Scratch

the best kind of unorthodox punctuation is orthodox punctuation used in unorthodox ways

Bewildering Stories Discusses

Unorthodox Punctuation


In a postscript to an enthusiastic review of Tamara Podella’s “Nightmare Jack,” a member of the Review Board points out an unusual bit of punctuation:

This is one terrific piece of fiction. I never felt I was being told a story. I found myself in it. It’s such a horrific tale of dysfunction and violence and yet I kept seeing myself inside the plot and never felt the author’s hand. She created some terrific characters and let them carry on.

Punctuation question:

With every move came the same morbid smell. Of mildew and prison staleness ineffectively disguised by a spraying of Spring Breeze air freshener.
Should there be a period after “smell”? i would phrase it differently, but that doesn’t mean this is wrong.

As you say, the period is unorthodox but not exactly “wrong.” Let’s see how it works.

The story begins with the narrator’s opening a door and being brought up short by a stench; and it’s a familiar one: "the same morbid smell." But there’s more: the author doesn’t simply suggest an odor and leave it vague, she tells us what it is.

Basically we have four possibiities:

Orthodox punctuation discourages sentence fragments and forbids separating the qualifiers from the word “smell.” In that mode, the sentence would read:

—> With every move came the same morbid smell of mildew and prison staleness ineffectively disguised by a spraying of Spring Breeze air freshener.

The syntax is formally correct, but it does not fit the scene. The sentence becomes long and flat; it de-emphasizes the word “morbid.” The result is dispassionately analytical and does not match the narrator’s reaction to the smell.

Here’s another possibility; use a colon:

—> With every move came the same morbid smell: mildew and prison staleness ineffectively disguised by a spraying of Spring Breeze air freshener.

The colon has its uses but, I think, not there. The colon is very strong and is supposed to call attention to itself. It implies “emphasis forward.” The result is punctuational overkill that displaces the emphasis from “morbid” to the phrase modifying “smell.” Rather, the sentence states first an effect and then its cause. A colon won’t do, because causes are normally subordinated to effects.

A semicolon is also possible:

—> With every move came the same morbid smell; it was one of mildew and prison staleness ineffectively disguised by a spraying of Spring Breeze air freshener.

The semicolon impies “emphasis backward,” which fits the purpose of the sentence. But a semicolon must be followed by an independent clause, and the result is wordy.

Or maybe an em-dash:

—> With every move came the same morbid smell — of mildew and prison staleness ineffectively disguised by a spraying of Spring Breeze air freshener.

A dash could be used here, although it normally occurs in bracketed pairs. However, the dash falls in between the colon and semicolon; it means “no emphasis either way.” And that defeats the purpose of a full stop after “morbid smell.” The narrator pauses as though to think, “Phew! What”s that smell?” and then tells the reader what it is.

In my opinion, the period is the simplest solution: it brings the sentence, like the narrator in the scene, to a full stop. The description of the smell is appended in a sentence fragment, which constitutes an afterthought. The author thus uses punctuation in an unorthodox manner to express relative emphasis in an action scene.

A word of caution: please don’t let this discussion give you any wrong ideas. What have we been talking about: punctuation? Not primarily: the subject is the content. Punctuation is made for content, not content for punctuation. The role of punctuation is to serve the content without distracting the reader.

Don

Last edited by 777w (2012-09-21 21:36:32)

soupoftomato wrote:

777w wrote:

the best kind of unorthodox punctuation is orthodox punctuation used in unorthodox ways

[paragraph]

Sentence Fragments for narrative effect are very common now and not particularly noteworthy as unorthodox anymore!

oh hm i see
well still its interesting to see things not used in a very normal way
also why the exclamation point!

777w wrote:

soupoftomato wrote:

777w wrote:

the best kind of unorthodox punctuation is orthodox punctuation used in unorthodox ways

Sentence Fragments for narrative effect are very common now and not particularly noteworthy as unorthodox anymore!

oh hm i see
well still its interesting to see things not used in a very normal way
also why the exclamation point!

Because, it's exciting! Sentence fragments and knowing more about grammar than you are just, the bomb!

funelephant wrote:

∵

⁂

Question comma.

Love point...

The thing is though, several of these just seem to either be too wide/complicated or violate excepted rules.

For example, the irony mark has it's "mouth" in a different direction than every other punctuation. ; , ? and the marks are generally based on having a dot in them.

I think the doubt point is pretty nice but several proposed points don't really serve much of a purpose.

Last edited by soupoftomato (2012-09-21 22:03:47)

soupoftomato wrote:

The thing is though, several of these just seem to either be too wide/complicated or violate excepted rules.

For example, the irony mark has it's "mouth" in a different direction than every other punctuation. ; , ? and the marks are generally based on having a dot in them.

I think the doubt point is pretty nice but several proposed points don't really serve much of a purpose.

yeah, most of the other ones by herve bazin dont make much sense

soupoftomato wrote:

The thing is though, several of these just seem to either be too wide/complicated or violate excepted rules.

For example, the irony mark has it's "mouth" in a different direction than every other punctuation. ; , ? and the marks are generally based on having a dot in them.

I think the doubt point is pretty nice but several proposed points don't really serve much of a purpose.

What about the interrobang‽

I really don't get the point of the because and therefore punctuation, it only saves you writing like four characters

RedRocker227 wrote:

I really don't get the point of the because and therefore punctuation, it only saves you writing like four characters

I'd generally use it in math

RedRocker227 wrote:

I know but I still find it pointless

math is usually based on symbols so that the whole process of writing it down is made more simple
you could very well write out seven thousand six hundred twenty three times eight hundred million sixteen thousand four hundred forty one equals six trillion ninety eight billion five hundred twenty five million three hundred twenty nine thousand seven hundred forty three but its much easier to write 7623 x 800016441 = 6098525329743

Last edited by 777w (2012-09-22 12:52:00)