I read a lot. Lately, that has included a great deal of amateur fiction on the internet. In doing so, I have encountered a number of recurring errors. Today, I will deal with the biggest of the lot: punctuation.
In English, punctuation is important. In fact, in may circumstances, it is critical to convey proper meaning. There are two major things that amateur writers seem to get wrong all the time. The first, and lesser of the two, is the lowly comma. There seems to be some mystery about how to use commas correctly and, to be sure, they are a bit confusing. The thing about commas is that it is usually better to leave out a comma that should be there than to add commas that are not needed. It is much less jarring to the reader. I may not be typical but when I’m reading, I mentally introduce a short pause when I encounter a comma (in most cases, anyway). As long as the comma is present at a logical break between phrases or clauses, that causes no particular discomfort. However, if it appears in the middle of phrase or clause, it tends to be distracting and cause me to have to back away and study the text to figure out what is really going on. While I can usually work out what the error is, there have been cases where it was unclear, even in context, what was intended.
The following sentence is a correct usage of a comma: Fred, the bartender, greeted me as I entered. In this instance, the commas are used to set off an alternative name for the immediately preceeding noun phrase. In this case, it is showing that Fred and the bartender are the same person. What I often see is something like this: I waved to, Fred, the bartender, as I entered. Two of the commas in this statement are correct. The one before Fred is incorrect. I see this all the time. I suspect it occurs as a mistaken application of the preceding usage. Most of the time, it occurs before a proper noun, possibly from the mistaken belief that proper nouns need to be set out by commas. Of course, in many cases, it could just as easily be a typo, but the number of times I see it suggests there are some incorrect “rules” floating around.
The other particularly jarring error is when extra commas are introduced apparently randomly: I was, going to the bar, to meet with my friends, for dinner. That example is over the top but it demonstrates the problem. In actual fact, that sentence requires no commas at all. The most jarring comma appears after “was” but the rest of them are still problematic. On the other hand, something like this is good: I knew that, in many cases, people just had no clue. In this case, the phase set out by the commas is extraneous to the actual gramatical structure of the sentence. It’s purpose is as a modifier. However, if you leave out the commas, the sentence is still intelligible with a marginal amount of effort.
There are stacks of rules and guidelines for using commas. Look it up in a modern reference on English style. While many of the “rules” for comma usage are style choices rather than fast rules, pay close attention. Stick to them unless you understand exactly what their purpose is, and even then, it might be better to stick with them. Correct comma usage is something of an art but there are clear patterns you can pick up relatively easily, at least if you are fluent with spoken English.
And now, on to the other major error I see in punctuation: quotation marks. I am not referring to the difference between opening and closing marks nor am I referring to the perference for double or single marks for the outermost pair of marks. I think it is best illustrated by example:
“I don’t understand,” Fred said.
“You poor dear. I’m sure this must all be confusing for you.”
“Why don’t you come sit down and I’ll explain.”
“Why is this happening to me?”
She put her arm around Fred’s shoulder. “Don’t worry. I’m here for you.”
In the above passage, we have a common dialogue form which omits identifying the speaker with every quotation. In general, it makes a two-way exchange easier to read by leaving out unnecessary boilerplate like “he said” and “she said”. However, if you take a close look at that particular passage, you may become confused. We know from the text the Fred says the first text. By the style convention, someone else says the second. The convention would then have Fred saying the third, the other saying the fourth. And then, even if you aren’t confused by the content of the quotations, you have the implication that the second party, a female, says the final statement. Even beyond missing opening or closing marks, or extra marks, this is the worst error that can be perpetrated with quotations: misattribution.
In actual fact, both the second and third quotations are said by the second party, the female conforting Fred. Context makes that fairly clear. If you are not familiar with the rules for quotation marks, you may be wondering how this can be done without having to introduce “he said” and “she said” all over. It is quite simple and is covered by a simple rule. If a quotation continues from one paragraph to the next, the first paragraph does not receive a closing quotation mark but the following paragraph does receive an opening quotation mark. The lack of closing quotation mark on the first paragraph is a sign to the reader that the quote is not finished. The extra opening mark on the following paragraph is present to make it easy to see that the quotation really does continue. Thus, the passage in question can easily be fixed by removing the closing quotation mark from the second statement.
The reason this works is that the convention in alternating dialogue is that at the end of each complete quotation, it is assumed that the other speaker says the next quotation (in the absence of text to the contrary).
There is another problem I encounter occasionally with this same stylistic device, sometimes even combined with the error just described. I have, in fact, encountered this particular problem in professionally edited text. This stylistic device breaks down badly when there a discussion has more than two particpants. If more than two characters are talking back and forth, it must be clear which one is speaking. This may require liberal uses of “Frank said”, “Sally said”, and “Edward said”. However, if there is simple, obvious pattern to the order, the device can be used, carefully.
There is a simple rule to avoid both of these pitfalls. When in doubt, attribute. That is, explicitly say who is talking. Even if it looks slightly clumsy to you, your readers will thank you. Remember that while you, the writer, hear your characters’ voices in your head while you write, your readers do not.
There are, of course, other annoying errors made with punctuation, but these are the ones I find most annoying.