Aussie Readers discussion

Just thought I'd pop up another topic as there was some discussion in the books without speech marks thread. Didn't want it to get derailed,

For me, punctuation is a skill that allows a writer to provide meaning to their text. Without it, writing can become ambiguous, lacking meaning, or overly vague.

Having said that, I suspect some writers might want that to happen.

For me, it's more about making sure a reader understands what's going on:

"Let's eat, Grandma!"
or
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Lol! Perfect example Leonie.
I am a fan of punctuation, grammar and spelling. They mean that other people all understand that I have written what I think I have written. They help make the art of reading a simpler and more enjoyable exercise. I am unable to understand why a writer would want to go their own way and thus make themselves harder to access.

Haha 😆 love it Leonie 😁

I agree with you guys! For me, punctuation and grammar is actually the equivalent of tone and expression in writing. It has the power to provide the reader with the manner in which a statement was delivered or said or asked, etc. It can convey a lot of emotions, too, including gaps in speeches, stammering, shock, etc.

Writing would be nothing without grammar and punctuation. It's not about propriety--it's all about expression!

It's an interesting question isn't it? Accessibility versus inaccessibility?

Writers have stories to tell, so deciding to make the story harder to understand seems counterintuitive to me. Telling your story is about communicating. And communicating in a fashion that is ambiguous, or for some stylistic choice (chicken scratches on the page come to mind) that makes the story less clear, or even reduces the audience pool significantly seems to defeat the purpose.

Rich language use is completely different in my opinion.

Grammar and punctuation all the way for me. Though the lines do get blurred depending on where the author was schooled. For example, I was educated in the UK and you always put a period after quotation marks when you end a sentence of speech "like this". But here in Australia it is different "like this." I was also taught to use double quotes for speech, but it seems the teaching these days is for single. I don't get not having any at all, but I have read a book on style with examples of no quote marks as a stylistic choice. I guess sometimes things change, but we like what we like.

I think you've hit the nail on the head for the majority of readers Allan... "we like what we like". Well said 👍

Allan, actually, it's US styling that has the period inside the quotation marks. Australian styling, according to the Australian Style Manual, has it outside, the same as British.
It's Australian styling, like British styling, that favours single quotation marks over doubles. US styling uses doubles. I'd say the books you've read with it that way are probably styled either with US styling or have mixed the styles without realising or perhaps worrying about it.

A nice topic Allah touched upon. I, too, usually follow the British/Australian format. I think a part of the reason is that most of the books I grew up on were authored and published in Britain. And my schooling was also from a British school.
I simply feel uncomfortable with the American format and, more than that, the American spellings.

Great topic, Leonie! I agree wholeheartedly with the need for good punctuation, as you know. It completely baffles me that an author would make their work more difficult to enjoy. Maybe they only want really dedicated, determined readers to enjoy their work. That ain't gonna pay the bills, though.

It is one of my secret shames that I have poor spelling and grammar skills, without autocorrect I'm not sure my thesis would have had a chance.

However, without knowing how to use them it is still amazing how their absence or misuse affects me as a reader! I find reading books without quotation marks immensely annoying. I have DNF books like that for no other reason. Poor sentence structure or punctuation will haul me out of a story as rudely as a bucket of cold water.

Also, maybe it is 'racist' of me, but American spelling just looks uneducated and I don't like it.

I don't understand why some authors think it's okay to not punctuate, especially when it comes to dialogue. The goal should always be to help the reader understand things as quickly as possible. Why make it more difficult?

What an interesting discussion!.. You know, until it was brought up a few weeks ago, I had never noticed the lack of quotation marks - double or single. Possibly that was because the books read so easily without them, there was never any doubt for me as a reader as to which character was speaking. However, I have just read an e book A Letter from Paris: a true story of hidden art, lost romance, and family reclaimed in which the author intersperses quotes from old diaries/letters etc and they are not italicised or indented or anything. They just run on, causing one to have to stop and reverse up in confusion. And this is not the only book I have come across like this. I do wonder if it is sloppy editing or something that happens when a book is digitised. (in which case why aren't the final digitised versions proof read) If anybody has the print version of this book, I would be interested to know. But talk about sloppy..... the M/C managed to fly over the Pacific on her way to Europe via a refueling stop in Dubai!
Bottom line - its the author's skill that will make you either hate the absence of speech marks or not notice them. Are you really never going to read another Tim Winton.... ??? :-)

It's very important. Why would we want to through away such an articulate, powerful language? Although I see a place for changing a rule if you can't get your message across, and I know language has to evolve, but we have such a beauty! And, as many have said, a comma can kill.
Lawyers know this - that's why a lot of what they do leaves punctuation out - therefore, can be open to may interpretations.

Perhaps lack of punctuation stems from an era of texting, messaging and tweeting? And I agree, rereading over passages to understand what is being said is not fun.

Good point, Leon.

Leon wrote: "Perhaps lack of punctuation stems from an era of texting, messaging and tweeting? And I agree, rereading over passages to understand what is being said is not fun."

Absolutely Leon

I have a friend who works in admissions at a University and he said they are stunned by applications that hare littered with text speak - like LOL, IMHO and worse!!!

I'm reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy at the moment.
It doesn't have speech marks, but since there is just a man and a boy for most of the time it's very easy to follow and I think somehow enhances the almost telepathic communication that they have. Some punctuation is also missing, but somehow that fits with the sparseness of the writing and landscape (and maybe in a post-apocalyptic world we won't be worrying about grammar too much).

My perception is that more authors are resorting to different literary forms these days, and using less of the traditional grammar, punctuation and direct speech conventions. I wonder if it is because they aspire to be considered more "literary", and hey, let's face it, more likely to get nominated for an industry award.

I find the absence of paragraph breaks, punctuation and quotation marks very irritating. I agree with other commentators on this thread that good punctuation and quote marks improve the reader's experience, because they add emphasis, imply tone or mood, and create light and shade in the story.

This week I have finished a book which is solely the interior monologue of the main character, and all those pesky things like inverted commas and paragraph breaks are absent. It took me quite some time to get my head around the narrator's voice, but in that particular novel I think the random, rambling style imparted a sense of the character's thought processes, and was also a reflection of his social and educational status.

Style has got to convey meaning. Communication between the author and the reader must occur! Otherwise, what's the point?
Sometimes it IS hard to convey nuances of meaning with only the printed word. But that is the challenge! English is a language that has, I feel, excellent conventions for allowing us to do just that. We shouldn't be throwing the baby out with bathwater.

And we do NOT wish to eat Gran! I hope! Dick's in-tray or Dicks in tray? Don't go there!

Karina wrote: "And we do NOT wish to eat Gran! I hope! Dick's in-tray or Dicks in tray? Don't go there!"

Hahaha!!!!!

Karina wrote: "And we do NOT wish to eat Gran! I hope! Dick's in-tray or Dicks in tray? Don't go there!"

Haha, I guess it might depend what genre you're reading, Karina :-)

Lynne wrote: "Allan, actually, it's US styling that has the period inside the quotation marks. Australian styling, according to the Australian Style Manual, has it outside, the same as British.
It's Australian ..."

Thanks Lynne, I have been told by other Australians that they were schooled differently. It just goes to show that it can all get very confusing.

Karina wrote: "And we do NOT wish to eat Gran! I hope! Dick's in-tray or Dicks in tray? Don't go there!"

lol

Carolyn wrote: "I'm reading The Road by Cormac McCarthy at the moment.
It doesn't have speech marks, but since there is just a man and a boy for most of the time it's very easy to follow..."

There are books where it works. I personally felt it worked in The Shepherd's Hut for the same reason you fell it works in The Road; two characters, man and boy, very VERY different voices. So there was never any confusion about who was speaking although I have no idea why WInton decided to do it that way. Other books, not so good.

MaryG2E wrote: "My perception is that more authors are resorting to different literary forms these days, and using less of the traditional grammar, punctuation and direct speech conventions. I wonder if it is beca..."

I do think there's certainly some of that. When I think about some of the recent award winners, you certainly see different literary forms. Whether they work or not, I suppose is in the minds of the readers.

Having said that, why would someone think it might be necessary to change simple things like grammar and punctuation to 'stand out from the crowd?' I'd have thought that beautiful, evocative writing, and strong stories, would be the focus of such awards.

It has been my opinion for quite a while that people trying to win literary awards are writing in a completely different way that people who want to write stories that readers enjoy.

Maybe authors are changing the style to no quotation marks etc to be relevant to the younger readers; i.e. millenials.

"I'd have thought that beautiful, evocative writing, and strong stories, would be the focus of such awards."

Could not agree more, Leonie. In my younger years I would make a point of trying to read as many books as possible from those literary prizes, like the Booker and Miles Franklin short lists. I had this notion that award nominees must be more meaningful and higher quality than the normal bookstore offerings. Often those books were almost unreadable, due to convoluted narrative threads or quirky styles. (Think Peter Carey!) Nowadays I read for pleasure, not for prestige!