Slate's Bizbox
the breakfast table: An e-mail conversation about the news of the day.

Peter D. Kramer and Andrew Solomon

the breakfast table
entries
123456789101112131415161718
from: Andrew Solomon

Wouldn't It Be Fun To Invent Your Own System of Punctuation?!

Posted Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 5:44 PM ET

Oh, Peter,

I knew someone was going to mention the dead white males problem. I sort of believe in the existing canon in part simply because it is the existing canon, as you suggest in your note. I mean, if everyone went and gazed in wonder at the Sistine ceiling for generations, then the influence exerted by the Sistine ceiling came to have a defining role in our culture, and quite apart from any inherent greatness of the Sistine ceiling, its position as the precursor original to what followed it makes it worth studying. I guess my literary tastes are somewhat conservative--I'm an admirer of Shakespeare and Tolstoy, though also of Jane Austen, George Eliot, and Virginia Woolf, who all have the advantage of being dead white females. I love Su Shi, who is a dead Chinese male, so I guess that counts for something. I think I'm going to stop doing the categories here, especially because this is getting to be far too much about me, even for a breakfast chat.

"Eyeless in Gaza" seems much more interesting than "Eyeless, in Gaza." Any old blind person can go be "Eyeless, in Gaza" for the price of a plane ticket, but "Eyeless in Gaza" seems to have a holy particularity to it, as though to be eyeless in Gaza were not the same as being eyeless elsewhere, as though this were a punishment greater and stranger than all other punishments of the world, perhaps stranger than all other punishments of the world put together. "He was eyeless in Gaza," she told me, and then said no more, and it seemed the world lay in her expression. "He was eyeless, in Gaza," and I'd assume he was near the site of a terrorist bombing.

You know that Yeats would issue whole new editions of his poems in which nothing was changed but punctuation.

And what about Emily Dickinson? I hate the way people "clean up" her poems for us, as though she had no idea what punctuation was and used her funny dashes for the same reason that she wore odd shoes. Perhaps she did; but it's what she did, and they give to the poems some of that peculiar angular New Englandness.

My cousin Mary used to say when I was little that she was going to take away my box of commas because I used so many of them. I am a great fan of punctuation. I always had a fantasy about making up more punctuation marks, different ones in different shapes, with different meanings, to convey tone of voice or inflection, instead of just showing an exclamation or a question or simply a pause. A kind of musical notation of speech, something to send the voice up or down, to put tonality into English. Wouldn't it be fun if they let you do it? Your own system of punctuation? A little guide offered at the front? But while you're allowed to invent the occasional word, for the length of a work of fiction or in the context of radical science, you are never allowed to invent punctuation these days. Who invented which marks? Did parentheses come in before or after quotation marks? Who did first use an exclamation point, and is it the most recent bit of punctuation? And does one count an ampersand as punctuation?

@#$%^&*\\
Andrew

the breakfast table
entries
123456789101112131415161718
from: Andrew Solomon

Wouldn't It Be Fun To Invent Your Own System of Punctuation?!

Posted Thursday, July 12, 2001, at 5:44 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Peter D. Kramer is a professor of psychiatry at Brown University and author of Listening to Prozac and the new novel Spectacular Happiness. Andrew Solomon is the author of The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression (read a "Book Club" discussion of it here) and also of the recently reissued novel A Stone Boat.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray

:


[Notes from the Fray Editor... or perhaps we should call them footnotes. There was a recommendation for David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest here, and a splendid line from Tim Button here: "Footnotes are justifiable in philosophy, but philosophy as a whole is very hard to justify." KC is expecting footnotes to these exchanges. The Fray team would like to recommend Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire as having the best footnotes ever. We were glad to see that the poster Shark agreed with us: he is looking like the new star of the "Breakfast Table" (eat your hearts out Neill Hamilton and Amber) with his cutting-edge offer of a Kaus-like Star Poster skipping service. Find it here, on the WillV post below, and here.]


You wrote about anarchists who capture the popular imagination? Obviously, you didn't know about the merry band here in the Fray, a group that perfected popular anarchy long ago. Come join us as those from the left, center, and right are terrorized for intellectual pretensions, grammar and punctuation, and bourgeois status symbols. Your sequel could write itself.

--WillV

(To reply, click here.)


It has been suggested that liberals backing down on their opposition to nuclear power is equivalent to conservatives backing down on the rights of children who cannot yet defend themselves against abortions. I'm not going to bother with the actual debates, but I would like to say that liberals and conservatives alike view the nuclear power question as a balance of risk vs savings. Nuclear power is cheap, plentiful, and the electricity is the same either way. The only questions are these: can the plants be run safely, can the waste be disposed of safely. These are practical concerns, and as the need for power increases, the risks seem less ominous. If we were to suddenly find unlimited sources of sulfer free oil, or a way to cheaply produce reliable solar energy, conservatives would find the risk of nuclear power unpalatable. Nobody opposes nuclear power on moral grounds, everybody has practical concerns.

Abortion, infanticide, pornography, etc: These are moral issues, not practical issues. No conservative would say that he opposes abortion because there are too few babies being produced. Moral issues are fundamentally different from practical concerns.

In any case, conservatives and liberals frequently change their positions on practical issues, as things become palatable or circumstances change. When they start giving up moral positions, there had better have been a revelation, because abandonment of a moral position out of expediency is ... immoral

--Ben Kirkup

(To reply, click here.)

 (7/9)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Let the Oil Deals Flow
Raad Alkadiri | Congress should not interfere in the oil industry's contract negotiations with the Iraqi government.