I have another article in line to be published on this blog within the next week. However, much of the main activity this blog sees can be found on its twin account on Tumblr. There you can find quotations, advice articles on writing and editing, writing-related pictures, shared posts, example edits, and much more. So if you're looking for some more content in the meantime, head over to Tumblr and check it out!
"Scare" Quotes
Most people know the basic rules for quotation marks. You use them to set off dialogue in a story, or to capture the exact words of someone in an article/interview. There are single quotes and double quotes, with U.S. rules being to put single quotes inside doubles, and the opposite for the U.K. After that, it gets a bit hairy for most people. However, the general consensus now is that quotation marks should be used for directly stated material, and italics should be used for everything else as much as possible. That includes, emphasis, sarcasm, and words as terms. By using italics in place of quotations in these instances, one can avoid scare quotes. Scare quotes are quotations used as a means of emphasizing or giving a sarcastic tone to a term or phrase. For example, in the sentence, "The politician droned on about the 'importance' of welfare," the word importance has a clear, sarcastic undertone to it, illustrated by the use of quotation marks around it. However, you can see how annoying these extra marks might be, especially when an article is littered with them. Political statements are notorious for such blunders and can be quite frustrating to peruse as a result.
Yet, there times when quotation marks make more sense than italics or simply look better. As you probably noticed, I used quotations when highlighting the example sentence in the previous paragraph. The material was neither a direct quote, nor was it a vocabulary term. However, since I was referring to a specific statement lengthier than your average word or phrase, it made more sense and was more aesthetically pleasing to set off the material using quotations rather than italics. When I then mentioned a single specific term after it, I chose italics.
From a stylistic standpoint, a mixture of quotations and italics is rather useful. But as with most of the standard English rules we've adopted, the grammatical criteria tends to be somewhat fluid. The U.S. is one of the few major countries that does not govern over its official language. Many countries actually have a council dedicated to monitoring and processing changes. In some ways, that makes learning the rules easier. Everything is more concrete, and there's little question what is right or wrong. Yet, I would argue the beauty of the English language is the fact that it can morph rather easily. Without that flexibility, the digital age, for example, would have done a number on the English language. Instead, it adapted, creating new words that were almost immediately recognized and accepted, prompting other countries to adopt our vocabulary for ideas such as the Internet, World Wide Web, and email.
Still, there are times when having a critical eye for unpleasant punctuation is necessary. Particularly true of non-fiction, scare quotes are seen as somewhat unprofessional and certainly extraneous. By the same token, one can overuse italics when replacing scare quotes. The best policy is to use both sparingly and only when appropriate for clarification or grammatical accuracy.
In case you're skeptical of the effect scare quotes have, here are some hilarious instances of what I'd like to call "scare quote overdrive." And yes, you can quote me on that.
http://www.unnecessaryquotes.com/
Other references: http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/single-quotation-marks-versus-double-quotation-marks https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/577/ The Grammar Grind: Quotation Marks
Learn the Rules Before Breaking Them
I know grammar is a touchy subject for a lot of people. No one likes to be corrected or reprimanded for using the wrong word in the wrong place. I know many people who simply say, "Isn't that what an editor is for?" They don't care if they get a few words wrong, because they know it can be fixed or that people will get the gist of what was meant anyway.
I also know people who treat grammar like it is the be-all and end-all. They shudder if they see a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence and a preposition at the end (Which, interestingly enough, is generally accepted as proper English now.) They're seen by many as old-school grammar junkies.
What neither of these groups realize is that it's a combination of these things that can create perfect harmony in a creative work of fiction. Upholding a high standard for correct grammar ensures a well-constructed narrative, and it makes for excellent readability. On the flip side, being a bit lax on grammatical structure can allow for a more creative flow of the prose, making it rather musical in nature. It also gives the author of the piece a distinct voice, and can really make a book come to life. But there's a catch to this balancing act; one first has to know andpractice good grammar before break it.
If you read my blog series on why good writing matters, you probably came across the post about grammar. From a professional editor's standpoint, good grammar is essential for giving the author credibility. It assures the reader that the author knows what they're doing, and the reader will not only buy into believability of the story more, but they will be more likely to read past the first few pages. An agent will also be much more receptive to a book with good grammar than one without. This makes the book more marketable.
Once you have a well-written manuscript, you can start using grammar and sentence structure to your advantage. Use variation of sentence structures to make the prose flow, leading one sentence into the next according the mood and pace of the scene. For example, using shorter, choppier sentences and paragraphs mixed in with standard text can set the pace for a suspenseful action scene. Sometimes, a bit of non-standard grammar or even slang is appropriate in order to enhance this effect, particularly when dialogue is involved.
Carol dropped the bloody corpse she had been holding but held the knife firmly. The door had been kicked in. Two dozen FBI personnel surrounded her within seconds.
"Hands where I can see them!" one of them barked.
Carol chanced a glance out of the corner of her eye at the men surrounding her. Each had a handgun, and a few were packing larger weapons. Much larger. With a small smirk, she loosened her grasp on the knife. It clattered to the ground.
"Now!"
This was her chance. She yanked the chain off and threw it on the ground. The glass vial broke and immediately released a thick cloud of white smoke.
Idiots.
She leaped out a nearby window as her pursuers coughed and sputtered at the toxic fumes.
Notice how the purposefully short paragraphs, dialogue, and sentence fragments were used. The variation of sentences mixed in with just a hint of non-standard grammar gave this scene the desired effect. If the sentences lengths and grammar were changed, one might expect a different outcome, such as surrender of the criminal. Apart from the cues of the woman's body language, the short and direct sentences give the reader additional insight to what's coming other than what is directly written on the page.
Knowing how to productively bend the rules of grammar can be a powerful tool in the right hands. It's how good writers achieve those suspenseful, steamy, and action-packed scenes. But there's a big difference between blatantly poor writing and incorrect grammar being used purposefully and methodically to enhance well-written text.