What do you think?
Rate this book


328 pages, Paperback
First published December 1, 1996
We are not dealing with a mania for originality or love of the grand gesture, but with . . . the necessary refinement of the writer’s tool. I shall begin with punctuation. - It can be used as stenografy ! When I write : {She looked around : ?}, the out=come (with an “=”, I despise Websterian rules for compound words : it’s not an oútcome, but an oút=cóme !) is that the colon becomes the inquiring opened face, the question mark the torsion of the body turned to ask, and the whole of “The Question” retains its validity - no : is far better ! : the reader is intentionally not force-fed a stale salad of words, à la {and she asked : “What is it ?”} . . . Let us retain the lovely=essential freedom to reproduce a hesitation precisely : “well - hm - : Idunno - - : can we do that . . . . . . .” (Instead of the rigidly prescribed : “Well, I don’t know . . .” . . . Perhaps many will wonder why I sometimes place the period before the parenthesis; sometimes after; sometimes use none at all : I have my reasons - in almost every case (and with a little thought, anyone could discover them.”That “almost every” is a hedge--yes, Schmidt usually had his reasons, but sometimes he was careless. Despite his avowals of meticulously orchestrated punctuation, I must admit I often find no real consistency; usage varies from text to text and can even seem out of sync within a given text. But rather than attempt to correct this or that usage or rigorously substitute American conventions, I thought it best simply to preserve the original visual textuality.