Wrong or just unnecessary? I don't see it as wrong. Tweaking it: I would go for a walk but for the rain. I would go for a walk except for the rain. I would go for a walk, except for the rain. I would go for a walk, but for the rain. Do you see both comma examples as wrong, or just unnecessary? For that matter, do you see my own comma in the previous sentence ("wrong, or") as wrong?
"I would go for a comma, but for the beer and football." - No comma needed nor desired. The beer and football are sufficient. If I had put a comma, it would have severely limited my chances of getting a date.
Honest question: Who uses 'but for'? Is it just me or is that, in all practice, a contrived expression? Thought I would mention that for especially ESL people. ETA: My bad, turns out it's an actual phrase. Never heard of it till today, though. Odd. ETA: Just isn't my night. Forgot to mention that I'm only talking about in the place of "except for" not in the case of, for example, "We're going to the bar, but for water."
I would punctuate my example differently, depending on the context. I guess that was my point, really. How you'd choose to punctuate that phrase creates an effect. I can think of instances where the two examples you came up with would also work, especially the one with the full stops. That REALLY communicates the jerking-up-short idea the phrase might need in certain places in a story. That particular phrase appeared in my MS, which is why it came to mind on this thread. I originally omitted the comma. Then a beta, who was line-editing, pointed out that it should have a comma. So I put it in. Then later, after I'd forgotten the incident, I was reading back through that chapter, and when I got to the phrase I realised my first choice had worked better. So I changed it back.
My philosophy is that the standard rules for comma usage are there to clarify meaning and to keep the writing flowing along at a reasonable pace: not too slow and not too fast. Misused, excessive commas are like speedbumps; sentences lacking them hurtle the reader downhill helter-skelter and land him on his noggin. If commas are truly used correctly, they'll be like the word "said" as a dialogue tag, faithfully doing their job and practically invisible. So yeah, my tendency is to follow Da Roolz. Nevertheless, I've had a bit of back and forth with a beta reader over a comma splice she's noticed in my WIP. Guess what, there's more to come. They're all in dialogue, most of them when children are talking, and I absolutely refuse to rewrite the individual phrases with full stops. No, no, no. The kids in question wouldn't say these things like that. Nor can I hear them uttering speeches full of semicolons. I want to give the effect that the young characters are excited and their words just tumble out. So maybe in those cases I'll say, "Damn the rules, gimme that comma and I'll splice this right up" (as I probably just did. ). I just hope any grammatically-sensitive readers will know I did it on purpose.
I think a lot of rules go out the window when it comes to dialogue, including correct grammar! Comma splicing might have just the run-on effect you're after, if you've got an excited child spilling the beans.
For me, clarity is the most important thing. Style is of secondary importance. Once you're positive your readers can understand what you're saying (because writing is meant to be understood by others), you can experiment with style and breaking the rules all you want.
I hate it when a writer adds an unnecessary comma to "control" me or leaves one out to "make the sentence run faster". I can forgive one or two mistakes, but when I see an obvious comma splice or run-on sentence, I have pause my reading to correct the grammar in my head. I was raised by a "grammar Nazi" mother, though, so I naturally correct other people's speech in my head anyway. Of course, then I make a mistake and get corrected . Oh well, at least I'm learning . Short comma splices or run-on sentences that are purposefully put in a book to add to the character of a scene are easily forgivable and even enjoyable. Like sentence fragments, if they're done right they can actually enhance my enjoyment of a book. For something like, "Short, sharp stick," it's a matter of what works for that sentence. I tend to put the comma in, but I can easily imagine the comma in someone else's writing. Something like what Catrin Lewis is doing would drive me nuts, especially if the child's dialogue was ever very long without periods. My brain needs a break to understand what I just read, and it only takes that break at a period, colon, or semi-colon. That's just how I read and comprehend. That said, Catrin, if I were reading that book and only the child's dialogue had incorrect comma usage, I think I'd realize you had done it on purpose to show how quickly the child was talking. I do tend to think there's a better way of doing it, but I've never tried to write a character like that. When I notice that I've written a sentence that is too long or too confusing even with commas (or because of them, and yet it is incorrect without them), I look for ways to rewrite the sentence/paragraph. In the end, the sentence and/or paragraph is a lot smoother and much more enjoyable to read (often, I end up breaking the sentence into two or more). For this reason alone, I think writers should not ignore comma rules, but follow as many of them as possible. Sure, make an exception here and there, but try to follow them as much as possible. That's my view as a reader and novice writer.
@Catrin Lewis There is a thread where others feel that the word said is bad, and should not be used. Personally I would rather use said, than have too many commas resulting in run-on sentences. A problem I have dealt with and have hopefully corrected, after getting many scoldings for it.
I totally agree. And IMO this presents an interesting dilemma for the writer because even though a reader may be clear on what the writer intended, that same reader may criticize the writing for being "incorrect" grammatically. I see it as a kind of 'holier than thou' posture some readers hold. Their preference for correct grammar overrides their empathy for what the writer intended to convey. I understand some people are sticklers but they need to also bend a little and see that one size doesn't fit all, and so long as the message was clearly communicated, the message likely got conveyed even though some may disagree with the style choices. IOW I won't judge your style decisions based on my style tastes. Live and let live. But some people are inflexible and want everyone to be grammar experts. That's fine by me but in creative fiction I think it's kinda missing the point. (Oops. I should have said kind OF missing the point. lol)
Oh snap, I haven't seen that thread. I will check it out. Interestingly, Elmore Leonard's 3rd rule of writing is: http://www.vulture.com/2013/08/read-elmore-leonards-10-rules-of-good-writing.html
@Tea@3 here is the thread Why 'said' should remain dead link: https://www.writingforums.org/threads/why-said-should-remain-dead.141018/ Have fun.
I'm a little like that, I admit. I've been confused and frustrated as a reader so many times because of improper grammar (mostly with commas) that I'm just tired of seeing it. I'm not perfect, and I don't expect perfection, but I much prefer a book where the writer at least knows what comma-splices and run-on sentences are, y'know? A few here and there, especially in dialogue, I read without problems, and I even expect them. It's the way we talk. I once read a book where the author put an ellipses every few words in the main character's dialogue and thought . . . now that was annoying! She's one of my favorite authors, and I enjoyed the book, but I was so tired of the ellipses that I almost didn't finish it. The one thing that's helped me most in my writing is something my mom told me, "Don't try to control the reader, just help them along."
There is a few who have made mention of using commas as a control mechanism. I don't fully understand what they mean by the use as a control. Could somebody please clarify that for me? Or are commas being used in some crazy S&M way that I just don't understand. Perhaps there is more to this than one might surmise. (and no I don't mean this part seriously.)
I don't understand the "control the reader" discuss. It seems to be suggested that using correct grammar is controlling?
I think it was referring to an author trying to "control" when a reader pauses by sticking in a comma that shouldn't be there.
But... But... The author is the one speaking! If the reader says, "Don't you DARE tell me what words to think!" then...why is he reading at all? Why isn't he telling his own story?
