With the exception of Cormac McCarthy I haven't really read too many authors who actively disregard the current conventions of grammar and punctuation. My question is would this present any problems for the first time novelist and is it something that would make it much harder to sell a work?

In my work I don't veer too much from the norm but I do tend to start a lot of sentences with but and and (which I do intentionally) but would this annoy readers/agents/publishers?

By the way does anyone know why Cormac McCarthy doesn't punctuate his writing?

I think it depends on whether the Agent & Publisher sees it as a gimmick and whether they see it as a marketable gimmick, which they obviously did in McCarthy's case (giving his work a distinctive 'voice'.
But you'd probably have to make it fairly extreme (aka McCarthy's lack of punctuation), otherwise it risks being seen simply as poor grammar.
As for something as simple as Ands and Buts, a number of authors do that so I doubt it would be seen as poor grammar.

- NaomiM


<Added>

no idea where that smiley came from.

<Added>

...as to whether it's annoying or not, you'd really have to put up an example and ask for comments.

'But' and 'And' I would class as colloquial grammar, not least because generally speaking, they can't introduce a whole sentence, and writing whole sentences (i.e. with a main verb) is one of the most basic elements of correct grammar.

But many of the rules we were all taught (if we were lucky, if bored at the time) are for the kind of writing where the whole point is to get the meaning across as unambiguously and clearly as possible, which means conforming to all the rules strictly, to leave the least possible room for what you're saying to be mistaken.

And as soon as you're writing creatively, the texture and rhythm of the language becomes part of the picture, and even more so as soon as you're writing even slightly in the voice of a character or a period. So there's huge latitude, compared to - what shall we call it? - factual writing.

Emma

<Added>

I think what I'm really saying is that of course you can do it if it works - which is to agree with Naomi, that you can only really discuss this question with specific examples in front of you.

Thanks Emma and Naomi,

Once again, wise words to soothe a panicked mind. It's just something I've been mulling over as I read through my first draft. I don't have any particular sections in mind though I think there are few pieces still up in the archive that might give a flavour.

It was one of the hardest things, I foud, when switching from a lifetime of writing non-fiction (where correct grammar is of course de rigueur) to fiction: abandoning the idea that I must always write in complete sentences with a finite verb. It's one of the differences, for me, between places where I am in my own authorial narrative voice, where I do stick to complete sentences all the time, and where I am writing dialogue and internal monologue, and even third party narrative in the strongly internalised viewpoint of one character. In all these latter situtions I try to imitate the natural rhythms of speech/thought, and that can mean beginning with 'but', and indeed using subordinate clauses as if they were full sentences.

It's funny, because MtLL mostly in letters and e-mails, it was highly ungrammatical. On the back cover of the hardback was an excerpt from an e-mal which began 'Well, ...' The first thing my aunt (a teacher) said when I sent her a copy was how shocked she was that I was beginning sentences with 'well' when she tells her kids never, never to do this. But how can you write realistically without breaking the rules?

All this is a very far cry from the experimental flouting of rules of grammar and punctution for literary effect in narrative istelf, though, I think. Maybe that was really what you were asking about?

Rosy

Geoff, I remember reading a piece of your writing a while ago where almost every sentence began with And… and I thought it was very effective. It was clearly deliberate, and – to my mind – added to the atmosphere and rhythm of the piece.

Dee

Starting sentences with 'and' and 'but' is NOT ungrammatical! My 1960s edition of Fowler's Modern English Usage says: "That it is a solecism to begin a sentence with 'and' is a faintly lingering superstition. The OED gives examples ranging from the 10th to the 19thc; the Bible is full of them."

I think that in fiction you have to take a fairly loose view of grammar otherwise you risk the writing sounding overly formal and constrained. However, a loose approach to grammar needs to be a result of being in control of your writing, which demands you know what is correct grammar and are happy to break the 'rules' when it fits your writing need and your writer's voice. That's not the same thing as being ungrammatical because you don't know any better.

It's probably a question of matching the strictness or looseness of the grammar to the style employed. Colloquial grammar is almost bound to jar in the context of formal narration whereas narration that is clearly in a character's voice almost demands some level of relaxation.

While looseness is not necessarily dangerous, to go to the extreme of deliberately and substantially overturning normal grammar, punctuation, etc., for effect risks totally alienating the reader. It can be a bit like being punched in the head during every sentence. Unless there's a really good reason for it and it's very cleverly executed, I imagine most readers might regard it as authorial self-indulgence and not bother to persevere with the battle to follow the text. Overturning the rules definitely makes the work harder to understand for the reader. So the question for the author contemplating such an approach is: what am I giving the readers that will make them stick with it despite the difficulty they're being presented with?

Chris

If you're taking it to extremes and deliberately misspelling, or omitting significant amounts of punctuation, then I have two rules: All bets are off if it's in dialogue - you have complete freedom. However, if the written narrative voice breaks lots of rules, I would say it would certainly limit your chances of being published - and then of being successful once your book is in print.

We've published several pieces of fiction in an experimental style and they have been unmitigated commercial disasters. Hard to sell, hard to package, hard to do anything with, frankly.

In what way were they experimental, Snowbooks?

One was stream of consciousness, one was written in US trash vernacular, one had no commas.

Ooh, I should get you to buy them, to see!

I'll definitely look them up if you mail me the titles (notice you don't like wwmailing so if it's easier then you can do it via www.nperring.com ).

Just thinking out loud (so to speak) but how much should it really matter. I mean, if the story's great and it's told well then that's pretty much all the writer can do. If a book's selling point is the way it's written, is that enough?

I suppose what I'm really asking is why do you think they didn't do very well? They must have been good for you to have published them.

Nik.

PS I think this is what I think - but for a story to be told well it needs to be able to be read and not hidden beneath something that's going to obscure it without making it better. I think.

Ahaha, you'd think that being the finest example of their genre, as these are, would be sufficient. This is definitely not the case in the current market climate.

The most successful example of this in recent times is the Raw Shark Texts, the paperback of which has sold 11,000 copies - which is miniscule and certainly won't have covered the marketing spend.

I don't want to be the one who says that brave new fiction shouldn't be done. We wouldn't have published it if we didn't think that it should be in print. But it is true to say that brave new fiction doesn't sell well. And so, to answer the original question, yes, aggressively edgy and experimental grammar will lessen the chances of being published - because publishers go for books that they can recoup their investment on. Creative writing, however, as EmmaD says above, relies on a beautiful use of language which includes bending rules - what I'm talking about is extreme experimentalism.

Bloody hard work isn't it!

Thanks for the info btw.

Creative writing, however, as EmmaD says above, relies on a beautiful use of language which includes bending rules - what I'm talking about is extreme experimentalism.

Exactly and I see what you mean.

Thank goodness I'm not writing (or clever enough to write!) anything extremely experimental!

Nik.

I took a lot of liberties with Taking Comfort, which did alienate a lot of readers, I know. (I know because I've been told so!) I don't regret writing it that way. And I would say that everything that is in that book is there as the result of consideration and decision rather than sloppiness. (He would say that, wouldn't he!)

I was liberated by reading Blindness by Jose Saramago. I know it's a translation, but the translation I imagine captures the style of the original. The lack of punctuation is shocking and strange at first. Then it begins to seem natural and right and you feel it had to be that way.

I wrote A Gentle Axe properly, just to show people I could!