Using the comma correctly is often a matter of tempo
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Using the comma correctly is often a matter of tempo
Not long ago I ended one of my scholarly dissertations with an
admonitory word: "Let us think upon these things, and go in peace."
Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters. (Well,
eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing, for my
correspondents were not appalled by the dissertation. They were appalled
by the comma - that is, the little squiggle after "things." "Absolutely
wrong!" cried a teacher in North Carolina. A reader in Seattle was
aghast: "You have torn asunder two independent clauses!"
Very well. That was my comma, I liked the friendly fellow. He added a
necessary quarter-rest to the coda. It's a matter of tempo. To end a
mock-serious column I wanted a mock-solemn pause - largo, if you please,
and not allegro.
Let us talk today of commas. Their employment is loosely governed by
idiosyncratic publishers, crotchety editors and the writers of manuals
of style. All of them agree that in the realm of punctuation, commas
serve important aims of clarity and cadence. My own rule is drawn
metaphorically from the practice of two Virginia ladies long ago. They
had a firm guide for social occasions during Lent: They would have a
drink only if they really needed one. So it is with commas. Throw in a
comma only when you really need one.
A writer's ear is essential to a writer's art. We must hear the words we
write. In many instances, the sound of a sentence read aloud will govern
its punctuation. An introductory phrase, such as "in many instances,"
generally will demand a comma. Other times it won't. If the cadence is
slow, the flag is red, white, and blue. If we're marching briskly, it's
red, white and blue. Comma, in; comma out.
Kim Moore, an editor at Harvest House Publishers, asks about the
punctuation in this hypothetical sentence: "I fed the dog, then the
cat." One school of thought looks at the comma after "dog" and teaches
alternatives: "I fed the dog and then the cat," or "I fed the dog; then
I fed the cat." Or, "I fed the dog, and then I fed the cat." Obviously
we're talking about a remarkably patient cat, but no matter. I would go
back to the hypothetical "I fed the dog, then the cat." The sentence is
unequivocally clear, and it falls more trippingly from the tongue. Keep
it.
A year ago I heard from a Maryland attorney, Irwin R. Kramer. His rule -
generally a good one - is to insert a comma "where the reader would
naturally take a breath." He liked the commas in this exemplar: "During
the defendant's testimony, we discovered that, in 1997, he was convicted
of cocaine possession in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City." I would
recast the choppy sentence and leave at least two commas out: "During
the defendant's testimony, we discovered that in 1997 he had been
convicted in the Circuit Court of Baltimore City of possession of
cocaine."
Constant Reader in Seattle also loves the surplus comma. A photo
identified "the late Bob Hope, who for decades entertained U.S. troops
overseas." Constant Reader would have edited the caption to read, "the
late Bob Hope, who, for decades, entertained U.S. troops... " Aaargh!
In "The Copyeditor's Handbook" (University of California Press), editor
Amy Einsohn offers sensible rules for the comma, but she cuts us some
slack. After we have mastered the do's and don'ts, she says, "we need to
ask ourselves whether the presence or absence of a comma will best serve
the writer's purpose and the reader's needs." In my view, that says it
all. Or: In my view that says it all. Your sentence, your comma, your
call.
--
"Question, two men starving to death decide to eat their hair like
spaghetti. Is that funny?"
"Hmmm, well, it depends on if by funny you want to make people laugh."
-+Eddie Izzard and Joanna Lumley, "The Cat's Meow"
Skitt
> http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/living/9347623.htm
> Using the comma correctly is often a matter of tempo
>
> [...]
>
> A writer's ear is essential to a writer's art. We must hear the words
> we write. In many instances, the sound of a sentence read aloud will
> govern its punctuation. An introductory phrase, such as "in many
> instances," generally will demand a comma. Other times it won't. If
> the cadence is slow, the flag is red, white, and blue. If we're
> marching briskly, it's red, white and blue. Comma, in; comma out.
I see the point, but it is not carried out to the ultimate conclusion; that
is, the sentence, when marching briskly, should describe the flag as being
red white 'n blue. No commas at all, innit?
Besides, what's the comma doing in that last quoted sentence? Typo?
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Robert Lieblich
>
> http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/living/9347623.htm
> Using the comma correctly is often a matter of tempo
>
> Not long ago I ended one of my scholarly dissertations with an
> admonitory word: "Let us think upon these things, and go in peace."
>
> "Absolutely
> wrong!" cried a teacher in North Carolina. A reader in Seattle was
> aghast: "You have torn asunder two independent clauses!"
Well, at least we know that that reader was wrong. The sentence can
be viewed as a single independent clause witha compound predicate or
a compound sentence with two independent clauses, the first
independent clause hortatory and the second imperative (a bit clumsy
that way, to be sure, but not downright illegitimate). Taking the
former view, one could then argue that the compound predicate had
been torn asunder. And since I prefer the former view, I would omit
the comma.
And speaking of sundering independent clauses: I am one who prefers
to insert a comma before a coordinating conjunction (especially
"and") when it joins two independent clauses. Frequently the comma
is necessary to make clear that a given noun or pronoun or phrase is
the subject of the second clause and not part of a compound direct
object in the first. Imagine, for example, reading: "Quentin
Tarantino is a great admirer of the films of Sam Peckinpah and M.
Night Shyamalan," making mental note that Tarantino admires
Shyamalan, and then noticing that the sentence hasn't ended. The
full sentence is: "Quentin Tarantino is a great admirer of the films
of Sam Peckinpah and M. Night Shyamalan similarly admires Michael
Mann." Put a comma before "and" and there's no problem. Omit it
and you sow confusion.
Yet many people have taken to omitting such commas, and the
resulting confusion is entirely their fault. As E.B. White once
wrote: "Clarity, clarity, clarity."
But then I have already been shown on another thread to be an
ignoramus about commas. So please ignore me.
[remainder, though interesting, snipped]
--
Bob Lieblich
Comma fault
Robert Bannister
> In "The Copyeditor's Handbook" (University of California Press), editor
> Amy Einsohn offers sensible rules for the comma, but she cuts us some
> slack. After we have mastered the do's and don'ts, she says, "we need to
> ask ourselves whether the presence or absence of a comma will best serve
> the writer's purpose and the reader's needs." In my view, that says it
> all. Or: In my view that says it all. Your sentence, your comma, your
> call.
In a well written sentence, the reader will notice neither the presence
nor absence of commas. It is only when you have to read a sentence more
than once, that you find yourself thinking about commas. Of course, in
some newsgroups, like AUE, the comma police can write endless threads
about one comma.
--
Rob Bannister
Dylan Nicholson
news:cf98iu$ep1$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au...
>
> In a well written sentence, the reader will notice neither the presence
> nor absence of commas. It is only when you have to read a sentence more
> than once, that you find yourself thinking about commas.
Like that one, you mean?
Mxsmanic
> Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters. (Well,
> eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing,
Perhaps he means Much _ado_ about nothing. Adieu is a French word use
to salute someone whom one expects never to see again. This mistake
does not speak highly of his writing ability. Overall, the author
appears to be trying to "write better" and far above his natural level.
Comma placement is the least of his problems.
> They were appalled by the comma - that is, the little squiggle
> after "things." "Absolutely wrong!" cried a teacher in North
> Carolina. A reader in Seattle was aghast: "You have torn asunder
> two independent clauses!"
If they are two independent clauses, then they can't be torn asunder by
a comma between them, can they?
These people have too much time on their hands.
Commas to me indicate natural pauses. The more careful the
pronunciation aloud of the sentence would be, the more generous the use
of commas to indicate this, such that a formal style or intention might
warrant a greater use of commas than an informal one, even for the same
text.
In any case, I don't fret over commas today, nor do I pay much heed to
those who would have me do so.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
>> Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters. (Well,
>> eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing,
>
>Perhaps he means Much _ado_ about nothing. Adieu is a French word use
>to salute someone whom one expects never to see again.
>
If you would have read the entire posting, you would have caught the
word play of "much adieu about nothing".
Included in the lines you snipped were:
"Not long ago I ended one of my scholarly dissertations with an
admonitory word: "Let us think upon these things, and go in peace."
Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters.
(Well,
eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing, for my
correspondents were not appalled by the dissertation."
His adieu was met without ado.
> This mistake
>does not speak highly of his writing ability. Overall, the author
>appears to be trying to "write better" and far above his natural level.
>Comma placement is the least of his problems.
His writing ability far surpasses your reading ability.
Mxsmanic
> If you would have read the entire posting, you would have caught the
> word play of "much adieu about nothing".
I think you are giving him too much credit.
> His adieu was met without ado.
How clever.
> His writing ability far surpasses your reading ability.
My reading ability is excellent, and I know good writing when I see it.
I did not see it here.
Steve Hayes
<std...@backpacker.com> wrote:
>http://www.sunherald.com/mld/thesunherald/living/9347623.htm
>Using the comma correctly is often a matter of tempo
>
>
>Not long ago I ended one of my scholarly dissertations with an
>admonitory word: "Let us think upon these things, and go in peace."
>
>Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters. (Well,
>eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing, for my
>correspondents were not appalled by the dissertation. They were appalled
>by the comma - that is, the little squiggle after "things." "Absolutely
>wrong!" cried a teacher in North Carolina. A reader in Seattle was
>aghast: "You have torn asunder two independent clauses!"
What about the "adieu"?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Dylan Nicholson
news:41184214....@news.saix.net...
> >
> >Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters. (Well,
> >eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing, for my
> >correspondents were not appalled by the dissertation. They were appalled
> >by the comma - that is, the little squiggle after "things." "Absolutely
> >wrong!" cried a teacher in North Carolina. A reader in Seattle was
> >aghast: "You have torn asunder two independent clauses!"
>
> What about the "adieu"?
>
= valedictory...get it? get it?
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> Night Shyamalan," making mental note that Tarantino admires
> Shyamalan, and then noticing that the sentence hasn't ended. The
> full sentence is: "Quentin Tarantino is a great admirer of the films
> of Sam Peckinpah and M. Night Shyamalan similarly admires Michael
> Mann." Put a comma before "and" and there's no problem. Omit it
> and you sow confusion.
>
This is that problem with the overloaded commas again, their use as list
separators and clause separators. And we can't use semicolons because
they mean something else, mostly nothing worth much most of the time.
Mxsmanic
> = valedictory...get it? get it?
No. The letters were not valedictory, they were critical, and adieu
referred to the letters, not the dissertation. So it's a very poorly
constructed joke, if indeed it was intended as a deliberate joke.
Mxsmanic
> This is that problem with the overloaded commas again, their use as list
> separators and clause separators. And we can't use semicolons because
> they mean something else, mostly nothing worth much most of the time.
A semi-colon is simply a stronger separation than a comma; the
difference is only one of degree.
Dylan Nicholson
news:tjogh0ditsueleqsh...@4ax.com...
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
> > This is that problem with the overloaded commas again, their use as list
> > separators and clause separators. And we can't use semicolons because
> > they mean something else, mostly nothing worth much most of the time.
>
> A semi-colon is simply a stronger separation than a comma; the
> difference is only one of degree.
>
agreeing with you.
Using semi-colons to set off subclauses; like this; seems especially likely
to grate.
Dylan Nicholson
> Dylan Nicholson writes:
>
> > = valedictory...get it? get it?
>
> No. The letters were not valedictory, they were critical, and adieu
> referred to the letters, not the dissertation. So it's a very poorly
> constructed joke, if indeed it was intended as a deliberate joke.
>
pronounce 'ado' and 'adieu' the same.
As for whether or not it was deliberate, why don't you write the author.
Dylan Nicholson
"Dylan Nicholson" <wizo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2nr6l0F...@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> I agree it's not very funny, but that's mainly only because...
A barely unique turn of phrase, I would say.
Mxsmanic
> You may use them like that; but I can't imagine too many style guides
> agreeing with you.
I'll have to write one of my own, then.
> Using semi-colons to set off subclauses; like this; seems especially likely
> to grate.
It's a bit unusual, but I wouldn't call it grating. If you were
transcribing William Shatner, for example, it might be; entirely;
appropriate.
Mxsmanic
> I agree it's not very funny, but that's mainly only because I don't
> pronounce 'ado' and 'adieu' the same.
Are there people who do??
> As for whether or not it was deliberate, why don't you write the author.
I don't care, so writing the author is not warranted. He tries too hard
in that article and that's what really makes it uncomfortable to read.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Tony Cooper writes:
>
>> If you would have read the entire posting, you would have caught the
>> word play of "much adieu about nothing".
>
>I think you are giving him too much credit.
Indeed. What is worse than it not being particularly clever is that it
made little sense. Those complaining were complaining about something,
not nothing. Bill told us that himself. Surely his address was not
about nothing, so what did he mean? And the 'much' didn't fit, only
squeezed in there to draw a parallel with the Shakespearian phrase. A
parallel that, sorry Bill, fell flat. In my opinion.
>> His adieu was met without ado.
>
>How clever.
>
>> His writing ability far surpasses your reading ability.
Coop talking about missing or not reading parts of what someone wrote!
What a gas.
>My reading ability is excellent, and I know good writing when I see it.
>I did not see it here.
That one part was poor anyway. I thought the rest was quite good.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
>> This is that problem with the overloaded commas again, their use as list
>> separators and clause separators. And we can't use semicolons because
>> they mean something else, mostly nothing worth much most of the time.
I agree, Bill. It is the second worst type of punctuation, exceeded
only by the dash. There is no time when they're necessary and only a
few times, even in a lengthy novel, when they are desirable.
>A semi-colon is simply a stronger separation than a comma; the
>difference is only one of degree.
Wow. Can you support that argument?
Charles Riggs
No shit. Awful things, semicolons, even when used with discretion.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Dylan Nicholson writes:
>
>> You may use them like that; but I can't imagine too many style guides
>> agreeing with you.
Wayward comma alert:
>I'll have to write one of my own, then.
>
>> Using semi-colons to set off subclauses; like this; seems especially likely
>> to grate.
>
>It's a bit unusual, but I wouldn't call it grating. If you were
>transcribing William Shatner, for example, it might be; entirely;
>appropriate.
I hope you don't do much writing. If you do, please don't show it to
me. I could get warped.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Dylan Nicholson writes:
>
>> I agree it's not very funny, but that's mainly only because I don't
>> pronounce 'ado' and 'adieu' the same.
Childish use of a question mark alert:
>Are there people who do??
>
>> As for whether or not it was deliberate, why don't you write the author.
Missing comma alert:
>I don't care, so writing the author is not warranted. He tries too hard
>in that article and that's what really makes it uncomfortable to read.
Only to you, it seems.
Martyn
"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" <std...@backpacker.com> wrote in
message news:4117BA15...@backpacker.com...
> Very well. That was my comma, I liked the friendly fellow. He added a
> necessary quarter-rest to the coda. It's a matter of tempo. To end a
> mock-serious column I wanted a mock-solemn pause - largo, if you please,
> and not allegro.
>
> Let us talk today of commas. Their employment is loosely governed by
> idiosyncratic publishers, crotchety editors and the writers of manuals
> of style. All of them agree that in the realm of punctuation, commas
> serve important aims of clarity and cadence. My own rule is drawn
> metaphorically from the practice of two Virginia ladies long ago. They
> had a firm guide for social occasions during Lent: They would have a
> drink only if they really needed one. So it is with commas. Throw in a
> comma only when you really need one.
>
'When I use a comma,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it
means
just what I choose it to mean.'
Martyn
Mxsmanic
> I hope you don't do much writing. If you do, please don't show it to
> me. I could get warped.
I'll take care not to beam anything down.
Mxsmanic
> I agree, Bill. It is the second worst type of punctuation, exceeded
> only by the dash. There is no time when they're necessary and only a
> few times, even in a lengthy novel, when they are desirable.
How do you feel about ellipses?
> Wow. Can you support that argument?
Why does it need to be supported? If you disagree with it, you can
provide your own opinion.
Mxsmanic
> Only to you, it seems.
Things are not always as they seem. There's no way of knowing how most
people who read the article felt about it.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Tony Cooper writes:
>
>> If you would have read the entire posting, you would have caught the
>> word play of "much adieu about nothing".
>
>I think you are giving him too much credit.
>
>> His adieu was met without ado.
>
>How clever.
>
>> His writing ability far surpasses your reading ability.
>
>My reading ability is excellent,
I misspoke. Your reading ability is probably quite adequate. It's
your ability to catch the non-literal use of words to create effect
that lacks. Obviously, you like straight-up, declarative writing that
says what it means and means what it says. You're probably more
comfortable with the "Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat if necessary." style of
writing than you are with anything a bit subtle.
> and I know good writing when I see it.
Let me guess: good writing is prose that you can easily grasp and
don't have to think about. "See Spot run" with a minimum of
adjectives.
>I did not see it here.
Chacun à son goût, as our pretentious resident writing critic likes to
say.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs writes:
>
>> I agree, Bill. It is the second worst type of punctuation, exceeded
>> only by the dash. There is no time when they're necessary and only a
>> few times, even in a lengthy novel, when they are desirable.
>
>How do you feel about ellipses?
I cuddle up to them each night.
>> Wow. Can you support that argument?
>
>Why does it need to be supported? If you disagree with it, you can
>provide your own opinion.
It was *your* wild statement, not mine. The ownass is on you to
explain it, if you can.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
> > This is that problem with the overloaded commas again, their use as list
> > separators and clause separators. And we can't use semicolons because
> > they mean something else, mostly nothing worth much most of the time.
>
> A semi-colon is simply a stronger separation than a comma; the
> difference is only one of degree.
>
Of course this isn't true, though nice if it were.
Mxsmanic
> It was *your* wild statement, not mine.
As I said, if your opinion is different, feel free to express it.
> The ownass is on you to explain it, if you can.
What's an ownass?
Mxsmanic
> Of course this isn't true, though nice if it were.
What is a semi-colon, then?
Mxsmanic
> It's your ability to catch the non-literal use of words to create effect
> that lacks.
The effect must generally be coherent in order for me to notice it;
otherwise it is indistinguishable from an error.
> Obviously, you like straight-up, declarative writing that
> says what it means and means what it says.
I dislike ambiguity.
> You're probably more comfortable with the "Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat
> if necessary." style of writing than you are with anything a bit subtle.
Subtlety requires talent, something that few people possess.
> Let me guess: good writing is prose that you can easily grasp and
> don't have to think about.
Good writing is prose that is interpreted in the same way by virtually
all readers, and thus serves to communicate effectively.
Skitt
> Charles Riggs writes:
>> It was *your* wild statement, not mine.
>
> As I said, if your opinion is different, feel free to express it.
>
>> The ownass is on you to explain it, if you can.
>
> What's an ownass?
You have to apply a tiny bit of imagination to figure it out.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Almost by definition you've now divorced good writing from art.
Harvey Van Sickle
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
>> Of course this isn't true, though nice if it were.
>
> What is a semi-colon, then?
A division between whole thoughts. (As opposed to a comma, which
subdivides a single thought.)
My tuppence...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Ottawa/Toronto/Edmonton for 30 years;
Southern England for the past 22 years.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Dylan Nicholson writes:
>
> > I agree it's not very funny, but that's mainly only because I don't
> > pronounce 'ado' and 'adieu' the same.
>
> Are there people who do??
>
Of course. 'ado' pronounced like 'adieu' is one of the pronunciations in
the dictionary that google uses. As for your pun-ishment, I suggest you
watch at least five Marx Brothers movies and a few Abbott and Costello
routines.
> > As for whether or not it was deliberate, why don't you write the author.
>
> I don't care, so writing the author is not warranted. He tries too hard
> in that article and that's what really makes it uncomfortable to read.
>
Tries too hard in what way? It seems like an attempt at a pun. Since
it's a weekly, nationally syndicated column on the "writer's art", if
there was ever a place to try as hard as you are able, that would be it,
or at least it seems to me:
http://www.amuniversal.com/ups/features/writers_art/
#begin quote
The Writer's Art
by James J. Kilpatrick
James J. Kilpatrick is one of the most respected columnists in the
United States. He has worn half a dozen hats during his storied career
in the news business. He has been reporter, editor, columnist,
commentator and briefly an adjunct professor of journalism. He regards
himself primarily as a writer who functions as a critic of ideas. In THE
WRITER'S ART, Kilpatrick has entertained and informed readers on the use
and abuse of the English language.
#end quote
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Skitt wrote:
>
> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > Charles Riggs writes:
>
> >> It was *your* wild statement, not mine.
> >
> > As I said, if your opinion is different, feel free to express it.
> >
> >> The ownass is on you to explain it, if you can.
> >
> > What's an ownass?
>
> You have to apply a tiny bit of imagination to figure it out.
>
And the head coach wants no sissies, so he reads to us from something
called 'Ulysses'.
mUs1Ka
> On 10 Aug 2004, Mxsmanic wrote
>
>> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>>
>>> Of course this isn't true, though nice if it were.
>>
>> What is a semi-colon, then?
>
> A division between whole thoughts. (As opposed to a comma, which
> subdivides a single thought.)
>
> My tuppence...
So, are you going to to lend it, spend it or take it home?
--
Ray
Harvey Van Sickle
Ah, but that's when you've got sixpence, and can do all three.
I spent a penny twice -- one for each thought, divided by my semi-
colon.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
> > Of course this isn't true, though nice if it were.
>
> What is a semi-colon, then?
>
It can in some cases be used as a supercomma but not at will. It's too
bad, actually. It's clear that commas are used for too many things at
once and this creates ambiguities that don't necessarily exist in the
spoken language.
Robert Lieblich
top:
I wrote what's below after following the thread to its end -- or so
I thought. I was under the impression, as (I suspect) were many
others here that the OP had written the original post himself. I
didn't bother to click on the link at the top of the original -- I
usually don't follow links. Imagine my surprise, then, to discover
in another subthread that the OP had reprinted the entirety of a
newspaper column by Jack Kilpatrick (who I didn't know was still in
the columning biz) with no indication other than the link.
Well, the comments are no less valid with Kilpatrick the author
rather than the OP. So I'm not going to bother to edit them. Here
they are as I wrote them. I stand by them, mutatis mutandis.
Mxsmanic wrote:
> Tony Cooper writes:
>
> > It's your ability to catch the non-literal use of words to create effect
> > that lacks.
>
> The effect must generally be coherent in order for me to notice it;
> otherwise it is indistinguishable from an error.
>
> > Obviously, you like straight-up, declarative writing that
> > says what it means and means what it says.
>
> I dislike ambiguity.
Could we please have the disputed original restored to the thread?
Thank you so much for asking, Liebs. Here it is:
<quote>
Not long ago I ended one of my scholarly dissertations with an
admonitory word: "Let us think upon these things, and go in peace."
Remarkably, that gentle valedictory provoked a flood of letters.
(Well,
eight letters.) In a sense it was much adieu about nothing,
<quote>
With due respect, Msxmanic (I don't know you, and I doubt you know
me), I submit that there's no ambiguity here, unless you mean that
it's unclear whether this was intended as wordplay or not. I caught
the point instantly. It may not have rated more than about 3 out of
10 on the laugh-o-meter, but it wasn't utterly without cleverness.
AUE, at least, is pretty much a smiley-free zone, and a smiley after
"adieu" would have been the equivalent of a very sharp elbow in the
rubs, or perhaps a spoken "nudge, nudge, wink, wink." So there it
sits, un-smilied, in all its glory. Or all its leaden thuddiness.
Okay, it appears that the intended humor slid by you. 'Tis no sin
to miss the point of a joke. I do it all the time -- and let me
tell you, it's no fun sitting there deadpan when all around you
people are grinning and laughing. Probably everyone does it at
times; it's impossible to catch more than a relatively small
fraction of all the puns, references, and illusions that go on
around here. It's even okay to try to blame the putative humorist.
Just don't be surprised if here and there someone thinks *you* are
to blame for missing the point.
> > You're probably more comfortable with the "Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat
> > if necessary." style of writing than you are with anything a bit subtle.
> Subtlety requires talent, something that few people possess.
I don't find "Much adieu about nothing" subtle at all. I do agree
that subtlety is pretty thin on the ground.
> > Let me guess: good writing is prose that you can easily grasp and
> > don't have to think about.
>
> Good writing is prose that is interpreted in the same way by virtually
> all readers, and thus serves to communicate effectively.
To a point. If I saw "Much adieu about nothing" and had no idea
where the phrase came from, I'd like to think I'd have the good
sense to suspect something more than a spelling error -- possibly a
literal quotation from something I'd never read, possibly a pun
based on something I didn't know. As a rule for general expository
writing, your definition of "good writing" is essentially the same
as mine. But most AUE regulars try for a bit more than just
straight exposition -- well, we do so at least part of the time. We
have our inside jokes (of which "Much adieu about nothing" is not
one), and we frequently essay some creative wordplay. Someone
tripping over us in a crosspost might indeed be a bit befuddled,
maybe even a bit vexed.
But the situation here strikes me as quite clear, at least in
retrospect. Bill Bonde essayed some wordplay. A few people didn't
see the humor. And this thread followed, capped (with any luck)
with the tedious analysis you just read (if you bothered to read
this far).
And this sure as hell isn't worth swapping insults over.
--
Bob Lieblich
Blessed are the piece-makers
Robert Lieblich
NOW he tells us.
Bill, please, never assume that people will click on the links you
supply. I thought the style was a bit ornate for you, but I gave
you credit, as apparently did at least one other reader, for having
produced it yourself.
I've submitted another post commenting on the controversy over your
use of "adieu," but it was written on the assumption that you were
the author, not just the poster. I'll try not to make that mistake
again.
--
Bob Lieblich
Only mildly embarrassed
Robert Lieblich
"When I use a *word*,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful
tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less."
<http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm>.
But you knew that all along, right?
The difficulty, of course, lies not in resolving to use a comma only
when you need one, but in knowing when you *do* need one.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who needs a stiff drink about now
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
>
> An introductory note, deliberately and with reason placed at the
> top:
>
> I wrote what's below after following the thread to its end -- or so
> I thought. I was under the impression, as (I suspect) were many
> others here that the OP had written the original post himself.
>
quoted with the URL at the top, there was no reason at all to conclude
that I wrote the article. I'm sure there are thousands of articles
posted every single day to usenet in nearly the same format I used.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
I used the normal format. And anyway, it doesn't matter who wrote
something. If people want to attack some writing, that's their right.
It's more interesting anyway to find them attacking a guy who writes The
Writer's Art rather than just me. It least it's more fun.
Maria Conlon
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) wrote:
> Since it is standard procedure on usenet to post articles that are
> quoted with the URL at the top, there was no reason at all to
conclude
> that I wrote the article. I'm sure there are thousands of articles
> posted every single day to usenet in nearly the same format I
used.
However, the poster generally indicates, in some way, that the
material posted is quoted.
For instance:
[quoted material indented]
"quoted material, with quotation marks used as usual when quoting."
======begin quote =======
[quoted material]
======end quote=========
You did none of that, but launched right into quoting without saying
you were quoting. The URL at the beginning was not sufficient, as it
could have been a reference to which you were responding.
There are readers in aue who do not open all URLS for various
reasons, including the expense of going online when one pays by the
minute for the phone call.
My opinion.
Maria Conlon
"Some guy hit my fender the other day, and I said unto him, 'Be
fruitful and multiply.' But not in those words." -- Woody Allen
Tony Cooper
>My opinion.
Shared.
I didn't open the link. I was under the impression that Bill wrote
the words. I wouldn't change my replies because the words were
written by Kilpatrick rather than Bonde, but I feel a little foolish
for thinking there was a need to defend Kilpatrick's prose.
I don't know that the techniques you use above are necessary, but
there should be some indication that written material is quoted rather
than original.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:03:55 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
> >My opinion.
>
> Shared.
>
> I didn't open the link. I was under the impression that Bill wrote
> the words. I wouldn't change my replies because the words were
> written by Kilpatrick rather than Bonde, but I feel a little foolish
> for thinking there was a need to defend Kilpatrick's prose.
>
It's interesting that it would matter. Numerous times I've seen people
copy something from The Onion and put the URL at the bottom. That, I
think, is intended to misrepresent something, but to put a URL and text
is how you quote material to start a thread on usenet.
> I don't know that the techniques you use above are necessary, but
> there should be some indication that written material is quoted rather
> than original.
>
That's what the URL is for. When you start a thread and you have a URL
at the top, the material right below it is taken from the URL. This is
just common practice on usenet.
Mxsmanic
> You have to apply a tiny bit of imagination to figure it out.
I don't depend on imagination. I prefer that people say what they mean.
Mxsmanic
> Almost by definition you've now divorced good writing from art.
Yes.
Dylan Nicholson
news:k38jh0p53pln55qnv...@4ax.com...
> Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' ) writes:
>
> > Almost by definition you've now divorced good writing from art.
>
> Yes.
>
divorcing "art" from good writing is fine when you're writing legalese or
technical manuals. But if that's all you consider to be worthy of
discussion, then your's would seem to be a sad existence indeed.
Mxsmanic
> Tries too hard in what way?
The entire article is written in a way that tries to be witty and
clever. One senses that the author is not naturally that way; he simply
tries to write that way since he gets paid for it.
> James J. Kilpatrick is one of the most respected columnists in the
> United States.
I evaluate what I read based on what is written, not based on the
identity of the author. If it's good, it's good; if it's bad, it's bad.
Mxsmanic
> I used the normal format.
There isn't any normal format for copyright violations.
Martin Ambuhl
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
>>An introductory note, deliberately and with reason placed at the
>>top:
>>
>>I wrote what's below after following the thread to its end -- or so
>>I thought. I was under the impression, as (I suspect) were many
>>others here that the OP had written the original post himself.
>>
>
> Since it is standard procedure on usenet to post articles that are
> quoted with the URL at the top, there was no reason at all to conclude
> that I wrote the article. I'm sure there are thousands of articles
> posted every single day to usenet in nearly the same format I used.
Even if your claim is true about "thousands of articles," it proves
nothing. URLs are posted for any number of reasons. That one appears
with no statement of why it appears is not an attribution or citation.
When your message is unquoted text with no attribution, you are
violating copyright. There is *no* standard procedure for copyright
violations. Properly attribute text you steal from others. It does not
matter if "thousands of articles" contain copyright violations.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Charles Riggs writes:
>
>>> It was *your* wild statement, not mine.
>>
>> As I said, if your opinion is different, feel free to express it.
>>
>>> The ownass is on you to explain it, if you can.
>>
>> What's an ownass?
>
>You have to apply a tiny bit of imagination to figure it out.
Thank you, Alec: saved by the bell. (I wasn't being cute, by the way.
I couldn't remember how the word is spelled, it not being one I have a
great deal of use for.)
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Tony Cooper writes:
>
>> It's your ability to catch the non-literal use of words to create effect
>> that lacks.
>
>The effect must generally be coherent in order for me to notice it;
>otherwise it is indistinguishable from an error.
>
>> Obviously, you like straight-up, declarative writing that
>> says what it means and means what it says.
>
>I dislike ambiguity.
It can be the spice of life. If everything were simple and
straightforward, where would the challenge be?
>> You're probably more comfortable with the "Shampoo. Rinse. Repeat
>> if necessary." style of writing than you are with anything a bit subtle.
>
>Subtlety requires talent, something that few people possess.
Now there's some subtle wording if ever I heard it.
>> Let me guess: good writing is prose that you can easily grasp and
>> don't have to think about.
>
>Good writing is prose that is interpreted in the same way by virtually
>all readers, and thus serves to communicate effectively.
That sounds like the definition of mundane, boring writing. What fun
in Beckett if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can easily understand him?
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Quite understandable. In Ireland, everyone stands their own round.
You don't hear anyone saying "It's on us".
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Skitt writes:
>
>> You have to apply a tiny bit of imagination to figure it out.
>
>I don't depend on imagination.
Next to intuition, which you probably will claim you lack, imagination
is one of the most important things a person can possess.
>I prefer that people say what they mean.
Then you'll like this post.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Dylan said it like it is.
--
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Cute, but true. You won't see a barman offering you that third beer
for free either, as you often will in America. Or did in the past,
anyway.
--
Charles Riggs
Mxsmanic
> Next to intuition, which you probably will claim you lack, imagination
> is one of the most important things a person can possess.
Intuition is a form of logic, and I possess it.
I don't know why you consider imagination so important, and you haven't
explained.
Mxsmanic
> An artless response if there ever was one.
Yes.
> I doubt anyone would argue that divorcing "art" from good
> writing is fine when you're writing legalese or technical
> manuals. But if that's all you consider to be worthy of
> discussion, then your's would seem to be a sad existence
> indeed.
If you want art in writing, you write poetry.
Mxsmanic
> It can be the spice of life. If everything were simple and
> straightforward, where would the challenge be?
There is a difference between being unambiguous and being simple and
straightforward.
> That sounds like the definition of mundane, boring writing.
The interest of writing is in the content, not the presentation.
Shakespeare managed to write everything using a vocabulary of only 1600
words or so.
> What fun in Beckett if every Tom, Dick, and Harry can easily
> understand him?
Do you want fun, or a boost of the ego?
Harvey Van Sickle
> Dylan Nicholson writes:
>
>> An artless response if there ever was one.
>
> Yes.
>
>> I doubt anyone would argue that divorcing "art" from good
>> writing is fine when you're writing legalese or technical
>> manuals. But if that's all you consider to be worthy of
>> discussion, then your's would seem to be a sad existence
>> indeed.
>
> If you want art in writing, you write poetry.
Is prose -- well written prose -- incapable of art?
Rolleston
>In a well written sentence, the reader will notice neither the presence
>nor absence of commas.
In the best sentences, as in the best operating theatres, the patient
reader will notice nothing.
R.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Charles Riggs writes:
>
>> Next to intuition, which you probably will claim you lack, imagination
>> is one of the most important things a person can possess.
>
>Intuition is a form of logic, and I possess it.
And keep it on a very short leash indeed.
>I don't know why you consider imagination so important, and you haven't
>explained.
Obviously, without it, you will have to have the importance explained.
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
>
> On 11 Aug 2004, Mxsmanic wrote
>
> > Dylan Nicholson writes:
> >
> >> An artless response if there ever was one.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> I doubt anyone would argue that divorcing "art" from good
> >> writing is fine when you're writing legalese or technical
> >> manuals. But if that's all you consider to be worthy of
> >> discussion, then your's would seem to be a sad existence
> >> indeed.
> >
> > If you want art in writing, you write poetry.
>
> Is prose -- well written prose -- incapable of art?
>
"... Poetry is dying first. It'll be absorbed into prose sooner or
later. For instance, the beautiful word, the colored and glittering
word, and the beautiful simile belong in prose now. To get attention
poetry has got to strain for the unusual word, the harsh, earthy word
that's never been beautiful before. Beauty, as the sum of several
beautiful parts, reached its apotheosis in Swinburne. It can't go any
further--except in the novel, perhaps."
Dick interrupted him impatiently: "You know these new novels make me
tired. My God! Everywhere I go some silly girl asks me if I've read
'This Side of Paradise'. Are our girls really like that? If it's true to
life, which I don't believe, the next generation is going to the dogs.
I'm sick of all this shoddy realism. I think there's a place for the
romanticist in literature."
F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Beautiful and Damned"
Mxsmanic
> Is prose -- well written prose -- incapable of art?
I suppose not, but if art is the primary purpose, it's poetry, not
prose.
I think that people confuse the art of the ideas being communicated with
art in the medium of communication itself. The latter is poetry; the
former is prose.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Charles Riggs writes:
>
>> Next to intuition, which you probably will claim you lack, imagination
>> is one of the most important things a person can possess.
>
>Intuition is a form of logic, and I possess it.
I think quite the opposite. We often do the right thing when allowing
our inherent intuition to do its job, never even considering logic
when we do. To be bound by the laws of logic is, Zen masters say, the
most damaging thing a person can do. When freed from thinking 'this is
right' and 'this is wrong', or 'this makes sense' and 'this doesn't',
we open our minds.
>I don't know why you consider imagination so important, and you haven't
>explained.
Without it how can we create beauty where it didn't exist before,
inventions, or new ideas?
--
Charles Riggs
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Charles Riggs wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:36:02 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Charles Riggs writes:
> >
> >> Next to intuition, which you probably will claim you lack, imagination
> >> is one of the most important things a person can possess.
> >
> >Intuition is a form of logic, and I possess it.
>
> I think quite the opposite. We often do the right thing when allowing
> our inherent intuition to do its job, never even considering logic
> when we do. To be bound by the laws of logic is, Zen masters say, the
> most damaging thing a person can do. When freed from thinking 'this is
> right' and 'this is wrong', or 'this makes sense' and 'this doesn't',
> we open our minds.
>
I guess someone will burden us with "Zen and the Art of the Comma".
Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )
Mxsmanic wrote:
>
> Harvey Van Sickle writes:
>
> > Is prose -- well written prose -- incapable of art?
>
> I suppose not, but if art is the primary purpose, it's poetry, not
> prose.
>
So a novel is poetry? I quoted that bit from "The Beautiful and Damned"
and I think it has a bit of a point. If anything, poetry is being
absorbed by the 'prose' of novels or whatever you want to call most
fiction books.
> I think that people confuse the art of the ideas being communicated with
> art in the medium of communication itself. The latter is poetry; the
> former is prose.
>
So you think that there is no difference between Chekhov po-ruski and
Chekhov in English translation? I really believe that the author's words
matter beyond poetry. (Think of how many more commas there would be in a
German Kafka than an English Caphca)
--
"Throw me that lipstick, darling, I wanna redo my stigmata."
+-Jennifer Saunders, "Absolutely Fabulous"