Conflicting punctuation

[Scott R. Forshaw]

I bought a book by one of my favourite authors a few years ago, and recently purchased it again, because I thought I'd lost it.

Whilst reading it I thought something appeared a little different, but couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. As a result I searched high and low, and eventually found the original copy.

This was the difference:
Version 1 - "You seem to be confusing me with someone who cares," he said petulantly.

Version 2 - "You seem to be confusing me with someone who cares," he said, petulantly.

It was the comma inserted after 'he said' that caught my eye, and it was the same throughout both books. Why is this? And is one of them incorrect?

I couldn't imagine one going into print if it was such a glaring mistake, surely?

 

[alchemist]

Both look okay to me.

The worrying thing here, however, is that you remembered a single comma in a book years afterwards. Are you an AI?

 

[Ursa major]

They're both grammatically correct, but I would argue that they have slightly different meanings, in that the comma introduces a (very short) pause, thereby emphasizing the adverb, petulantly.

I thought (based purely on what I've heard; I haven't done any research) that writers tended to use less commas these days. (I sometimes feel rather self-conscious about the number I use in my posts). If this impression of mine is true, that might reinforce my view that the change in the text is deliberate, not merely a grammatical whim**.



** - There again, you suggested that the change was throughout the book, which would undermine that view. (Perhaps this is the first visible result of the abolition of the strict retirement age: the "new" editor isn't as new as we might have expected.)

 

[Scott R. Forshaw]

If only, Alchemist, if only - I can but dream. I only realised because it was done throughout the entire book, and I felt that it somehow read differently ... I'm strange like that.

 

[Erin99]

I agree with Ursa, completely.

You can choose which version to write - and I often change them around during re-writes! - because both are correct.

I thought (based purely on what I've heard; I haven't done any research) that writers tended to use less commas these days. (I sometimes feel rather self-conscious about the number I use in my posts).

Ditto and ditto. I always find myself removing commas from my writing nowadays because I overuse them (but technically in the right places, mind!). The trend seems to be for less pausing and more action.


No... I did not want to write "paws-ing" because I was talking to a bear. NO! I hate puns. HATE them!

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I couldn't imagine one going into print if it was such a glaring mistake, surely?

What I can't imagine is anyone going through an entire book and changing that much punctuation for a reprint, when there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place! There isn't anything wrong with it in the second version, either, but why bother?

I guarantee you that far worse things make it into print, anyway. Read any Harry Harrison? I adore the Stainless Steel Rat books, but they really needed an editor. And a copy editor. And a proofreader.

Aside from the punctuation and grammar issues that hit print, there's always my favorite -- John Varley's Steel Beach was missing a chunk of about a hundred pages, and in their place was a repeat of the previous hundred pages. As I work at a newspaper now, I know how that sort of thing can happen, but how embarrassing that must have been! I know it annoyed the you-know-what out of me, when I had to wait for a replacement so I could finish the book!

 

[AnyaKimlin]

What I can't imagine is anyone going through an entire book and changing that much punctuation for a reprint, when there wasn't anything wrong with it in the first place! There isn't anything wrong with it in the second version, either, but why bother?

It happened to my favourite book, I was very excited about it coming back into print, because my poor copy shows a lot of love. My daughter wanted to read it, so I bought it for her.

The punctuation was changed and some of his adverb addiction curbed. The magic, colour and depth of the original seems to be missing in the reprint.

 

[Abernovo]

Aside from the punctuation and grammar issues that hit print, there's always my favorite -- John Varley's Steel Beach was missing a chunk of about a hundred pages, and in their place was a repeat of the previous hundred pages. As I work at a newspaper now, I know how that sort of thing can happen, but how embarrassing that must have been! I know it annoyed the you-know-what out of me, when I had to wait for a replacement so I could finish the book!

Aargh! I've had that in a book. I also had one book which had a section stitched/glued in upside down and back to front. That got me strange looks, reading on the bus.

 

[hopewrites]

maybe I comma-pause longer than I should... but that changed it entirely for me, and I wanted to know what was petulant with that extra comma in there.
so--- that raises a question from me, how long is a comma-pause? because I always make it how ever long it takes to draw breath given the pacing of the narrative at the moment the comma is inserted.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I don't know how long it takes you to draw a breath, but that strikes me as being entirely too long for just a comma. Reading aloud, I tend to take breaths at sentence breaks. Commas are just a beat -- actually more of an inflection, in my mind. Of course, I'm an exceedingly impatient person who has to concentrate very hard to keep my reading slow enough for listeners.