Craft Notes
The Ellipsis
A couple nights ago, I went to this experimental improv music thing in Toronto, which was all sorts of interesting, but that’s really neither here nor there. During intermission, this irrelevant artist was showing off to a friend of mine about his most recent publication, which was about, get this: the ellipsis.
He made the argument that the ellipsis gives readers authority over both text and author, they can “fill in” what the writer “left out.” Unfortunately, he didn’t think I was “anyone,” so he never engaged me in conversation, more or less just looked at me like I was a moron, if anything. But he made an impassioned argument to my friend about the ellipsis gives the reader control, let’s them take back the text from the author-narrator, that anything can happen within those three little dots.
Whereas I didn’t pick a fight with this guy then—I was tired, it was hot, the show was in an old church for Christ’s sake—I can pick one with him now, online, where I’m safe.
Ellipsis: The omission of one or more words in a sentence, which would be needed to complete the grammatical construction or fully to express the sense (OED).
I’ve thought about this long and hard, and to me, the ellipsis demarcates either something irrelevant to the text or to understand the meaning of a text or “so on and so forth,” (or “etc.”) as in following the pattern already established in the sentence/paragraph/text. I use the ellipsis, and never have I thought of it as a way to give readers “authority” to play with the narrative, to “explore.” If anything, the ellipsis cuts out that exploration, the punctuation mark signals to the reader that the author finds whatever it is so ungermane as to put in an ellipsis rather than bother to write it out entirely.
I think what this artist-dude meant was talking about has more to do with how the ellipsis has been appropriated by undergrad or MFA writing workshops, I mean students as opposed to “writers,” who tend to use the ellipsis as a substitution for something they’re uncomfortable writing, as in: “He slid down her panties…” or “She held the gun, her finger trembled at the trigger…” or some other banal thing like that, instances where writers don’t have the gall to actually write a scene and so instead default to misusing the ellipsis. So sure, artist-guy, yes, the ellipsis does give the reader “authority,” although only in certain circumstances and probably when the reader wants the writer to write out the scene the most. Because let’s face it, right, during those moments when the ellipsis is used this way (as in with the bad examples above), those are the times the reader wants the scene the most, those are the juiciest scenes, truncated to “dot dot dot,” which is lame, at least to me.
There are many uses for the ellipsis. I think it’s a useful punctuation mark, one that is overused, bastardized to the extreme, but I use it, sure, and I love it all the same.
I don’t think I could have resisted a crude comment at Mr. irrelevant. Maybe something like – ‘your ellipses are out of control and you only use them because you are a pussy, need I expound?’
Many people think they would say something and you resisted the urge, good for you, when I’m tired I cannot censor my mouth, part of the dysfunction.
Ellipsis can be use as a simulation of an ambiguousness, because, you know, in this case…
And without ellipsis the solidity of text is kinda too much…
Actually, I’m using in my textes stylistic ellipsis without ellipsis as punctuation mark “…”.
Because than you can pretty nicely disturb the reader, so he will just.
Lily,
I dont’ think the problem is with elipsis – which can be used to great effect… – but with this trite idea now so pervasive that the reader should have control. That there’s something democratic about art. Wasn’t this the argument about indeterminate poetry as well? I’m for a much more s&m-ish view of art.
Johannes
Yes and yes. Thank you, Johannes, I like yr S&M pov!
The reader has too much control already. Seriously, this kind of thing makes me glad I live in a rural setting and converse with skunks.
I’m happy for artist-guy, but that feels like a pretty pedestrian thesis. I’d probably argue that if the reader has “authority,” the punctuation was used improperly. I wouldn’t want my readers to have authority over my work. But that’s just me.
There’s a big difference between ellipsis as a punctuation mark and ellipsis as a formal device. You can withhold information in a text without ever putting down three dots. On the other hand, the three dots are most often used in instances when the supposedly withheld information has already been strongly suggested. When the writer feels certain that the reader already knows and no more needs to be said. Then we get three dots but no real ellipsis.
You’re right Lily, the guy’s thesis was sham, and he probably knows it by now. Probably woke up the next day with a hangover and thought: What… on… earth… was… I… talking… about… last… night?
The reader doesn’t have authority because the writer grants it to them. The reader’s authority doesn’t come from the text. That’s a total misunderstanding of the concept.
if he’s mostly an artist and not writer, thinking about punctuation may be new to him. for that reason, maybe what he’s done is interesting, the actual presentation, even if how he talks about it isn’t?
ENathalie Sarraute uses ellipses to brilliant effect in many of her novels. E.g., MARTEREAU. There, the punctuation has much more to do with creating a alternative temporality, stranded somewhere between the external (world of stimuli and perceivable “objects”) and the internal (reflection / consciousness), than regulating the flow of narrative information.
Lily,
One of the best panels I went to at AWP was on the ellipsis, and my favorite talk on said panel was Davis Schneiderman’s, which was delivered with his signature verve in the form of a list, a relentless litany of statements exploring ellipses and their various effects from many angles, riddled throughout with, of course, a bunch of ellipses, strategically strewn. I would say that if you went into hearing/reading his talk utterly skeptical about the value of the ellipsis, you would certainly walk away somewhat less skeptical. He brought out the versatility of it, and I wish I had a copy of it in front of me so I could say something more substantive about it–maybe it will be published somewhere.
One of the more intriguing uses of the ellipsis is Philippe Sollers’s Women, in which it becomes the primary mark of punctuation, and has the effect of ferrying us from thought to thought in a way that is ordinarily deficient in stream of consciousness writing. That is to say, in reading say Molly Bloom’s soliloquy one finds oneself either imposing rhythms or surrendering to Molly’s rather frenetic thoughtstream, not that Joyce is deficient but his consciousness is not the final word. Sollers’s actually proves a useful rhythmic device between the frictionlessness of no punctuation and the hard stop of a period. And I’d say Joshua Cohen does something similar with line breaks and space in Cadenza for the Schneidermann.
Hmmm. Two Schneiderman(n)s in one response. What are the odds?
Cool, yeah, part of what I was getting at below with Sollers. The French are more at ease, maybe, with the device–why I have no clue?
Being “mostly an artist” is no excuse. That’s a stupid rationalization.
The ellipsis has been appropriated by Ellen DeGeneres. What measure of hope remains?
Also in Celine and, more recently, in Chelsey Minnis. James Pate wrote about this a bit on exoskeleton-johannes.blogspot.com comparing the two. And in fact I received a lot of complaint after my interview with HTML Giant because my answers were full of ellipses. That made me think it was a quite interesting tool. I don’t think there’s anythign wrong with ellipses. Obviously it can be used to great and varied effect. I just think that empower the reader BS is tired.
Johannes
not sure why, erin. if i wrote about the circle of fifths i might come to the idea naively but i still might have something interesting to say about it, from my non-initiated perspective.
eddie vedder is all about those things. he can’t write a lyric without them
Have you read The Post Card, by Derrida? The entire first section has blanks all over it. And it’s not clear why he made it that way, at least to me.
Yeah, if ellipses empower the reader with options then Death On The Installment Plan is a freakin Choose Your Own Adventure novel.
Right, and then there’s that moment in “Dissemination,” his essay on Sollers, where the text is scattered across a couple of pages.
I don’t think I could have resisted a crude comment at Mr. irrelevant. Maybe something like – ‘your ellipses are out of control and you only use them because you are a pussy, need I expound?’
Many people think they would say something and you resisted the urge, good for you, when I’m tired I cannot censor my mouth, part of the dysfunction.
Ellipsis can be use as a simulation of an ambiguousness, because, you know, in this case…
And without ellipsis the solidity of text is kinda too much…
Actually, I’m using in my textes stylistic ellipsis without ellipsis as punctuation mark “…”.
Because than you can pretty nicely disturb the reader, so he will just.
Lily,
I dont’ think the problem is with elipsis – which can be used to great effect… – but with this trite idea now so pervasive that the reader should have control. That there’s something democratic about art. Wasn’t this the argument about indeterminate poetry as well? I’m for a much more s&m-ish view of art.
Johannes
Yes and yes. Thank you, Johannes, I like yr S&M pov!
The reader has too much control already. Seriously, this kind of thing makes me glad I live in a rural setting and converse with skunks.
I generally hate the ellipsis because it makes prose squishy and soft, but for me it’s obscene especially when it tries to make explicit what should always be implicit in the text: the power of the reader to *read the text.*
I *know* I can make important decisions about the book from beginning to end, giving me permission only makes me wonder what the fuck made the writer think I didn’t have that power all along.
Ellipses can indeed be useful, but often times, I feel like they’re lazy, like the writer can’t be bothered to do their job.
I’m happy for artist-guy, but that feels like a pretty pedestrian thesis. I’d probably argue that if the reader has “authority,” the punctuation was used improperly. I wouldn’t want my readers to have authority over my work. But that’s just me.
Might, could, but clearly not.
There’s a big difference between ellipsis as a punctuation mark and ellipsis as a formal device. You can withhold information in a text without ever putting down three dots. On the other hand, the three dots are most often used in instances when the supposedly withheld information has already been strongly suggested. When the writer feels certain that the reader already knows and no more needs to be said. Then we get three dots but no real ellipsis.
You’re right Lily, the guy’s thesis was sham, and he probably knows it by now. Probably woke up the next day with a hangover and thought: What… on… earth… was… I… talking… about… last… night?
The reader doesn’t have authority because the writer grants it to them. The reader’s authority doesn’t come from the text. That’s a total misunderstanding of the concept.
if he’s mostly an artist and not writer, thinking about punctuation may be new to him. for that reason, maybe what he’s done is interesting, the actual presentation, even if how he talks about it isn’t?
Gravity’s Rainbow
I don’t get being prescriptive about this. The proof’s in the writing. If someone can use it to good effect–even to open up the narrative to indeterminacy–good for them, and good for their readers.
I don’t get being prescriptive about this. The proof’s in the writing. If someone can use it to good effect–even to open up the narrative to indeterminacy–good for them, and good for their readers.
Please accept from me this unpretentious bouquet of very early-blooming ellipses: […][…]
ENathalie Sarraute uses ellipses to brilliant effect in many of her novels. E.g., MARTEREAU. There, the punctuation has much more to do with creating a alternative temporality, stranded somewhere between the external (world of stimuli and perceivable “objects”) and the internal (reflection / consciousness), than regulating the flow of narrative information.
Lily,
One of the best panels I went to at AWP was on the ellipsis, and my favorite talk on said panel was Davis Schneiderman’s, which was delivered with his signature verve in the form of a list, a relentless litany of statements exploring ellipses and their various effects from many angles, riddled throughout with, of course, a bunch of ellipses, strategically strewn. I would say that if you went into hearing/reading his talk utterly skeptical about the value of the ellipsis, you would certainly walk away somewhat less skeptical. He brought out the versatility of it, and I wish I had a copy of it in front of me so I could say something more substantive about it–maybe it will be published somewhere.
One of the more intriguing uses of the ellipsis is Philippe Sollers’s Women, in which it becomes the primary mark of punctuation, and has the effect of ferrying us from thought to thought in a way that is ordinarily deficient in stream of consciousness writing. That is to say, in reading say Molly Bloom’s soliloquy one finds oneself either imposing rhythms or surrendering to Molly’s rather frenetic thoughtstream, not that Joyce is deficient but his consciousness is not the final word. Sollers’s actually proves a useful rhythmic device between the frictionlessness of no punctuation and the hard stop of a period. And I’d say Joshua Cohen does something similar with line breaks and space in Cadenza for the Schneidermann.
Hmmm. Two Schneiderman(n)s in one response. What are the odds?
Cool, yeah, part of what I was getting at below with Sollers. The French are more at ease, maybe, with the device–why I have no clue?
yes! I struggle w/ Pynchon, but dude is clearly the master of ellipsis.
It’s easy to overuse in lazy writing, but that’s not really saying anything about the mark itself as it is the conventions of lazy writing. . .
also, Célinebro
I agree with the s&m. I feel like there are works that give the reader a kind of control, but it’s like do this or do that. With Nabokov’s Pale Fire there’s a ton of different ways to read it, but you’re losing something with every choice. When I was reading LA Medusa there would be square boxs insterted into the middle of a different character’s point of view and you were forced to choose in which part to read first.
I had an art history proffessor once who towards the end of class would tell us he’d like to tie us all up and keep talking for six hours straight.
Being “mostly an artist” is no excuse. That’s a stupid rationalization.
The ellipsis has been appropriated by Ellen DeGeneres. What measure of hope remains?
Also in Celine and, more recently, in Chelsey Minnis. James Pate wrote about this a bit on exoskeleton-johannes.blogspot.com comparing the two. And in fact I received a lot of complaint after my interview with HTML Giant because my answers were full of ellipses. That made me think it was a quite interesting tool. I don’t think there’s anythign wrong with ellipses. Obviously it can be used to great and varied effect. I just think that empower the reader BS is tired.
Johannes
not sure why, erin. if i wrote about the circle of fifths i might come to the idea naively but i still might have something interesting to say about it, from my non-initiated perspective.
eddie vedder is all about those things. he can’t write a lyric without them
“The reader’s authority doesn’t come from the text.” Well put.
Have you read The Post Card, by Derrida? The entire first section has blanks all over it. And it’s not clear why he made it that way, at least to me.
Celin does some really good things with ellipses, as does (at least, in my favorite translations) Dostoevsky. In both cases the ellipsis becomes the mark of characters on edge, confused thought, nervous tension, running up to ideas and just… But of course! This has nothing to do with the power of the reader, of any reader… Rather the writer! The writer imposing a kind of thought onto the reader! Adroitly!
etc.
I should’ve kept reading before I commented… Of course, of course someone would get to Celine!
Why thank you, they’re lovely.
Yeah, if ellipses empower the reader with options then Death On The Installment Plan is a freakin Choose Your Own Adventure novel.
Right, and then there’s that moment in “Dissemination,” his essay on Sollers, where the text is scattered across a couple of pages.
Perhaps because, in one sense, by emptying the novel of character, setting and plot — i.e., mortifying the flesh of the form — all the practitioners of the nouveau roman were left with was narrational gesture itself, and the various species of consciousness proposed by narration? Certainly Sarraute is concerned with narration-as-sense-making, and Sollers’ EVENT is at some pains (no pun intended) to render the narrative impulse as bodily impulse, with S.’s nerves and muscles and viscera as much the site of propulsion through ficitive space and time as the page… “there is a chain of maritime memories passing into his right arm: he catches them by surprise half-asleep, foam swept up by the wind. On the other hand, the left leg seems to be itching with mineral groupings.”
I generally hate the ellipsis because it makes prose squishy and soft, but for me it’s obscene especially when it tries to make explicit what should always be implicit in the text: the power of the reader to *read the text.*
I *know* I can make important decisions about the book from beginning to end, giving me permission only makes me wonder what the fuck made the writer think I didn’t have that power all along.
Ellipses can indeed be useful, but often times, I feel like they’re lazy, like the writer can’t be bothered to do their job.
Might, could, but clearly not.
I think the three previous mentions of Céline were enough to drum it home. . .
Gravity’s Rainbow
Please accept from me this unpretentious bouquet of very early-blooming ellipses: […][…]
yes! I struggle w/ Pynchon, but dude is clearly the master of ellipsis.
It’s easy to overuse in lazy writing, but that’s not really saying anything about the mark itself as it is the conventions of lazy writing. . .
also, Célinebro
[…] Lily Hoang is right and wrong about the ellipsesat HTML Giant (yeah, we link them when they do something interesting). […]
I agree with the s&m. I feel like there are works that give the reader a kind of control, but it’s like do this or do that. With Nabokov’s Pale Fire there’s a ton of different ways to read it, but you’re losing something with every choice. When I was reading LA Medusa there would be square boxs insterted into the middle of a different character’s point of view and you were forced to choose in which part to read first.
I had an art history proffessor once who towards the end of class would tell us he’d like to tie us all up and keep talking for six hours straight.
Agreed.
The discussion of the ellipsis in Garner’s “Dictionary of Modern American Usage” is surprisingly short and not very useful.
“The reader’s authority doesn’t come from the text.” Well put.
Celin does some really good things with ellipses, as does (at least, in my favorite translations) Dostoevsky. In both cases the ellipsis becomes the mark of characters on edge, confused thought, nervous tension, running up to ideas and just… But of course! This has nothing to do with the power of the reader, of any reader… Rather the writer! The writer imposing a kind of thought onto the reader! Adroitly!
etc.
I should’ve kept reading before I commented… Of course, of course someone would get to Celine!
Why thank you, they’re lovely.
Perhaps because, in one sense, by emptying the novel of character, setting and plot — i.e., mortifying the flesh of the form — all the practitioners of the nouveau roman were left with was narrational gesture itself, and the various species of consciousness proposed by narration? Certainly Sarraute is concerned with narration-as-sense-making, and Sollers’ EVENT is at some pains (no pun intended) to render the narrative impulse as bodily impulse, with S.’s nerves and muscles and viscera as much the site of propulsion through ficitive space and time as the page… “there is a chain of maritime memories passing into his right arm: he catches them by surprise half-asleep, foam swept up by the wind. On the other hand, the left leg seems to be itching with mineral groupings.”
Yeah, definitely, Tadd, didn’t even think of Dostoevsky–ellipses like spittle flying, like beads of sweat under the interrogation lamp of ordinary daylight, like delerium tremens or, to pull a slight inversion on D’s condition, epileptic ellipses (epilipses?), like synaptic messages lurching to the edge of completion and articulation but, as you point out, pulling up just short.
Haven’t read EVENT but thanks for the lead.
I think the three previous mentions of Céline were enough to drum it home. . .
Agreed.
The discussion of the ellipsis in Garner’s “Dictionary of Modern American Usage” is surprisingly short and not very useful.
Yeah, definitely, Tadd, didn’t even think of Dostoevsky–ellipses like spittle flying, like beads of sweat under the interrogation lamp of ordinary daylight, like delerium tremens or, to pull a slight inversion on D’s condition, epileptic ellipses (epilipses?), like synaptic messages lurching to the edge of completion and articulation but, as you point out, pulling up just short.
Haven’t read EVENT but thanks for the lead.
The most commonly abused piece of grammar. Ask anyone who’s worked with me what I think of the ellipsis.
Hi Josef, No, he didn’t think it was a sham at all. The essay was published six months to a year ago and he’s still singing his own brilliant praises. Trust me, I was there. He thought himself pretty clever, profound even.
The most commonly abused piece of grammar. Ask anyone who’s worked with me what I think of the ellipsis.
Hi Josef, No, he didn’t think it was a sham at all. The essay was published six months to a year ago and he’s still singing his own brilliant praises. Trust me, I was there. He thought himself pretty clever, profound even.
[…] up the reigns Lily Hoang, talkin’ ’bout a dude at a concert: He made the argument that the ellipsis gives […]
As much as possible, one should avoid the use of the ellipsis. It does not give some post-structuralist and frankly vacuous Right To The Reader. What it does do is suggest the author was either too lazy (or sought brevity), too intimidated (as Lily Hoang suggests) or too damn stupid (and all too well aware of that) to actually write that which has been omitted. What it takes away is the Right Of The Reader to read.
I think goofy proscriptions like this are just as bad as the ill use of the ellipsis. It’s a mark like any other mark; it has its uses, and it can be used inventively. Singling out the punctuation mark itself is silly. It’s all about the way we use it.
As much as possible, one should avoid the use of the ellipsis. It does not give some post-structuralist and frankly vacuous Right To The Reader. What it does do is suggest the author was either too lazy (or sought brevity), too intimidated (as Lily Hoang suggests) or too damn stupid (and all too well aware of that) to actually write that which has been omitted. What it takes away is the Right Of The Reader to read.
I think goofy proscriptions like this are just as bad as the ill use of the ellipsis. It’s a mark like any other mark; it has its uses, and it can be used inventively. Singling out the punctuation mark itself is silly. It’s all about the way we use it.