Opinions Solicited

[Cole Parker]

In the book I'm reading, I encountered the following, which I've altered only slightly to improve clarity without distorting the subject of this entry:

He didn't reply till they were driving. "School together" was what he said.

My query here is, is that correct punctuation? And, if not, how should it be punctuated? How would you write it, not changing a word but doing whatever you want with the punctuation?

This is written by a very eminent writer who has a great grasp of the language, so I suppose that should be taken into account. Still, I don't like it. I can think of a couple of ways to clean it up. How about you?

C

[DesDownunder]

I'm no expert:

He didn't reply till they were driving, "School together," was what he said.

I'm not sure that I understand the context of the isolated, "School together," though. It has me in a quandary as to the context of what is being said, or is it being asked?

The punctuation I have used is standard Aussie rules and may differ from American English. (Now there's an oxymoron.)

[Cole Parker]

That would certainly be one way to do it. Probably not what I'd do, but it's easy to defend. Easy to argue against, too.

C

[DesDownunder]

How about:

He didn't reply till they were driving, "School together, was what he said."

[Cole Parker]

Except that changes the meaning. ' ...was what he said' isn't part of the dialog. And it still looks awkward.

C

[Cole Parker]

That's punctuated perfectly, except it entirely changes the meaning of the sentence. The last part isn't meant to be dialog.

C

[vwl]

I think the original was punctuated correctly. The quoted part acts as the noun of the sentence. "Bullshit" was what he said demonstrates the same.

It does look odd, however.

How about: ...driving, and then he said, "school together."

or

...driving, Then, he said: "School together."

[DesDownunder]

That's punctuated perfectly, except it entirely changes the meaning of the sentence. The last part isn't meant to be dialog.

C

Hence my quandary. I'm missing the context of the isolated phrase "School together" and that makes punctuation less than obvious. Perhaps "School together" is a common phrase in the U.S. that escapes me, and therefore, so does the meaning of the sentence.

If we make the phrase a question:

He didn't reply till they were driving. "School, together?" was what he said.

but then the "said" seems wrong. Again context is missing.

[The Pecman]

It's a clumsy phrase. I'd have to see it in context with the sentence before and the sentence afterwards to understand what it means.

[Cole Parker]

Des, the context is this: He'd been asked a question, how he knew someone. He didn't answer immediately, not till they were driving again. Then came this sentence:

He didn't reply till they were driving, "School together" was what he said.

I think the original was punctuated correctly. The quoted part acts as the noun of the sentence. "Bullshit" was what he said demonstrates the same.

It does look odd, however.

How about: ...driving, and then he said, "school together."

or

...driving, Then, he said: "School together."

Except, how can you stick a capital on Then in the middle of a sentence. Plus you changed the wording. The assignment was to use the same words, but make it look right.

I think, if I were writing it, I'd do it one of two ways. One would be:

He didn't reply till they were driving; School together, was what he said.

Or: He didn't reply till they were driving—'School together' was what he said.

I just don't see the need for the quotation marks since there is no direct dialog being used.

C

[Cole Parker]

I agree, it looks awfully awkward, but this is a prize winning, best-selling, exceptionally literate author and I'd guess she was having fun showing us how to write something and VWL is probably correct in thinking it follows some rule, but to me it is awkward and she should be slapped around a little for using it.

[Merkin]

Hence my quandary. I'm missing the context of the isolated phrase "School together" and that makes punctuation less than obvious. Perhaps "School together" is a common phrase in the U.S. that escapes me, and therefore, so does the meaning of the sentence.

It is rather common here, Des---as in this example of its usage:

"What's up?" asked Ralph. "Is everything still on for tonight? How are we going to get there?"

" 'S cool. Together," answered John.

[DesDownunder]

James, that makes perfect sense to me, but it's not what I read. The word was "school."

[Paul]

Des, the context is this: He'd been asked a question, how he knew someone. He didn't answer immediately, not till they were driving again. Then came this sentence:

He didn't reply till they were driving, "School together" was what he said.

So now that we know that, we still have to wonder why the author chose to say "is what he said" rather than merely, "he said." Phrasing it that way seems to imply that Character 2, after lengthily mulling over the question, has responded in a calculated, possibly evasive fashion, as if reluctant to spill all the beans, for whatever reason. Perhaps his reason for doing that has been set up earlier, perhaps it will be made clear subsequently. The point is, we may still not know the full context in which the exchange occurs.

I'm still not sure whether there is or isn't a comma after "School together" in the original. With one, it's a conventional reportage of a line of dialog; if my speculation about the character being deliberately less than responsive is correct, its absence could be an authorial method of emphasizing the detached nature of his reply.

[Cole Parker]

So now that we know that, we still have to wonder why the author chose to say "is what he said" rather than merely, "he said." Phrasing it that way seems to imply that Character 2, after lengthily mulling over the question, has responded in a calculated, possibly evasive fashion, as if reluctant to spill all the beans, for whatever reason. Perhaps his reason for doing that has been set up earlier, perhaps it will be made clear subsequently. The point is, we may still not know the full context in which the exchange occurs.

I'm still not sure whether there is or isn't a comma after "School together" in the original. With one, it's a conventional reportage of a line of dialog; if my speculation about the character being deliberately less than responsive is correct, its absence could be an authorial method of emphasizing the detached nature of his reply.

My problem with it is that the part that's in quotes isn't a direct quote. As such, I don't think it should be punctuated as if it were one.

But that's great insight on your part, Paul. He was being evasive. He was lying: the two hadn't been at school together. The person the 'quote' was ascribed to was an English lord and the putative schoolmate was his butler.

But I don't really see how that makes any difference in the punctuation. To me, the "xxx" suggests something has just been said and is being directly quoted as it comes from his mouth. That isn't the case here. It isn't being quoted.

Oh, and there was no comma following: together". It appeared in the book exactly as shown in your threat entry.

C

[DesDownunder]

My problem with it is that the part that's in quotes isn't a direct quote. As such, I don't think it should be punctuated as if it were one.

But that's great insight on your part, Paul. He was being evasive. He was lying: the two hadn't been at school together. The person the 'quote' was ascribed to was an English lord and the putative schoolmate was his butler.

But I don't really see how that makes any difference in the punctuation. To me, the "xxx" suggests something has just been said and is being directly quoted as it comes from his mouth. That isn't the case here. It isn't being quoted.

Oh, and there was no comma following: together". It appeared in the book exactly as shown in your threat entry.

C

When I was younger I had a threat entry...Oh, sorry was that meant to be a thread entry? Well, the guy who threatened me was hung like a single thread, if that's any consolation.

[The Pecman]

Des, the context is this: He'd been asked a question, how he knew someone. He didn't answer immediately, not till they were driving again.

Then I'd add the words "We're in" to make a complete sentence:

"We're in school together."

And I'd omit the "was what he said," because I'm not sure you need to emphasize that a character said something after a quoted phrase. I think readers will understand that already.

[Cole Parker]

Then I'd add the words "We're in" to make a complete sentence:

"We're in school together."

And I'd omit the "was what he said," because I'm not sure you need to emphasize that a character said something after a quoted phrase. I think readers will understand that already.

Sure, it would be easy to rewrite it, but that wasn't the challenge here. The challenge was to punctuate it correctly using the exact words the author used. I didn't think the punctuation was correct. I think, using the same words, the punctuation could have been improved. But yes, the words themselves are awkward.

C

[The Pecman]

No amount of punctuation can overcome awkward phrasing. I'd fix the latter first.

[Cole Parker]

I cannot argue with that, sir! When you're right, you're right.

C

[The Pecman]

But... I've also dealt with people I've edited where they cling to something like this and won't change. Whddya gonna do?

You know me: if somebody tells me the wording sucks or is clumsy in some way, I'll try a couple of other approaches and see if I can smooth it over. Sometimes, just reading it out loud will give me an idea that doesn't jump out on the page itself.