Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
Recently I've noticed a lot of writing that seems to overuse the comma. Here's an example from a story on the net:
"Most of the time, Leglum's interns manned the controls, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."
The first comma seems redundant, and I would have written the sentence as:
"Most of the time Leglum's interns manned the controls, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."
or as:
"Leglum's interns manned the controls most of the time, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."
Thoughts?
Comments
Some publishers will err on the side of non-use - I know MNs's does. She often sends me examples of what she's up against.
It stems from our childhood educations. We're taught to use them to create a pause - but often the use of the correct word does that.
I mean, grammar - and punctuation - isn't what it used to be, eh? ;-)
If you want to impress an editor, pay attention to grammar.
Two out of three ain't bad - but it still won't work.
In a recent critique I had done, the (published) author and editor put commas in for me, and I have to say, it seems better with more rather than less. Perhaps we need to remember that we, the authors, know what we mean by what we write, and must convey that meaning 'clearly and simply' (the editor's favourite expression throughout the critique).
Hmmm, I don't read it that way. To me it has the same meaning as the author's sentence, but without the pause.
[quote= Dwight]In a recent critique I had done, the (published) author and editor put commas in for me, and I have to say, it seems better with more rather than less. Perhaps we need to remember that we, the authors, know what we mean by what we write, and must convey that meaning 'clearly and simply' (the editor's favourite expression throughout the critique).[/quote]
That''s true, and it may be that extra commas were needed. However, in some modern writing I find the overuse of commas can make the writing stilted, and makes reading tiring. I suppose that if the grammar is correct then it's a matter of style and preference.
[quote= DeneBebbo]"Most of the time, Leglum's interns manned the controls, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."[/quote]
This is correct usage of the comma, as it separates the first half of the sentence into a main clause (the bit that establishes the interns man the controls) and a sub-clause (that they do it most of the time). You could take away the first part without actually losing the meaning of the sentence. The first of your alternatives doesn't make that distinction, meaning the first part of the sentence might feel a bit overloaded to some readers.
[quote= DeneBebbo]"Leglum's interns manned the controls most of the time, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."[/quote]
I don't think this is wrong, but somewhere between the two versions some clarity is lost. In the original version it was clear to me that Leglum is the subject of the sentence, whereas I think if I encountered the version above I might assume the interns were the subject, and might stumble over who "he" was. I'm not sure exactly why that might be; there's something about that "most of the time" that seems to point my interpretation of the sentence in that direction.
Commas are important and need to be used with care - I'm probably misquoting terribly, but I think Oscar Wilde once claimed that he knew a manuscript was finished when he could spend all morning putting a single comma in and all afternoon taking it out again.
The more I have discussions about grammar on this forum the more depressed I get at apparently not being good at grammar :-( To me the context makes it clear that the "he" referred to is Leglum, even if it's not strictly correct grammatically - I don't know if it is or not!
I've got FMEU, but find it more suitable to dip into for specific clarifications than a book to read cover-to-cover. Also got a couple of books on grammar which I keep meaning to read, but always get distracted by a more interesting book! And I'm currently re-reading The Elements of Style, which is a useful book for any writer.
[quote= DeneBebbo]The more I have discussions about grammar on this forum the more depressed I get at apparently not being good at grammar To me the context makes it clear that the "he" referred to is Leglum, even if it's not strictly correct grammatically - I don't know if it is or not![/quote]
It's nothing to get depressed about, and as BaggyBooks has said it's not worth agonising over. My comment was only really meant to flag up that it's good practice to introduce the subject of a sentence early on. By starting off with the interns, a typical reader (well, me) will tend to assume that's who the sentence is about, and only know for certain once they get halfway through.
If it were my sentence, I'd edit
"Most of the time, Leglum's interns manned the controls, but he relieved them every now and again when he felt drawn back to the lab."
into:
"Every now and again, Leglum felt drawn back to the lab, where he would relieve the interns manning the controls."
(I'd argue you don't need both "most of the time" and "every now and again" in the same sentence).
Another way to look at it is that the stimulus comes first (in this case, Leglum's urge to return to the lab) and is followed by the response (him going back there).
In this case:
"Every now and again, Leglum felt drawn back to the lab, where he would relieve the interns manning the controls."
I keep reading it as he's going back into the lab to help the interns go to the toilet...:)
Sorry, my southern upbringing is showing.
It's a minefield, innit?