I have been writing my book, and as always, spending time with my beloved Chicago Manual of Style. I remember falling in love with this style guide through the lovely work of Kate Turabian, who thankfully took the dense and often overwhelming manual and made it usable for college students. Oddly enough it was footnotes that drew me in. I absolutely hate endnotes, and in line citations make be gag, (literally.) Now I return to my beloved tome when I am feeling the need to focus on incredibly precise modes of English expression. (I am odd enough that I am fascinated by the difference between British and American methods of terminal punctuation. [Specifically that it can occur within a parenthetical statement unless absolutely necessary for clarity in American writing. Whereas the British always place it outside of parenthetical elements.]) Thus I began a ten page exploration of the semicolon; a method of writing that suits my needs quite well, but one which I had never been taught in school. The diabolic attempt to rid ourselves of this precious punctuation was uncovered as I read my other lovely book, Spunk and Bite.
The semicolon is useful in joining a disjointed but necessary tag to a sentence. Modern practice has moved toward simplification; making individual sentences rather than conjoining through the use of more complex punctuation. But the period is such a terminal, disruptive element that it must be avoided. Stopping the flow of a multi-tiered thought is like pausing amid a symphony so that everyone can turn their page together. When I write, I do so in a complex fashion, joining elements together in what I consider to be artistry. There is a time and place for separating elements with terminal punctuation, such as business writing where such exactness is necessary to deliver poignant meaning. I am writing an online book concerning the subject of conscisity, and am a great proponent of situationally bound grammar. But, the punctucide that has occurred for almost a century is appalling.
When language develops, it does so first to suit the increasing needs of expression dictated by increasing complexity of the life it is made to represent. However, once conventions are decided upon, the next move is toward simplification of these elements; especially true as the spoken nature dictates later grammatical revision based on the human’s tendency to find the least resistant path to accomplish its needs. I am usually a proponent of the process of simplification, and this is reflected in my philosophical interpretations of language growth. It may seem that I would be in favor of any movement that reduced the complication of language through often unnecessary elements. This is entirely not true. I am in favor of making each piece of writing zen; letting it reach an independent existence that is complete, and not subject to the duality of grammar against artistic expression.
Why then should we be advocates for the continued use of semicolons, colons, em dashes and any other occasionally used elements of punctuation? When Pollack worked on developing his style, which ended up being wholly separate from accepted techniques of artistic construction, he was not prevented from using these techniques. Many innovators who developed revolutionary ideas, ones that may have eliminated the need for continual use of previous concepts, still had access to those concepts. The death of expression begins with the removal of options.
My old nemeses Strunk & White began the campaign, relegating such oddities to the use of poets; a true graphologist does not support the included usage of such florid extravagances. My spine is wrenched at this fascist policy of separating writing from poetry; making good writing rigid and without emotional expression, or even fluid phrasing. Academic writing is by far the worst example of this ideology. In order to be smart, to be scientific, you must remove any traces of art from your writing. I will allow that the discussion concerning stellar movement is an inappropriate venue for poetic phrasing and disjointed sentence construction. Yet, only fools will refuse to acknowledge that scientific writing escapes metaphors and smilies of any kind; language itself is a metaphor at its most basic level.
There is perhaps one other issue, that of the comma. We have made it a slave to any construction that does not end in a period. The comma is not intended to set off parenthetical elements, or to derive a connection between two thoughts otherwise consider separate save for the context presented. From this servitude, the greater use of the period is backdoored into power; a straw man was erected, leaving the period to solve a problem that was erroneously created. Due to the imprecise nature of the comma, its over use creates confusion for the reader. A confusion that is saved by additional punctuation; at least it would be if any other punctuation elements remained available.
For my part, I will continue to promote the use of punctuation in circumstances that call for it; setting off elements by punctuation that was invented to save confusion, and doing so without sacrificing fluid construction and artistry amid serious matters.
