Comments on "Purposeful Punctuation"

I think that some of the conventions described in this chapter are unpleasant and not useful as conventions.

Case in point:

"Do NOT use a comma between cumulative modifiers...

A set of large shiny new brass pots hangs over the stove." (363)

Now, I would write this sentence, "A set of large, shiny, new brass pots hangs over the stove." However, the writers of the book might say that this puntuation leads to confusion over whether the brass is new or the pots are new. As a reader or writer, I prefer the commas because each modifier deserves weight. Without the commas, I didn't pay attention to each modifier, so some got lost. Glossing over modifiers can be useful, but the writers don't provide the other option - my preferred option.

Also, they left out my favorite use of dashes - to connect two clauses that are completely causal. In this case, the dash stands in for a word like "because." Here is an example: I couldn't go to the store - the car was dead. This might not be conventional, but I think it works better than a semicolon.

I think the writers could have done a better job explaining the usages of parentheses. Parenthesis is a complicated stylistic device because it can "downplay explanatory or amplifying material" (366) or, contrarily, call attention to that material and change the tone of the sentence. It can also call attention away from the material around it, so that a reader focuses on nothing but the tone of the author or the information within the parentheses. The writers should have taken more time to discuss this device and its complicated effects.

I found their explanation of colon usage useful because have been misusing colons with the word "includes." Hopefully I will remember not to use a colon like this (with the word "includes") in the future.