Proofreading a novel: when should exclamation marks be used? [closed]
Closed by System on Oct 4, 2019 at 17:18
This question was closed; new answers can no longer be added. Users with the reopen privilege may vote to reopen this question if it has been improved or closed incorrectly.
I'm proofreading a novel - the brief has instructed that I do not make any stylistic changes, and correct only the obvious errors that impede sense/clarity.
There are several places where I feel an exclamation mark is missing:
a) "Good God, I hope not," responded Sue.
b) Suddenly, one of the first violinists nudged her companion, and hissed: "Oh good grief, look over there."
My feeling is that these are classic examples of exclamatory sentences (Good God! Good grief!) and so it is a basic error to miss the exclamation mark. However, I don't want to interfere with the writer's style if they intend a more laconic tone of voice. I don't think this is the case in (b) at least, due to the use of the word 'hissed', but perhaps I should leave the first example alone, as I don't know for sure what tone of voice isn't intended?
Any advice from experienced proofreaders would be much appreciated - should I concern myself with punctuation to this extent, or leave it alone if the sentence can be understood clearly?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/48367. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
1 answer
I disagree, they are better if they are not exclamatory.
It is like saying "Spare me." in response to an unfunny joke. An exclamation point changes the meaning, it is intended to be bored cynicism, NOT a positive response, not fear, not anything exclamatory at all.
The same for "Good grief." and "Good God."
With a period, they express irritation, or they note something disgusting or stupid. Or, as you noted, laconic. They also indicate tone; with a period they are likely NOT exclaimed, but said quietly, perhaps privately.
With an exclamation point they express surprise or alarm or excitement. They may also be vocalized with intensity, louder, and intended to be public. Which, in context, I do not think is the intent of the author.
The punctuation changes the meaning. When proofing, unless you are absolutely certain the punctuation does not reflect the emotion the author wishes to evoke, don't mess with it.
Do not change punctuation that could be perfectly valid as written. The places to note changes is where the grammar is wrong, like misplaced commas, accidentally doubled punctuation (two commas in a row, an exclamation point followed by a period). I should note that '?!' is fairly standard, understood as an exclamatory question, like "Are you kidding me?!" Also, sometimes in proofing you just circle odd punctuation that might be a mistake so the author can verify it.
Do not change commas, periods, dashes, question marks, exclamation points or italicization or capping into something else, unless it is necessary for grammatical purposes. They can all carry meaning about the vocalization of the sentence by the character, that is how modern readers understand it.
You can note this as a question for the author, but should not "correct" it.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads