There are some punctuations that are interesting, and there are some that are not. Let us begin with the punctuations that are not. The first, and the most completely uninteresting, is the question mark. The question mark is alright when it stands all alone, when it is used as a brand on cattle, or when it could be used in decoration. But, in connection with writing, it is completely, entirely uninteresting. It is evident that if you ask a question, you ask a question. Anybody who can read at all knows when a question is a question as it is written. Therefore, I ask you, why should one use the question mark?
Besides, its form does not align with ordinary printing, and so it pleases neither the eye nor the ear. It is therefore like a noun, an unnecessary name of something. A question is a question. Anybody can know that a question is a question, so why add the question mark when the question is already there? I never could bring myself to use a question mark. I found it positively revolting, and now very few do use it. Exclamation marks and quotation marks share the same difficulty. They are unnecessary, they are ugly, they spoil the line of the writing or the printing. Besides, if you do not know that a question is a question, what is the use of it being a question? The same thing goes for a quotation. When I first began writing, I found it impossible to use question marks, quotation marks, and exclamation points. Now, many see it the same way. Perhaps someday, they will see it some other way, but not at any rate, anybody can and does see it this way.
So, these are the uninteresting things in punctuation, uninteresting in a way that is perfectly obvious. We do not have to delve deeper into that. Besides, there are dashes and dots, and these might be interesting. Spaces might also be interesting, if one felt that way about them.
Another punctuation mark one can have feelings about is the apostrophe for possession. Well, feel as you like about that. I can see, and I do see, that for many, the possessive case apostrophe has a gentle, tender insinuation that makes it very difficult to definitely decide to do without it. I do without it, most of the time, but I cannot deny that from time to time, I feel myself having regrets, and from time to time, I insert it to make the possessive case. I absolutely do not like it, and leaving it out, I feel no regret. It is unnecessary and not ornamental, but inside a word and its 's' - well, perhaps, perhaps it does appeal by its weakness to your weakness. At least, from time to time, I do find myself letting it alone if it has come in, and sometimes it has come in. I cannot positively deny but that I do, from time to time, let it come in.
So, these are the uninteresting things in punctuation, uninteresting in a way that is perfectly obvious. We do not have to delve deeper into that. Besides, there are dashes and dots, and these might be interesting. Spaces might also be interesting, if one felt that way about them.
Another punctuation mark one can have feelings about is the apostrophe for possession. Well, feel as you like about that. I can see, and I do see, that for many, the possessive case apostrophe has a gentle, tender insinuation that makes it very difficult to definitely decide to do without it. I do without it, most of the time, but I cannot deny that from time to time, I feel myself having regrets, and from time to time, I insert it to make the possessive case. I absolutely do not like it, and leaving it out, I feel no regret. It is unnecessary and not ornamental, but inside a word and its 's' - well, perhaps, perhaps it does appeal by its weakness to your weakness. At least, from time to time, I do find myself letting it alone if it has come in, and sometimes it has come in. I cannot positively deny but that I do, from time to time, let it come in.
So now, we come to the real question of punctuation: periods, commas, colons, semi-colons, and capitals and small letters.
I have had a long and complicated relationship with all these.
Let's begin with the ones I use the least: colons, semi-colons, and, one might add, commas."
"When I first began writing, I felt that writing should continue. I still feel that it should continue, but when I first began, I was completely possessed by the necessity that writing should continue. And if writing should continue, what had colons and commas to do with it? What had periods to do with it? What had small letters and capitals to do with writing continuing, which was, at that time, the most profound need I had in connection with writing? What had colons and semi-colons to do with it? What had commas to do with it? What had periods to do with it?
What had periods to do with it? Inevitably, no matter how much I needed writing to continue, physically one had to stop sometime. And if one had to stop sometime, then periods had to exist. Besides, I had always liked the look of periods, and I liked what they did. Stopping sometime did not really keep one from continuing; it was not something that interfered, it was just something that happened. And as it happened as a perfectly natural occurrence, I believed in periods and used them. I never really stopped using them.
Moreover, periods might later come to have a life of their own, breaking up things in arbitrary ways, as has recently happened with me in a poem I have written called 'Winning His Way'. By the time I had written this poem, about three years ago, periods had come to have a life of their own for me. They could begin to act as they thought best, and one might interrupt one’s writing with them. Not really interrupt one’s writing, but one could come to stop arbitrarily in one’s writing, and so they could be used. Periods could come to exist in this way, and they could come to have a life of their own in this way. They did not serve you in any servile way, as commas, colons, and semi-colons do.
Yes, you do understand what I mean.
Periods have a life, a necessity, a feeling, a time of their own. And that feeling, that life, that necessity, that time can express itself in an infinite variety. That is the reason why I have always remained true to periods, so much so that, as I say, recently I have felt that one could need them more than one had ever needed them.
You can see how entirely different a period is from a comma, a colon, or a semi-colon.
There are two different ways of thinking about colons and semi-colons. You can think of them as commas, and as such, they are purely servile. Or, you can think of them as periods, and then using them can make you feel adventurous. I can see that one might feel about them as periods, but I myself never have. I unfortunately began to see them as a comma, and commas are servile. They have no life of their own; they are dependent upon use and convenience, and they are put there just for practical purposes. Semi-colons and colons had, for me from the start, completely the character that a comma has and not the character that a period has. Therefore, I have never used them. But now, dimly and definitely, I do see that they might well possibly have in them something of the character of the period, and so it might have been an adventure to use them. I really do not think so. I think, however lively they are or disguised they are, they are definitely more comma than period, and so, really, I cannot regret not having used them. They are more powerful, more imposing, more pretentious than a comma, but they are a comma all the same. They really have within them, deeply within them, fundamentally within them, the comma nature. And now, what does a comma do, and what has it to do, and why do I feel as I do about them?
"What does a comma do?
I have refused them so often, left them out so much, and did without them so continually that I have come finally to be indifferent to them. I do not now care whether you put them in or not, but for a long time, I felt very strongly about them and would have nothing to do with them.
As I say, commas are servile, and they have no life of their own. Their use is not a use; it is a way of replacing one’s own interest. And I do decidedly like my own interest in what I am doing. A comma, by helping you along, holding your coat for you, and putting on your shoes, keeps you from living your life as actively as you should lead it. To me, for many years, and I still feel this way about it (only now I do not pay as much attention to them), the use of commas was positively degrading. Let me tell you what I feel and what I mean, and what I felt and what I meant.
When I was writing those long sentences of 'The Making of Americans', active present verbs with long dependent adverbial clauses became a passion with me. I have told you that I recognize verbs and adverbs, aided by prepositions and conjunctions with pronouns, as possessing the whole of the active life of writing.
Complications eventually make for simplicity, and therefore, I have always liked dependent adverbial clauses. I like dependent adverbial clauses because of their variety of dependence and independence. You can see how, loving the intensity of complication of these things, that commas would be degrading. Why, if you want the pleasure of concentrating on the final simplicity of excessive complication, would you want any artificial aid to bring about that simplicity? Do you see now why I feel about the comma as I did and as I do?