Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Do parentheses inhibit clarity?

+0
−0

I find it easier to write many things with parentheses, but I don't know if this is considered good practice. I would expect some might say that parentheses are indicative of excessive digression and that the sentences would be clearer if restructured.

Is there general consensus on the extent to rely on parentheses (e.g. "sparingly", or the same as with starting sentences with conjunction)? Do parentheses generally make writing more or less clear?

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/5654. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

4 answers

+1
−0

Sparingly is good.

Most commonly, a pair of parentheses is useful to set off a strong or weak interruption, rather like a pair of dashes or a pair of bracketing commas.

As a rule we prefer parentheses, rather than dashes or bracketing commas, when the interruption is best regarded as a kind of "aside" from the writer to the reader.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5657. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

I like what Theodore Bernstein says in "The Careful Writer" (original copyright 1965):

There is some evidence that the use of parentheses has become more common in modern writing, particularly in critical and expository writing. Parentheses seem almost to have become a mark of "sophisticated," knowing style. They do have their uses in simplifying sentences that otherwise would be encumbered with ponderous subordinate and coordinate clauses and in permitting the use of pointed asides that might otherwise seem overemphatic. But, like every other stylistic device, they can be overdone.

Also, you should be able to lift out what is inside a set of parentheses and still have a grammatical, understandable sentence left behind. I personally think they are overused.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/5656. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

Do parentheses inhibit clarity? They do and they don't, it's all down to individual use. When used well and skillfully, parentheses fulfill a function that no other punctuation or construction can quite imitate. Their function is similar to em dashes (a woefully overused punctuation mark) and can also be used to mask off digressions (which can detract from the text).

Overuse and use to mask bad habits have given parentheses a bad rep. Long parenthetical statements that don't flow well are a misuse. If the sentence or paragraph doesn't flow when reading it (because of the parenthetical statements) then you're not using them right. Maybe parentheses are the wrong tool in a case like this.

However, just because parentheses are misused often doesn't mean there aren't good ways to employ them. I wrote a longer blog post about this very subject, but here's the money quote in the article that illustrates the central point:

[General Washington] had not done well farming despite all sorts of theories about river mud being the best of manures (it is not), and the invention of a plough (shades of Jefferson!) which proved to be so heavy that two horses could not budge it even in moist earth.

(Gore Vidal, Burr, 1973)

See how well that flows? Dashes would introduce awkward pauses into the writing, rephrasing it entirely would remove the narrator's great sense of self-importance. This novel's narrator is opinionated and talky, but the author cleverly turns his asides into parenthetical ejaculations of color that don't interfere with the flow of the language.

Parentheses can be a useful tool in situations where writing the sentence without them would make the sentence longer, a maze of twisty corridors, or perhaps just drain it of life. Those who learn to use parentheses well have access to a wonderful tool.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

As with any technique, use it when it makes the text easier to understand, and don't overdo it (unless you're overdoing it deliberately as a stylistic choice, which should then be obvious).

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »