I too regard Garner as a god, even though I am quoted in the book as an example of an egregious error, from an article published in the newspaper where I worked at the time. I did not run to my editor and say, "Oh, look, I'm in this book!" I'll add that (as a former college English teacher) I am definitely in the prescriptive camp, and I rue the day that dictionaries became descriptive, that is, when dictionaries turned from being guardians of the language to mere listers of whatever happens to be going on, grammar- spelling- and usage-wise. Of course grammar and usage change, but such changes used to be the results of years, decades, centuries of gradual and natural cultural shifts and tectonic movement in written and spoken speech. Now such matters lie in the hands of publicity and marketing forces, in the banalities of bureaucratic and social jargon and (let's face it) a general decline in concern for the beauty and utility of language.
I'm in the aesthetics camp. If it looks good on the page, I'm for it! I like the sound (and the look) to be something akin to water being poured from a bowl -- effortless on the ear and the eye. That example with all the nested parentheses -- and can't remember the writer's name -- made my eyes hurt.
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023Liked by Erik Harper Klass
Ah, yes: many many (too many) years ago, when I was heavily (too heavily (but not slavishly)) influenced by John Barth, I played a bit with nested parentheses.
Now that I've read Proust in French, and have endured his endless recursions of dependent clauses in meters-long sentences, I have reverted to the Hemingwayan ideal of phrases that punch out of the barrel of the pen like .303 rounds. (Proust could have used a stock of parentheses; perhaps there was a postwar shortage....)
Anyway, punctuation serves in part to clarify structure, in part to give cues to the silent reader in our heads as to how the music of the words should sound. Whatever works is fine.
This essay was a lot of fun to read. I am tempted to write a comment using all kinds of square brackets and parentheses but instead I’ll just say thanks for publishing it. I agree with the author that square brackets can be a little ambiguous with regards to quoted text. I also agree with the commenter above, that clarity is paramount.
Mar 12, 2023·edited Mar 12, 2023Liked by Erik Harper Klass
Mark Z. Danielewski's The Familiar is fun because one character (Anwar [the father of the main character {and husband of the other character about to be compared}]) has nested parenthesis of different character types, whereas his wife (Astair (mother of the main character (whom I've not named but whose name is Xanther (and whom has no parentheses but rather run-on sentences)))) has nested parentheses solely of the curved type.
I'm definitely a prescriptive. I still can't come to terms with "based off of" instead of "based on" or "arrive to" instead of "arrive at." I hate when Americans write "whilst" or "amongst" and my biggest pet peeve is pronouncing "often" with the "t" or worse, "oftentimes."
The original prescriptive/descriptive debate goes back to the seventeenth or eighteenth century when grammarians began to analyse English as though it were Latin and came up with all sorts of ridiculous 'rules' in the process.
What Erik is talking about is really house style, which can be a pest. One thing that often bothers me when my work's published is how titles are capitalised and I wish mags didn't feel they had to have a house style for them. How would they handle e. e, cummings? perhaps poetry mags are different - I don't look at many these days.
Thanks, Becky, this was a lot of fun to read. Dizzying but so what (in this case). Parentheses per se and their usage are not an issue for me (though I'm not a big fan and try to avoid their usage myself). But what does bug me is punctuation of various sorts used for what appears to be decoration. Slash marks and backward slash marks and whole rows of slash marks (for example) (and I've not noticed this decorative tendency in fiction much, more in poetry).
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023Liked by Erik Harper Klass
"Grammar and usage is spectrumal"? Surely grammar and usage *are* whatever.
But more to the point, as an editor, author, and longtime writing professor, I think usage in writing depends on your audience less than prescriptive vs. descriptive. It's a question of registers.
Avoid parenthetic statements. If not, keep them short.
Prescriptive and descriptive approaches are, in my opinion, concern clarity. The former assumes that by sticking to the rules, one's writing should be perfect. Otherwise one will produce such monsters as "Up with which kind of abomination will you will not put?"
Descriptive offers flexibility and creativity (but not with paretheses). Besides, speakers who say "off of" meet howls of protest (or is it meet with?) on the grounds that the 'of' is superfluous. Yes, the expressions 'inside of' and 'outside of' are tolerated (or allowed). What is the problem. We's after clarity, ain't we?
The Brits have a fine slang term for punching someone in the throat, which they refer to as punching someone in the bracket. ;-) And don't get me started on those who insist on em dashes instead of brackets.
In the meantime, I'll go back to my novel written entirely in common modern expression. Hereby an extract:
ay shooden of like rejected mstorey abat vampires and s..t cos OMG whev they bin!!!!!!
That was an engaging and insightful read! Having been an editor for over 9 years, my top goal has become to simplify an MS or text I'm working on as much as it's possible for the readers.
I too regard Garner as a god, even though I am quoted in the book as an example of an egregious error, from an article published in the newspaper where I worked at the time. I did not run to my editor and say, "Oh, look, I'm in this book!" I'll add that (as a former college English teacher) I am definitely in the prescriptive camp, and I rue the day that dictionaries became descriptive, that is, when dictionaries turned from being guardians of the language to mere listers of whatever happens to be going on, grammar- spelling- and usage-wise. Of course grammar and usage change, but such changes used to be the results of years, decades, centuries of gradual and natural cultural shifts and tectonic movement in written and spoken speech. Now such matters lie in the hands of publicity and marketing forces, in the banalities of bureaucratic and social jargon and (let's face it) a general decline in concern for the beauty and utility of language.
I'm in the aesthetics camp. If it looks good on the page, I'm for it! I like the sound (and the look) to be something akin to water being poured from a bowl -- effortless on the ear and the eye. That example with all the nested parentheses -- and can't remember the writer's name -- made my eyes hurt.
Ah, yes: many many (too many) years ago, when I was heavily (too heavily (but not slavishly)) influenced by John Barth, I played a bit with nested parentheses.
Now that I've read Proust in French, and have endured his endless recursions of dependent clauses in meters-long sentences, I have reverted to the Hemingwayan ideal of phrases that punch out of the barrel of the pen like .303 rounds. (Proust could have used a stock of parentheses; perhaps there was a postwar shortage....)
Anyway, punctuation serves in part to clarify structure, in part to give cues to the silent reader in our heads as to how the music of the words should sound. Whatever works is fine.
Speaking of ambiguity... "nonexpert (so-called) writers"
Not sure I would want the reader to have to guess which that parenthetical applies to.
Aesthetics, schmaesthetics. I come away with the impression that parentheses are fun. I have no quarrel with this. I had a good laugh this morning.
This essay was a lot of fun to read. I am tempted to write a comment using all kinds of square brackets and parentheses but instead I’ll just say thanks for publishing it. I agree with the author that square brackets can be a little ambiguous with regards to quoted text. I also agree with the commenter above, that clarity is paramount.
Mark Z. Danielewski's The Familiar is fun because one character (Anwar [the father of the main character {and husband of the other character about to be compared}]) has nested parenthesis of different character types, whereas his wife (Astair (mother of the main character (whom I've not named but whose name is Xanther (and whom has no parentheses but rather run-on sentences)))) has nested parentheses solely of the curved type.
I'm definitely a prescriptive. I still can't come to terms with "based off of" instead of "based on" or "arrive to" instead of "arrive at." I hate when Americans write "whilst" or "amongst" and my biggest pet peeve is pronouncing "often" with the "t" or worse, "oftentimes."
The original prescriptive/descriptive debate goes back to the seventeenth or eighteenth century when grammarians began to analyse English as though it were Latin and came up with all sorts of ridiculous 'rules' in the process.
What Erik is talking about is really house style, which can be a pest. One thing that often bothers me when my work's published is how titles are capitalised and I wish mags didn't feel they had to have a house style for them. How would they handle e. e, cummings? perhaps poetry mags are different - I don't look at many these days.
Thanks, Becky, this was a lot of fun to read. Dizzying but so what (in this case). Parentheses per se and their usage are not an issue for me (though I'm not a big fan and try to avoid their usage myself). But what does bug me is punctuation of various sorts used for what appears to be decoration. Slash marks and backward slash marks and whole rows of slash marks (for example) (and I've not noticed this decorative tendency in fiction much, more in poetry).
"Grammar and usage is spectrumal"? Surely grammar and usage *are* whatever.
But more to the point, as an editor, author, and longtime writing professor, I think usage in writing depends on your audience less than prescriptive vs. descriptive. It's a question of registers.
I note with interest that you don't see the need for curly little commas to offset the said brackets - that tidies up the written page no end!
I loved your piece - brilliantly presented & logically (convincingly!) argued.
It also made me laugh. A lot!
Hope you had as much fun writing it as I did reading it.
Avoid parenthetic statements. If not, keep them short.
Prescriptive and descriptive approaches are, in my opinion, concern clarity. The former assumes that by sticking to the rules, one's writing should be perfect. Otherwise one will produce such monsters as "Up with which kind of abomination will you will not put?"
Descriptive offers flexibility and creativity (but not with paretheses). Besides, speakers who say "off of" meet howls of protest (or is it meet with?) on the grounds that the 'of' is superfluous. Yes, the expressions 'inside of' and 'outside of' are tolerated (or allowed). What is the problem. We's after clarity, ain't we?
Or "error" for "err" (the latter rhymes with "were"). Or "chomping" at the bit instead of "champing." We could go on.
The Brits have a fine slang term for punching someone in the throat, which they refer to as punching someone in the bracket. ;-) And don't get me started on those who insist on em dashes instead of brackets.
In the meantime, I'll go back to my novel written entirely in common modern expression. Hereby an extract:
ay shooden of like rejected mstorey abat vampires and s..t cos OMG whev they bin!!!!!!
That was an engaging and insightful read! Having been an editor for over 9 years, my top goal has become to simplify an MS or text I'm working on as much as it's possible for the readers.