. But it "relates" those clauses, so maybe there's something similar happening. But the Hemingway example isn't the same, unless the relation is "about Miss Stein," a kind of bullet list heh.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> But the Hemingway example isn't the same, unless the relation is "about Miss Stein," a kind of bullet list heh.



Maybe it reads like a list because of the way he wrote it? In any event, Hemingway did this a lot, sometimes in situations that may be more list-like, and others that aren't. There's no doubt in my mind it changes the pacing. Which doesn't mean anyone has to like the approach (or Hemingway, or any other author that uses it). Whether one likes it or not, I don't agree with calling it out as "wrong." It's an approach to writing that individual writers may or may not be able to use effectively, and that individual readers may or may not like.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Maybe it reads like a list because of the way he wrote it? In any event, Hemingway did this a lot, sometimes in situations that may be more list-like, and others that aren't. There's no doubt in my mind it changes the pacing. Which doesn't mean anyone has to like the approach (or Hemingway, or any other author that uses it). Whether one likes it or not, I don't agree with calling it out as "wrong." It's an approach to writing that individual writers may or may not be able to use effectively, and that individual readers may or may not like.



Maybe instead of calling it out as "wrong," we could call it out at "ineffective" or "confusing" or whatever when it comes from the hand of a less experienced and talented writer than Hemingway. On a case-by-case basis—not in the case of the writer, but the case of what has been written by that writer.

I do think that personal style plays a large role. Punctuation is an add-on in the history of writing, filled with conventions by now, and style manuals didn't exist early in our long history of using the written word. Many of the oldest writings don't use any punctuation (or paragraphs, for that matter, or consistent spelling for many words.)


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Maybe instead of calling it out as "wrong," we could call it out at "ineffective" or "confusing" or whatever when it comes from the hand of a less experienced and talented writer than Hemingway. On a case-by-case basis—not in the case of the writer, but the case of what has been written by that writer.
> 
> I do think that personal style plays a large role. Punctuation is an add-on in the history of writing, filled with conventions by now, and style manuals didn't exist early in our long history of using the written word. Many of the oldest writings don't use any punctuation (or paragraphs, for that matter, or consistent spelling for many words.)



Yes, I think as a general way of gauging this, my thought is that if you're sacrificing clarity (i.e. confusing the reader) then you've got a problem, and you've got to go back and do something different. If a writer isn't sacrificing clarity, then I don't have any problem with it. The purpose of writing is to communicate effectively what one means to say. If that goal is accomplished, I think other considerations are secondary. 

I should note, though, that I do tend to use commas for lists, including the Oxford comma, precisely because I think it ensures clarity. At least in more formal writing.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

Thanks for all the comments everyone. 

What I'm taking away from this so far is that there is room for exceptions and for breaking the rules when it works or when it's necessary. It's been done in the past, it's happening still, but it has to _work_ within the context of the story.
What I'm also hearing loud and clear is that rephrasing or rewriting the sentence in question should be considered and may be a better option.

What FifthView mentioned about sometimes wanting to eliminate the comma happens to me too. It sometimes just doesn't feel right to have it there. At some point in the past I came across a series of rants about comma usage and started paying more attention to putting them in where they should be. I put it down to perhaps not having a good enough feel for the language, and I figured it'd be safer to stick with the rules.

I'm no longer so sure.

As Nimue points out, this is from a story where I'm experimenting with styles and language use. I intentionally break punctuation rules in plenty of places in order to achieve certain effects. The example in the original post is not one of those places. The full paragraph reads:


> “Don’t worry, you’ll be fine.” Trula tilted her head, and her voice filled with sympathy. “And I’ll be in the room next to yours. It’s fine.”


As you see, it's a dialogue beat. It's not massively important and rewriting it isn't a big deal.


EDIT:
Here's another example where I've intentionally left out a whole load of commas:


> Upstairs. In a house. Breathe in. Breathe out. She’d never get married. She’d be weak and take too long and he’d go find someone else in another village. Breathe. She should just go to Storvak and become a monk and never get married and never have a burrow and her mother would be so disappointed and everyone would talk and she’d never have any children of her own.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

Neither of these is grammatically incorrect.


> Trula tilted her head, and her voice filled with sympathy.
> 
> Trula tilted her head and her voice filled with sympathy.



The only issue here is whether you, the author, want to create a pause for the reader before the second clause. If your prose feels stilted to your reader, and they've pointed out your use of commas as one culprit, it may be that your creating pauses that don't feel natural to the reader. It may also be that you're simply creating unnatural pauses too often (an unnatural pause can be a useful tool). I'd have to see a much larger sample to judge for myself.

****

There was some discussion earlier regarding independent clauses, so I wanted to address that point also. 

The danger in joining two independent clauses without a comma + conjunction, is the creation of a comma splice. A comma splice is regarded (in English, at least, but not all languages) as grammatically incorrect. I've been told by several agents/editors that if they see comma splices in a submitted work, it's a sure sign of a writer who isn't ready. 

A comma splice is the joining of two _independent clauses_ without a conjunction. The examples provided by the OP are not independent clauses. The first clause leads to the second. That's why the author has the freedom to create the pause with a comma, or do without to benefit flow, and still be grammatically correct. The author might also choose to separate both clauses with a period to form two sentences, or even utilize a semicolon (see semicolon use below). Again, your choice should depend on the desired effect. 

Some examples of grammatically incorrect comma splicing:


> I went to the store, Jim was there.
> 
> I love amusement parks, they're so fun.
> 
> ...




In the examples above, you must join the independent clauses together with a comma + conjunction, separate them with a period, or if there is a close logical connection, use a semicolon to join the independent clauses.

The case of using a semicolon might look like this:


> I don't love you; I don't hate you, either.



Note: The above is grammatically correct. However, consider the point that most people do not regularly use semicolons. They aren't commonly understood, and therefore, their use may be jarring to your reader. I avoid semicolons completely due to this consideration. If you choose to use them, I'd recommend sparing use.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

> EDIT:
> Here's another example where I've intentionally left out a whole load of commas:
> 
> 
> ...



This works for me.

How do I explain this effect? 

These things are a jumble in her mind. They're all related–but how? Just breathe.

_Edit: Funny, that "just breathe." No commas for breath, heh._


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

This is a comma splice:


> “Don’t worry, you’ll be fine.”


Does the effect you're aiming for change by using the grammatically correct _period_?

Like this:


> 'Don't worry. You'll be fine."


Say them both aloud. You'll see the cadence and sound is the same, so be grammatically correct here.

In this example, beginning with a conjunction is technically a grammatical error. However, beginning with a conjunction, especially in dialogue, is acceptable in creative writing because you're trying to depict natural speech. It's how people talk.


> “And I’ll be in the room next to yours. It’s fine.”


Note: You might not want to do it a lot though.

The next example:


> Upstairs. In a house. Breathe in. Breathe out. She’d never get married. She’d be weak and take too long and he’d go find someone else in another village. Breathe. She should just go to Storvak and become a monk and never get married and never have a burrow and her mother would be so disappointed and everyone would talk and she’d never have any children of her own.


I'd have no issue with this as a reader. Though there are other ways to achieve a similar effect. 

Like this, for example:


> Upstairs. In a house. Breathe in. Breathe out. She’d never get married. She’d be weak and take too long. He’d go find someone else, in another village. Breathe. She should just go to Storvak and become a monk. Never get married. Never have a burrow. Everyone would talk. Her mother would be so disappointed, and she’d never have any children of her own.



Point being... Yes, break grammatical rules to achieve a desired effect. There are many ways to skin that cat. Just make sure you understand those grammar rules so you're not breaking them unconsciously.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

> "Don't worry. I've got this"


Thanks TAS for the correction there. I'd probably have missed that otherwise.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There was some discussion earlier regarding independent clauses, so I wanted to address that point also.
> 
> The danger in joining two independent clauses without a comma + conjunction, is the creation of a comma splice. A comma splice is regarded (in English, at least, but not all languages) as grammatically incorrect. I've been told by several agents/editors that if they see comma splices in a submitted work, it's a sure sign of a writer who isn't ready.



Yes, but Elmore Leonard probably never met a comma splice he didn't like, and they're fairly common in works within the same genre (though not only in that genre), so I'd be a bit leery of anyone who had an absolute prohibition against them given the popularity of authors who use them. I think we're back to whether something works or not.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2017)

I don't know anything about grammar honestly. My friend tried to proofread an essay I sent him and I wasn't even sure what he was talking about in a lot of his suggestions. I don't know the rules or the proper terms for anything.

Everything is instinct for me, which means I do bend the rules...a lot. Sometimes I have wholly ungrammatical sections of text that are just denoting my character's state of mind. I really don't care whether my use of commas is correct or not; I use them as I see fit to make my sentences sound the way I want.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I don't know anything about grammar honestly. My friend tried to proofread an essay I sent him and I wasn't even sure what he was talking about in a lot of his suggestions. I don't know the rules or the proper terms for anything.
> 
> Everything is instinct for me, which means I do bend the rules...a lot. Sometimes I have wholly ungrammatical sections of text that are just denoting my character's state of mind. I really don't care whether my use of commas is correct or not; I use them as I see fit to make my sentences sound the way I want.



I think that's fine, if done well. You see this in published work, including some of the most well-regarded works out there. When it comes to beginners, I suppose the tension is between the point of view that says "Hey, you aren't James Joyce yet, do it the way I tell you" and the approach that says "I don't know if you're James Joyce yet, give it a shot and let's see."  Usually, for beginners, the answer is no, you're not Joyce yet, but I lean more heavily toward letting people try to be.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 17, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I don't know anything about grammar honestly. My friend tried to proofread an essay I sent him and I wasn't even sure what he was talking about in a lot of his suggestions. I don't know the rules or the proper terms for anything.
> 
> Everything is instinct for me, which means I do bend the rules...a lot. Sometimes I have wholly ungrammatical sections of text that are just denoting my character's state of mind. I really don't care whether my use of commas is correct or not; I use them as I see fit to make my sentences sound the way I want.



This is good and bad at the same time. It's good in the sense that we should write according to our own voice, thoughts, habits. We all speak differently and so our storytelling voices reflect how we speak. But this is also bad in that, as a writer, knowing the rules of grammar is highly important especially when it comes to getting work out there. If you're just sharing with friends that's one thing. But if you're publishing or entering contests you'll get ripped to shreds. 

Svrtnsse, don't worry so much about the commas and just write. Listen to how it sounds in your head and when you read it out loud. Adjust as needed. Honor your voice.


----------



## Gryphos (Sep 17, 2017)

Personally I have no problem with the comma in "don't worry, you'll be fine", because the way I look at it, the phrase "don't worry", while technically being it's own clause, functions essentially like an add-on to the second clause, similar to 'however', 'although', etc.

"However, it's not that bad."

"Although, I thought otherwise at first."

"Don't worry, it's not that bad."

It prepositions the following information and accessorises its meaning. Just like 'however' communicates 'the following statement is in contrast to some previous statement', 'don't worry' communicates 'the following statement suggests there is no reason to worry'. Think about how you use the phrase 'don't worry' and similar short phrases in real conversation. Do you hear it as a clause in and of itself, or does it simply accessorise another clause?

It's one of those cases where you have to decide between being 'officially correct' and 'organically functional'. Remember, language is always evolving; sometimes it's worth abandoning dogmatic grammar rules in service of pleasing flow.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, but Elmore Leonard probably never met a comma splice he didn't like, and they're fairly common in works within the same genre (though not only in that genre), so I'd be a bit leery of anyone who had an absolute prohibition against them given the popularity of authors who use them. I think we're back to whether something works or not.



Aha, but the problem is...who says it works or not?

I read a book purchased through Amazon on Kindle that was rife with comma splices, and many cases annoyed me. The weird thing (?) is that I was able to continue the book and ended up liking it. I liked the story, and the readerly-me read with a "gotta watch out for the pot holes" kind of attitude: when the comma splices were the obviously bad kind, I kinda mentally read them as if they were two separate sentences, or with a semicolon, or whatever, and basically "drove around" them. The book did very well on Amazon, and my understanding is that a publisher picked it up (had been self-pubbed I think) and cleaned the grammar for a second release. The next book in the series apparently sucked, according to reviews, so I've not read it.

Some of those comma splices were not so bad, but some led to atrocious ambiguity, lack of clarity, etc.

My general experience is that those writers who don't know what is meant by "comma splice" and why it's usually considered a grammar no-no tend to be unable to tell the difference between a still-clear comma splice and an unclear, ambiguous comma splice. They just splice. Splice, splice, splice.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Aha, but the problem is...who says it works or not?



Yes, there's the rub. In the case of someone like Elmore Leonard, one can conclude a sufficient number of people think it works to have made him a successful and wealthy writer during his lifetime. When you're just starting, you don't have the kind of exposure you need to get a resounding yea or nay from the marketplace. 



FifthView said:


> My general experience is that those writers who don't know what is meant by "comma splice" and why it's usually considered a grammar no-no tend to be unable to tell the difference between a still-clear comma splice and an unclear, ambiguous comma splice. They just splice. Splice, splice, splice.



I think this is true. If you don't understand the underlying rule, then it is hard to evaluate what you're giving up versus gaining by doing something different.


----------



## Malik (Sep 17, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I don't know anything about grammar honestly. My friend tried to proofread an essay I sent him and I wasn't even sure what he was talking about in a lot of his suggestions. I don't know the rules or the proper terms for anything.
> 
> Everything is instinct for me, which means I do bend the rules...a lot. Sometimes I have wholly ungrammatical sections of text that are just denoting my character's state of mind. I really don't care whether my use of commas is correct or not; I use them as I see fit to make my sentences sound the way I want.



Yes, but . . .

You have a frightening amount of raw talent. I've read the stuff you've posted, here, and your gift for voice makes me want to kill myself.

HOWEVER . . .

You need to learn the mechanics. Every writer does. The craft is just that: a craft. Writing novels is like watchmaking, or woodworking, or being a concert violinist. It has to be taken as seriously if you want to make a go of it. You can only get so far on your own. To do it professionally, you have to study.

Skill is a function of talent plus training. You'll be hamstringing yourself if you don't learn how, and why, the language works. You don't have to go out and get an MFA, but holy shit, with your gift, get an education in writing: take continuing ed classes, find a mentor, collect books on the craft.

You're good enough that you might make it on raw talent and guts -- I have never said this to anyone before, because I'm a huge advocate of formal education for writers, but _you might._ But you might not, and my God, it would be criminal for you to fail, or just flounder for 20 years because of a lack of formal training that could have gotten you over a critical hump with a nine-week class or one well-targeted exercise. 

The world will be better for it if you correct this deficiency in your skill set. And quickly; I want to see your novels in the front of a bookstore someday.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> [...]You don't have to go out and get an MFA, but holy shit, with your gift, get an education in writing: take continuing ed classes, find a mentor, collect books on the craft.
> [...]



Or look things up online one by one as you come across them, and then ask questions.


----------



## Nimue (Sep 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> A comment I get now and then from readers is that my prose feels stiff and stilted. It's grammatically correct, but it's dry and lifeless.
> 
> One of the reasons for this seems to be my use of punctuation. From what I understand you're meant to use a comma if you connect two clauses with a word like _and_ or _but_. This seems simple enough, but it seems it can also disrupt the flow of the text.


Slightly tangential to the direction of the discussion, but I just re-read your original post, Svrt and noticed the way you opened it better.  Perhaps this is another thread's worth of advice, but I think that if you're getting feedback that your writing is stiff and stilted, grammatical correctness is really unlikely to be the culprit.  Maybe it is short, choppy sentences and short clauses, like in that example sentence.  Variety is always the best choice.  Maybe you need more character voice to leak through, use more vernacular phrasing in your narration (which could lend itself to bending the rules of grammar, to be sure.)

I also remember that you've said you tend to start with a bare-bones version of the scene, just dialogue, and gradually add up beats and level of detail from there.  Maybe it would be helpful to start focusing on the flow of the narration as a whole, either during the process or afterwards.  Adding bit and bobs might be making you look at individual sentences as being "good" in isolation, but not in the whole poetry of the scene.  Even if you don't write linearly, you may need to re-read it linearly.  (Is that a word...)

It's hard to know without getting deeper feedback from the people saying these things, and a beta-reader may or may not be able to drill down to why they're getting a certain impression.  It's a tough one.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Yes, but Elmore Leonard probably never met a comma splice he didn't like, and they're fairly common in works within the same genre (though not only in that genre), so I'd be a bit leery of anyone who had an absolute prohibition against them given the popularity of authors who use them. I think we're back to whether something works or not.



I wouldn't say I have an absolute prohibition towards anything regarding craft (I know you didn't mean otherwise). I simply don't see the point in choosing a comma splice, over correct grammar, when you get no added effect.  

Does a reader pause longer mentally on a period versus a comma? 


> "Don't worry, I've got this."
> 
> "Don't worry. I've got this."



Where's the difference for the reader beyond grammar?  

Perhaps there's an example from Leonard's writing that might make me feel differently.

EDIT: 
I suppose one use might be to create an informal feel, or in terms of an effect, a breathless ramble of speech or thought. 

Also, The Elements of Style allows for exceptions, but recommends infrequent use:


> If the clauses are very short, and are alike in form, a comma is usually permissible.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Where's the difference for the reader beyond grammar?



I suppose it depends on the reader. I do read those differently, mentally, with more of a pause in the second version with the full stop.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I suppose it depends on the reader. I do read those differently, mentally, with more of a pause in the second version with the full stop.


I edited my last with a couple additional points.

And yes, I'd agree the effect may be subjective.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

Nimue said:


> [...]I also remember that you've said you tend to start with a bare-bones version of the scene, just dialogue, and gradually add up beats and level of detail from there.  Maybe it would be helpful to start focusing on the flow of the narration as a whole, either during the process or afterwards.  Adding bit and bobs might be making you look at individual sentences as being "good" in isolation, but not in the whole poetry of the scene.  Even if you don't write linearly, you may need to re-read it linearly.  (Is that a word...)[...]



I think this is probably good advice. It's too late for this story, but it's something I'll definitely keep in mind as I start out on my next project, which will be very soon.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> EDIT:
> I suppose one use might be to create an informal feel, or in terms of an effect, a breathless ramble of speech or thought.
> 
> Also, The Elements of Style allows for exceptions, but recommends infrequent use:



Yes, I think you could certainly create a rambling speech or stream-of-consciousness style in this manner. But even without going that far I think you get a different pace to the story. I mentally "hear" the effect when I'm reading. And that's for a typical third-person narrative. If you're writing in first person, any of these approaches are also going to contribute to characterization--is your narrator stiltingly formal, scatter-brained and rambling, somewhere in between? Does she change with circumstances? etc.


----------



## FifthView (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think this is true. If you don't understand the underlying rule, then it is hard to evaluate what you're giving up versus gaining by doing something different.



This giving up and gaining is an interesting spin on the topic.

The great (or at least popular) writers seem to develop their own styles–and they use their style consistently within a book! I wonder if that's one of the reasons I was able to finish that book that had comma splices throughout. It was a kind of style-by-accident rather than style-by-choice, but once I'd fallen into knowing what to expect, I could mostly deal with it. Sometimes I had to read a sentence multiple times to understand what the author was saying, but most of the comma splices were simply "non-standard" punctuation and still fairly clear.

But there are problems when the stylings aren't consistent in a book–when a comma splice or something else leaps out–or when the stylings seem haphazard. The latter sort seem to be the kind that work sometimes and not others, an accidental kind of thing. Also, I'm not sure that sort is an instance of gaining something, except by accident sometimes.

Manuals of style have "style" in their description, heh. They aren't "manuals of grammar."  I think the ultimate goal of both is _clarity_. They are often thought to be the same thing, manuals of style and rules of grammar. But maybe clarity is about more than clarity of meaning. Clarity of tone, story elements like pacing, aspects of character (in the moment or overall character traits), voice and so forth might be worth considering, and grammar rules don't really address that kind of clarity. I'm not sure how stylistic punctuation choices might address those things, over something like simple word choice and other aspects of sentence construction, but maybe they have effects on these.

So..."What is gained?" might be a good question. Following the so-called rules might lead to general clarity, which is not a bad thing. Especially when readers have a habit of reading already informed by those rules. I think that not losing that clarity is probably the first consideration when deciding to set out on some other stylistic path.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think that's fine, if done well. You see this in published work, including some of the most well-regarded works out there. When it comes to beginners, I suppose the tension is between the point of view that says "Hey, you aren't James Joyce yet, do it the way I tell you" and the approach that says "I don't know if you're James Joyce yet, give it a shot and let's see."  Usually, for beginners, the answer is no, you're not Joyce yet, but I lean more heavily toward letting people try to be.



The confusing thing is that I score well on tests dealing with this kind of thing (which, in prep for college, I've been having to take a lot.) Apparently I have some kind of instinctive/subconscious knowledge. (???) But I couldn't tell you what the technical term for anything is.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2017)

I write in first-person a lot. When you're using a character's voice to narrate, you lean pretty heavy toward sounding less proper.

Edit: unless the character would speak in grammatically correct fashion which my character is not that sort


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> Yes, but . . .
> 
> You have a frightening amount of raw talent. I've read the stuff you've posted, here, and your gift for voice makes me want to kill myself.
> 
> ...



I'm dealing with college applications and such now. I'll probably end up in an English or creative writing major; that's what my research is for. I want to learn.

On the other hand, I'm such a history buff, and the history courses often interest me the most...I swear I'm going to be that person who changes their major 52 times.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

I'll need advice on a different sentence now, which I can't quite figure out if it's a comma splice, or something else:



> Torkel beamed at her, eyes sparkling with excitement.



When I'm reading it in my head it _sounds_ right, but when I'm reading at it on the screen, it doesn't _look_ right.

Would it be correct to swap the comma for a semicolon?
_Torkel beamed at her; eyes sparkling with excitement. _
or maybe:
_Torkel beamed at her; his eyes sparkling with excitement. _

I don't have a problem with changing it to _Torkel's eyes sparkled with excitement_, but it'd be interesting to know what the correct version of the original sentence would be.


----------



## Ireth (Sep 17, 2017)

The original sentence is correct. You wouldn't use a semicolon there unless "his eyes sparkling" was "his eyes sparkled".


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

Argh...

This is so confusing. I should just start writing in emoji instead.

Thanks Ireth. 

I did change it to "...eyes sparkled..." though. It sort of works better when it's not directed at someone else.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

Ireth is correct.  

The clause in your last example isn't an _independent_ clause.


----------



## Devor (Sep 17, 2017)

> Upstairs. In a house. Breathe in. Breathe out. She’d never get married. She’d be weak and take too long and he’d go find someone else in another village. Breathe. She should just go to Storvak and become a monk and never get married and never have a burrow and her mother would be so disappointed and everyone would talk and she’d never have any children of her own.



^ I came back to suggest that grammar rules are easier to break in sections which dive heavily into the character's POV, such as this one above.  Reading this makes me feel like I'm reading something closer to dialogue even before you've broken the comma rules. I'm hearing the character's rambling and imperfect voice as I read it, so I'm not noticing the punctuation as much as I normally would.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

It does look weird though, but perhaps I'm just overthinking things now? I've spent most of the day and quite a bit of yesterday looking for punctuation issues. It might be getting to my head.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 17, 2017)

Devor said:


> ^ I came back to suggest that grammar rules are easier to break in sections which dive heavily into the character's POV, such as this one above.  Reading this makes me feel like I'm reading something closer to dialogue even before you've broken the comma rules. I'm hearing the character's rambling and imperfect voice as I read it, so I'm not noticing the punctuation as much as I normally would.


I think it works as is, too. 

Svrtnsse, since you're asking...I think yes, you might be overthinking it some.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Sep 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> I think it works as is, too.
> 
> Svrtnsse, since you're asking...I think yes, you might be overthinking it some.



I hear you, loud and clear. 

I'm guessing it's the fear of letting the story go that's kicking in. This is the last pass I'll be making on the story before passing it on for a last spelling and grammar check, and then it's done.

As I'm going, I keep finding new and interesting ideas for additions to the story, and it's sometimes a struggle letting them go.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

At the risk of being pelted with virtual rotten tomatoes, I like the original version.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Sep 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> At the risk of being pelted with virtual rotten tomatoes, I like the original version.



The original version of which example?

I want to make sure I'm throwing tomatoes for the right reason.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I hear you, loud and clear.
> 
> I'm guessing it's the fear of letting the story go that's kicking in. This is the last pass I'll be making on the story before passing it on for a last spelling and grammar check, and then it's done.
> 
> As I'm going, I keep finding new and interesting ideas for additions to the story, and it's sometimes a struggle letting them go.



I read a blog post by Dean Wesley Smith yesterday on how perfection stops a lot of writers dead in their tracks. I have found great freedom in writing when I've just said, "To hell with it!" and written what's flowed naturally. 

Speaking of getting pelted with tomatoes (by the way, my most favorite part of going to the Renaissance Fair is the tomato show where you can buy soft tomatoes for a $1 and throw them at the bad performers on stage), books are about story not prose. Learning mechanics and paying attention to grammar is important. That's one aspect of it. The second being that writing is still an art and looks like art. Story comes first. Then grammar.


----------



## Malik (Sep 17, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> Or look things up online one by one as you come across them, and then ask questions.



This counts.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The original version of which example?
> 
> I want to make sure I'm throwing tomatoes for the right reason.



Sorry, I got behind while following the thread on my phone and missed a lot of replies that were before mine. Looks like agreement in large part on the last example


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 17, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Speaking of getting pelted with tomatoes (by the way, my most favorite part of going to the Renaissance Fair is the tomato show where you can buy soft tomatoes for a $1 and throw them at the bad performers on stage), books are about story not prose. Learning mechanics and paying attention to grammar is important. That's one aspect of it. The second being that writing is still an art and looks like art. Story comes first. Then grammar.



If I could like this x10 I would.


----------



## Devor (Sep 18, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> At the risk of being pelted with virtual rotten tomatoes, I like the original version.


----------



## pmmg (Sep 18, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> I hear you, loud and clear.



I hear you loud and clear. --That needed fixing 


Well, I read through all of this to come to, its hard to beat what Aurora has said. You can go mad trying to fix all those errors in a story, but you must leave room for art. Stories are not technical writing and sometimes get their own rules. If its clear, and it gets the idea across, and it fits in with the rest of the prose...move on.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 18, 2017)

Svrtnsse said:


> When I'm reading it in my head it _sounds_ right, but when I'm reading at it on the screen, it doesn't _look_ right.
> 
> Would it be correct to swap the comma for a semicolon?
> _Torkel beamed at her; eyes sparkling with excitement. _
> ...



Sorry, coming to this a bit late. I don't know if this is the issue, but to me, this has two things that I'm kind of squinting at. First is the dependant clause/second part is almost redundant. When you say someone beamed, they're smiling radiantly or happily, it implies that their eyes are lit up. I mean imagine a person smiling, but they have dead eyes. It's creepy. So that second part, to me, is almost an over emphasis on things that may not be necessary. 

Second, though the sentence is technically correct, depending on what POV you're using and style, it maybe breaking that POV. Is this told from Torkel's POV? How close a POV are you going for? When a person smiles they know they're smiling. When their eyes are sparkling, the only way person knows that is if someone else tells them, or they're looking in a mirror.


As for comma or no comma before a conjunction, I put in the comma probably 99.9% of the time. I must have a very specific reason not to. Flow maybe one of them, but I find that more often than not, for me, if something reads stilted, commas are probably the least of the problems. To me that's like removing a dam to help the flow of a river when there's a drought and river is bone dry.

Flow, to me, is about representing the cadence of the narrator/POV character's voice, and to me, that's more about getting into the narrator/POV character's head and filtering the world through their eyes than grammatical construction.

Now, this isn't to say that grammatical construction isn't important or doesn't play an important part, because it is and it does, and knowing the rules of grammar will allow you to control how things sound when read and helps to capture that cadence. But I find that if you focus more on getting into the narrator/character's head things tend to just naturally flow regardless of grammar.

In one of my writing groups a woman brought a piece that broke every grammar rule you could think of, tense changes, comma splices, etc. Technically, it was a mess. But it flowed, and it was engaging. The reason for that, which we found out later, was because it wasn't fiction. It was a memoir.

One of the things I think this illustrates is if you tap in to the truth of things, fiction or not, and let that truth come out on to the page, it just tends to work.

I don't know. I'm talking out of my bum a little here, but it's my 2 cents.


----------

