Reddit reviews Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation
We found 24 Reddit comments about Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Tolerance Approach to Punctuation. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
We all know the basics of punctuation. Or do we? A look at most neighborhood signage tells a different story.
Not in Britain!
Which I learned while reading this fantastic book.
I believe you mean "eats shoots and leaves"
Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
Of all the words in the English language.... you screw up the plurization of pandas
Source.
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592400876
If we are to believe Lynne Truss, this depends on your country. Punctuation inside quotes is good enough for the New Yorker, but across the pond it would be considered uncouth. There is also a difference in the use of serial commas between the U.S. (love 'em) and Britain (hate 'em). I don't have a style guide around but I think there is an exemption to putting the comma inside quotes (in the US). This might be the case where you would put the comma outside the quotes. Damn my lack of a proper style guide, and damn my brain for picking up so much information about the comma.
It's right up there with the title of that book that complained about such things: Eats, Shoots and Leaves.
I'm going to steal someone else's joke to explain this terrible crime. It's a tragic tale but when little Mobius was only five, his family sat down for a quiet Sunday dinner. Suddenly, the doorbell rings.
In walks this panda. He sits down at the table, eats, shoots, and leaves, killing both parents (no rape involved).
The panda, you see, didn't know he was just supposed to go into the bamboo grove in the back yard to "eat shoots and leaves." So he did what he thought he was told when he got off the bus.
A nice little book on the subject of grammar. I gave it to my wife, a copy editor, and an English major, one Christmas.
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592400876
I thought you were referencing the book. :(
Since I don't know where you're from, I can recommend what some of my friends have done in the Seattle area. University of Washington has some courses as part of their Certificate Programs you can take individually. Although I didn't take the course, I few of my friends took the ground level course in Literary Fiction (our preferred genre), met some other writers, and we formed a writing critique group out of this. If you don't want to spend the money, there are many instructional books out there to help you sharpen your skills. I suggest also joining a writing critique group (I've seen many advertised on book store and coffee shop bulletin boards) as a way to regularly receive criticism on your writing. Lastly, get yourself a copy of the current Writer's Market. You can buy the 2010 version, check it out from the library or subscribe online to get up to date information on what different publications, editors, and agents look for and require in submissions. Another suggestion is to research writers' conferences in your area as they are the best way to make connections with other serious writers and network with the right people in the publishing industry. I'm not familiar with your genre, so I can't offer anything specific (sadly), but a course or critique group may help lead you in the right direction!
ETA
>I keep making ridiculous punctuation errors
Eats, Shoots & Leaves is the best book on punctuation I've come across.
Eats, Shoots & Leaves
Enjoy a good book that covers both the topic of pandas and apostrophes.
Eats, Shoots and Leaves
I recommend "Eats shoots and leaves" ... you can read it in a single sitting.
Where are the finicky grammar/punctuation jokes? A classic (so much so that they named a book after it):
A panda walks into a café. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and proceeds to fire it at the other patrons.
'Why?' asks the confused, surviving waiter amidst the carnage, as the panda makes towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.
'Well, I'm a panda,' he says, at the door. 'Look it up.'
The waiter turns to the relevant entry in the manual and, sure enough, finds an explanation. 'Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves.'
Also:
Q: What's another name for Santa's elves?
A: Subordinate Clauses
Etcetera. :)
This might help:
http://www.amazon.com/Eats-Shoots-Leaves-Tolerance-Punctuation/dp/1592400876
Relevant.
>So waiting at a stoplight is dangerous?
Yep. Take any motorcycle safety course and you'll have that drilled into you. You always need to be aware of what's behind you when stopped.
>So lets just go ahead and run it. That's your solution. Clever! That's a lot better than waiting at the stoplight, right?
Not my solution, but that's what's going through the cyclist's mind. Have you ever talked to one? (note: yelling profanities out the window doesn't count) If they check for the presence of traffic in the intersection, I think it's no more dangerous than the habitual stop-sign running that motorists engage in.
>Does that mean that stoplights are dangerous for me too?
Yes, but to a lesser extent. You have a metal cage surrounding you that's designed to sacrifice itself in a collision to save your life. Bikers of both varieties have no such luxury.
>Should I just run all stop lights?
I'd prefer you didn't. You're way more likely to kill someone else than a cyclist (incidentally you're also way more likely to get ticketed, I suspect for the same reason). You have worst situational awareness than a cyclist (again, the metal cage thing). You also have less maneuverability and take up more space, making a collision that much more likely.
>Better to blindly push through it?
No. Blindly running a light is stupid and dangerous, and anyone who does that puts their life in serious jeopardy. Any driver who does that also puts other lives in jeopardy.
Also, long runs of periods aren't actually a way to denote sentence breaks in English. I recommend this book.
Good comment. I'm not on either side of your argument at the moment. Originally, I was against Grammar Nazis for the exact reasons that you mention. I feel like grammar is made of rules formulated that describe how people use language. (But some grammar nazis act as though it's the other way around).
I believe that the language is in the hands of whoever's using it. Thus, I'll make up my own words when I wish, or find novel usages when I want. I'll even use unconventional punctuation when I can justify it. However, in learning to combat grammar nazis, I first had to really learn what I was doing, so I could know how to argue them. In learning these things, I became a nazi myself.
But it's not for the reason you mentioned. It's not about preventing a perceived degradation. It's about courtesy. Hah. Yup. I'd never use a term like that myself, but check out this book by Lynne Truss. She states that it is "rude" to not put effort into clarity in one's own writing. By using the wrong words or improper spelling, a burden is put on the reader (in addition to any misinterpretations).
If you haven't already read it, I suggest falling in love with this book.
Also, try PaperbackSwap if you're in need of free books, plus shipping costs.
Do I have the book for you: Eats, Shoots and leaves
On the assumption that you are not trolling and actually are this poorly educated, you need to go back and review basic rules of English Grammar. If you don't have a copy of The Elements of Style, you need to pick one up and read it. I can also recommend to you the very entertaining Woe is I or Eats, Shoots & Leaves if you want to be entertained as well as better-informed.
The noun that follows "than" when it is used as for comparison is always in agreement with the noun it would have replaced if it were the only element of the sentence; moreover, "be" verbs have no object. Ergo:
> Pete may be fat, but that lady is fatter than he.
"That lady" is the subject of the sentence, ergo we use "he" for our pronoun instead of "him." But if we presume that this lady's misfortunes continue:
> After the mugger began beating on her with a shovel, Pete said, "Better that he beat up her than me."
In this case the lady is the object of the mugger's bludgeoning with a garden implement, ergo we use "her" and "me" instead of "she" or "I."
The one confusing aspect to this is that in informal English, we generally permit people to sloppily treat the end of our "be" verbs as objects, thus the joke in the title of O'Conner's wonderful book, because "Woe is I" sounds wrong, even though it is strictly correct.
One assumes a hottie educated enough to get into Stanford would know the difference and use the correct phrase.
Edit: Also, as a postscript, given that I'm currently fighting with my SO as to whether our son should be educated in our country or hers, the huge number of up-votes you are receiving is not helping my cause. All of you, stop being whiny bitches about not knowing how to speak and write properly and go learn something:
PUNCTUATION! I'm sorry, but MsWinty, your sentences do not mean what you think they mean.
>"One girls bathroom and one boys bathroom each with two stalls in the front of the school..."
Why did these two bathrooms have stalls outside the building? How far in front of the building? Were they attached to the building, or did you have to walk some distance to reach them? Did they have more stalls inside the building? Also, girl's and boy's need apostrophes to make them possessive.
I recommend Eats, Shoots and Leaves.