Let me begin with Cormac McCarthy's Outer Dark.
An associate suggested that I should read it because, I'd love it. (It always intrigues me when someone tells me I would love this-or-that. It reveals what they see of me. I suppose it is a form of projection in some small way).
I won't go into any sort of deep review of Outer Dark. Suffice it to say, it is very descriptive but bleak and dark story. You could interpret it equally through a religious lens, or just as validly through an atheistic, possibly nihilistic, view as well. The consequence of sin or the byproduct of universe without a governing power. It could be viewed either way. (Or maybe that Venn Diagram in which these two seemingly dichotic views overlap).
But what struck me most, was Cormac McCarthy's writing – maybe I should say grammar – style. Namely, that lack of quotation marks, especially when characters are speaking. (Characters' dialogue written phonetically, as they would speak, is fine). It caused me some concern and forced me to look a little bit into it.
Apparently, in a 2008 interview, he told Oprah that he doesn’t like semicolons and quotation marks, because they clutter with too many “weird little marks.”
... I got the feeling a general consensus was that, if you are that great of a writer, it's forgivable....allowable....excusable...justified...?
I think we need to stop here. Pause, take a deep breath, and ask a simple yet fundamental question: Boiled down to its simplest form, what exactly is a Creative (fiction) Author's job?
1) to successfully communicate, and
2) to have the ability to walk in another's shoes.
I don't think it can get simpler than that.
Now, going back to Cormac McCarthy's 'unique' choice of grammar....
I don't I buy it. I'm all for creative licence, including writing/grammar styles; whatever successfully communicates the idea best. (Because it's about communicating your thoughts, your story, to your reader). And, in my tolerance, I am willing to step outside that box. For example, I absolutely love portmanteaus, for this very reason; that they communicate an idea within a single word that would take an author a paragraph otherwise. Great examples which have been officially incorporated into the England language and/or dictionaries are motel and hangry. But not all portmanteaus have, yet they're still fantastic literary tools. They should not be typos, and they are not grammatical errors.
There are times to think outside the box, and there are times rules, form, and structure are necessary. However, if I were arbitrarily decide I wanted to use the word cat to describe a dog, simply because I liked cat better, I would definitely be in the wrong. Why? It fails to successfully communicate. It breaks one of the two golden definitions of what a Creative Writer is. It hinders communication. It confuses.
Agree or disagree as you will, I would put the lack of quotation marks in this same category. (On a personal note, my thoughts on Cormac McCarthy's “choice” of poor grammar is simply one of laziness. But I digress).
In short, doing grammar as you see fit is a failure of successfully communicating. There is a need for rules, forms, and structure. (The example of the word cat makes for a good example). But we can follow this motive too far the other way. That of the path of the Grammer-Nazi.
I have experienced first-hand manuscripts professionally edited in which the editor missed a typo or two. (It's not uncommon). And if you truly believe running a manuscript through your word processor of choice (ie MSWord, OpenOffice, the list goes on) give it a try, then take this same 'edited' manuscript and run it through another, possibly Google Drive editor/word processor). Now, please don't get me wrong. I am not advocating abandoning an editor or editing. Not at all. My point is that there are far more important issues.
At the end of the day, I can assure you, after a 37-1/2 year career in print-publishing, I feel confident to say, you and I could go into our local bookstore, grab ANY book or magazine off the shelf, and we could find some small error, typo, grammatical blooper, margin error, etc.
The day your book/ebook/manuscript comes across its first Grammer-Nazi, is the day its shredding begins.
The Grammer-Nazi is the Legalist end of this spectrum. They are not concerned with either of the two definitions of what a Creative Author is. They don't care whether communication is better or not, nor do they care whether the creative writer can successfully allow their reader to walk a mile in another's shoes. These are secondary to the Grammer-Nazi. It's about finding error and flaw. Full stop.
Ultimately there is a lesson to publishers, writers, authors, poets, and editors here: That there exists a spectrum, with the Grammer-Nazis on one end, and McCarthyism on the other, and that there is also a happy medium on this scale. Because either extreme hampers and hinders the very purpose of a creative author.
Food for thought.
*And yes, for those who notice and are twisting in their seats. Grammer-Nazi IS spelt incorrectly. It is spelt Grammar. But Grammer-Nazi makes the point. It better communicate the idea.
Keep up to date with breaking news, new releases
and events, and keep your thumb on
the pulse of Ottawa's literary scene.
Subscribe and follow us on social media -
Comments