: How much leeway can be expected from an editor regarding my preference for nonstandard punctuation? As I hope to present a unique style to the world, as I am not especially tolerant of being

PLEASE, please; -Please- don't ever use the second example in writing:

"That wasn't the issue at all," she
said. Vehemently.

Using adverbs to explain a character's actions is lazy, and to top it off, the period adds extra emphasis to the lack of effort by the writer.

The third example:

The wind threw itself down from the
mountains at us; the howl was immense,
deafening.

Is an interesting sentence, and could be viewed as style.

As an unpublished author don't expect any leeway unless your story is so great it begs to get published.

---

(0)

I work as an editor for three different houses and also have books published with two houses, so this question is right up my alley!

When it comes to an author's style, you have a lot of leeway. When an editor reads over the manuscript, they're going to make sure that what you've written is understandable and isn't going to throw your readers for a loop. If the editor has a hard time understanding what you're trying to say, they'll most likely ask you to change it. But if what you're saying is easily understandable and you just have a unique way you want to say it, then they'll most likely go with what you've got. Editors at publishing houses are also readers, they know what other reads are going to want to read and they know what sells. If they want you to change something, most likely it's because they believe the book and you will benefit from it.

---

(0)

The punctuation in all of your examples is defensible, and only the second is non-standard — you are using the full stop to mark a pause, but the stop has a semantic role that you don't want. Using an em dash would avoid this and emphasise the pause even more, although it would still be non-standard.

I think the first two examples have defects and can be improved:

It was a cold night, frigidly so. — I don't think "frigid" is effective here, and the sentence can be given more energy: 'The night was icy cold.'
"That wasn't the issue at all," she said. Vehemently. — Adverbs don't have the stand-alone force I think you attribute to "vehemently" here. How about '"That wasn't the issue at all." She was vehement.'

My claimed improvement has nothing to do with punctuation, but it gives simpler language, so eliminating the need for punctuation tricks.

The third example is good, effective English, and the punctuation makes use of a familiar and completely respectable device, the asyndeton, whose name is less well known than it should be, and which introduces a series of parallel parts of sentence without a conjunction. You need to watch that the parallelism between the parts is clear, if so, as it it is in this example, then it is perfectly readable. It allows images to build up one upon another, just as the two adjectives do in example three.

I entirely agree with JSBangs about what you should expect. Though deadline pressure can make publishers, and so their editors, cranky.

---

(0)

A lot of the time it comes down to one thing: consistency.

If your whole text is made of sentences like this, then it can be seen as your style. If you pepper your text with just a few of these, they will be more likely to become an editor's target, and reasonably so.

Make sure you differentiate between actual style and just doing something because, "you know, that sentence is so cool that way."

I am usually a fan of the former and see the latter as lame showing off.

---

(0)

None of the examples you gave seem to be non-standard in a way that's likely to bother a fiction editor. Fiction depends on a strong narrative voice, and voice is conveyed by punctuation as much as word choice. A news editor at the NYT might squawk, because the stylistic constraints of journalism are much tighter--but the rules that are appropriate for journalism are not appropriate for fiction and vice-versa. I doubt there are any working fiction editors that don't understand this.

That said, you should be prepared to accept editorial feedback on any/all of these stylistic quirks, especially if it seems that they're distracting from the story rather than adding to it.

---

(0)

Why stop there? Why not apply non-standard spelling? This is do much more interesting:

"That wasent tha isyou at al," she sard. Vearmentlee.

The purpose of writing is to make your meaning understood. The "rules" are a common understanding of how the language works. Anything that gets in the way of that dilutes your work. Just my humble opinion.

---

(0)

I personally wouldn't call it a style because it goes against common rules. There's a reason why most writers write with standard punctuation and grammar. Because it works and is readable and digestible to the major population.

It was a cold night, frigidly so.

The problem with this is it doesn't really work. Frigidly means "extremely cold" so you're almost doubling up here. Not to mention you're essentially saying:

It was a cold night, coldly so.

Sense. This makes none.

"That wasn't the issue at all," she said. Vehemently.

There's no reason to put a period between the vehemently. It makes the reader pause when they shouldn't. You should be attaching the adverb to the verb "said".

"That wasn't the issue at all," she said vehemently.

Now you can clearly understand how she said the sentence, instead of reading "vehemently" and thinking, "wait, so she said it vehemently... okay."

The wind threw itself down from the mountains at us; the howl was immense, deafening.

Again, you're going against the grain for the hell of it which is never a good reason to break the rules.

The semi-colon should be a period. You are starting a new sentence. Also, the "deafening" is a little bit of a repeat.

The wind threw itself down from the mountains at us. The howl was immense, deafening almost.

Or alternatively:

The wind threw itself down from the mountains at us and the howl was immense, almost deafening.

I'm showing you the reason why you shouldn't use "your own style" when it actually works against the reader's immediate and natural understanding of written English.

Like I said, there's a reason why professional writers write by the "rules".

---

(0)

I don't think you'll get leeway. You'll get something either better or worse.

The editor's response will depend on how your punctuation style affects their reading experience. If it enhances the experience, they'll appreciate it. If it detracts, they'll dislike it, even if other elements of your writing compensate.

It's unlikely that nonstandard punctuation will have a neutral effect on their experience. They will notice it. So you're left with either enhancing or detracting.

That said, so what? They can ask you to bend to their will. Then you get to decide how to respond.

---

(0)