4 ms·

"Its creator, Gary Larson (no relation!), retired in 1995, after having been syndicated in more than nineteen hundred newspapers and selling more than forty mil

"Its creator, Gary Larson (no relation!), retired in 1995, after having been syndicated in more than nineteen hundred newspapers and selling more than forty million books." The Newyorker clearly cares a bit about grammar: "its" for ownership - no apostrophe. Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary. There are multiple firing solutions here. You could go in with something like: "Gary Larson (no relation!) retired in 1995. He was ... etc ... I'm not asking for a return to the strictures of "Usage and Abusage" but I'd like to think that professional journalists are able to stick words on the page without them looking uncomfortable. Prose should flow. When you write it, why not read it back to yourself. [Cow holding a bow, wearing a 10 gallon hat and saying something unlikely to Rowland. Rowland is a chicken]

ponker 6y ago
I don’t think the sentence is awkward at all.
zapzupnz 6y ago
> Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary That's not awkward at all. The comma separates "Gary Larson (no relation!)", a subordinate clause, from the main clause: "Its creator retired in 1995 […]". Edit: As jcfields so kindly pointed out, it's apposition. Specifically, it's the use of a restrictive appositive. To my eyes, the real awkward comma is the one after '1995'. However, The New Yorker is known to have its own, fairly specific punctuation style.
- jcfields 6y ago
  It’s called apposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zapzupnz 6y ago
    Thanks for pointing that out. I added it to my comment, credited to you.
  - slg 6y ago
    I wonder if the seemingly declining popularity of the oxford comma is related to a lack of knowledge of the use of non-restrictive appositives. Because your knowledge of the latter is what makes the use of the Oxford comma important to the classic phrase "We invited the two strippers, JFK and Stalin."
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I don’t see declining usage. It’s never been AP style which you see in a lot of newspapers and press releases but not elsewhere. It’s OK with AP but mostly if it would be otherwise confusing.
      - slg 6y ago
        It has seemed to me that the anti-Oxford comma crowd has grown in recent years. Although you questioning it makes me reconsider. It is possible social media has increased by exposure to the personal writing and opinions of people who were already against it. Like you mention, it is against the AP guide that journalists are generally taught to follow. And they are much more likely to tweet and anti-Oxford comma screed than write an article on it.
        ghaff 6y ago
        I'm at least a half-time professional writer and essentially all the writers I know are pro-Oxford comma--including ones who have to follow AP style for all or part of their day job. And, again, to clarify AP a bit. AP doesn't say you can't use an Oxford comma but that you should only use it if the sentence could otherwise be misconstrued, e.g. the "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin" that Oxford comma fans like to cite.
  - tkgally 6y ago
    The New Yorker is particularly fussy about including commas for nonrestrictive apposition, even when there is no possibility of a restrictive interpretation. For example: "When he died, in 2004, his books and exhibitions were too numerous to count, and his magazine work had been published all over the world in the best publications." [0] The copyeditors seem to think that writing "When he died in 2004" would imply that he had died not only in 2004 but also in another year. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin-part-i https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin...
  - tzs 6y ago
    It’s also the main cause of ambiguity in lists. This can be almost completely avoided by simply using parenthesis or dashes instead of commas to set off an appositive phrase and always using an Oxford comma. Most grammarians seem to approve the use of parenthesis or dashes that way, so I’m not sure why commas are the most popular.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I'm guessing it's because they're seen as less distracting/invasive than the others while still getting the job done. Personally, I use parentheses and em-dashes a fair bit. But I do often find myself often going back and removing a number of them when I've overdone it.
Reelin 6y ago
I don't find it awkward at all - it's just an apposition. (Admittedly also reversing the clauses makes for a complicated sentence structure. Depending on the level of literacy of the target audience, it might not be appropriate.)
hedora 6y ago
Larson on the proper use of the English language: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/ad/81/c4ad811c149c46a576bef2554b689021.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/ad/81/c4ad811c149c46a576bef2554... https://bookriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/it-just-says-helf-686x1024.jpg https://bookriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/it-just-says...
tropdrop 6y ago
The New Yorker is known for its superb standards in regards to grammar, though it does tend to favor passive voice like academic circles are wont to do. This is evident here, with a focus first on Larson's work, then an introduction to his person, and given that the article's main focus is on the work and not the person, this is a logical decision. You have just used what would have been a useful opportunity to discuss Gary Larson's unique art style to insist how much more you, a Hacker News commenter, knows about prose than someone employed by the New Yorker. Further, due to your comment's lack of clarification, I ironically cannot tell if you are insinuating that the author of the article used "its" correctly or incorrectly. For the record, because this possessive pronoun is referring to Gary Larson's work in the previous sentence, the usage is correct. [1] 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Pronouns
- labster 6y ago
  Unfortunately they have a terrible standard of spelling at the New Yorker. Every time I read one of those words with the umlaut, it causes a full parse error in my brain, to the extent that I usually have to read the entire paragraph again. Seriously, if you're not happy with "cooperate", spell it as "co-operate". This is an old standard, and it still works well. I don't get how the New Yorker tries to pretend they're the magazine of high society while spelling like Spın̈al Tap. The point of language is to have common understanding, and you can't do that if you're the only one using your weird spelling. (Also, I wish they just got the the point in their articles. At least give a summary of why I would want to read the whole long form article before launching into some anecdote about two people meeting at a bar.)
  - rsynnott 6y ago
    As the New Yorker will grumpily tell you, it’s not an umlaut: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-... > She said that once, in the elevator, [the editor] told her he was on the verge of changing that style and would be sending out a memo soon. And then he died. So, be careful whose weird house style you criticise, is the message.
rdiddly 6y ago
"Gary Larson (no relation)" is an appositive, and you separate those with commas, so yeah that's part of their same caring about grammar.
WillyF 6y ago
In 7th grade my English teacher had us each put together a book on grammar. I used "The Far Side" cartoons to illustrate all of the rules that I had learned. I wish I could link to it, but the only copy, a hard copy, is somewhere in my parents' basement or attic.
beervirus 6y ago
I mean... it's not ungrammatical. That's just an appositive. But you're still right. That sentence is clunky with all the commas, and your revision is an improvement.

ponker 6y ago

I don’t think the sentence is awkward at all.

zapzupnz 6y ago

> Then it goes a bit mad: an awkward comma between creator and Gary That's not awkward at all. The comma separates "Gary Larson (no relation!)", a subordinate clause, from the main clause: "Its creator retired in 1995 […]". Edit: As jcfields so kindly pointed out, it's apposition. Specifically, it's the use of a restrictive appositive. To my eyes, the real awkward comma is the one after '1995'. However, The New Yorker is known to have its own, fairly specific punctuation style.

jcfields 6y ago
It’s called apposition. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apposition
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zapzupnz 6y ago
  Thanks for pointing that out. I added it to my comment, credited to you.
- slg 6y ago
  I wonder if the seemingly declining popularity of the oxford comma is related to a lack of knowledge of the use of non-restrictive appositives. Because your knowledge of the latter is what makes the use of the Oxford comma important to the classic phrase "We invited the two strippers, JFK and Stalin."
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I don’t see declining usage. It’s never been AP style which you see in a lot of newspapers and press releases but not elsewhere. It’s OK with AP but mostly if it would be otherwise confusing.
    - slg 6y ago
      It has seemed to me that the anti-Oxford comma crowd has grown in recent years. Although you questioning it makes me reconsider. It is possible social media has increased by exposure to the personal writing and opinions of people who were already against it. Like you mention, it is against the AP guide that journalists are generally taught to follow. And they are much more likely to tweet and anti-Oxford comma screed than write an article on it.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I'm at least a half-time professional writer and essentially all the writers I know are pro-Oxford comma--including ones who have to follow AP style for all or part of their day job. And, again, to clarify AP a bit. AP doesn't say you can't use an Oxford comma but that you should only use it if the sentence could otherwise be misconstrued, e.g. the "We invited the strippers, JFK and Stalin" that Oxford comma fans like to cite.
- tkgally 6y ago
  The New Yorker is particularly fussy about including commas for nonrestrictive apposition, even when there is no possibility of a restrictive interpretation. For example: "When he died, in 2004, his books and exhibitions were too numerous to count, and his magazine work had been published all over the world in the best publications." [0] The copyeditors seem to think that writing "When he died in 2004" would imply that he had died not only in 2004 but also in another year. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin-part-i https://www.newyorker.com/culture/photo-booth/when-in-berlin...
- tzs 6y ago
  It’s also the main cause of ambiguity in lists. This can be almost completely avoided by simply using parenthesis or dashes instead of commas to set off an appositive phrase and always using an Oxford comma. Most grammarians seem to approve the use of parenthesis or dashes that way, so I’m not sure why commas are the most popular.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm guessing it's because they're seen as less distracting/invasive than the others while still getting the job done. Personally, I use parentheses and em-dashes a fair bit. But I do often find myself often going back and removing a number of them when I've overdone it.

Reelin 6y ago

I don't find it awkward at all - it's just an apposition. (Admittedly also reversing the clauses makes for a complicated sentence structure. Depending on the level of literacy of the target audience, it might not be appropriate.)

hedora 6y ago

Larson on the proper use of the English language: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/ad/81/c4ad811c149c46a576bef2554b689021.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c4/ad/81/c4ad811c149c46a576bef2554... https://bookriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/it-just-says-helf-686x1024.jpg https://bookriot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/it-just-says...

tropdrop 6y ago

The New Yorker is known for its superb standards in regards to grammar, though it does tend to favor passive voice like academic circles are wont to do. This is evident here, with a focus first on Larson's work, then an introduction to his person, and given that the article's main focus is on the work and not the person, this is a logical decision. You have just used what would have been a useful opportunity to discuss Gary Larson's unique art style to insist how much more you, a Hacker News commenter, knows about prose than someone employed by the New Yorker. Further, due to your comment's lack of clarification, I ironically cannot tell if you are insinuating that the author of the article used "its" correctly or incorrectly. For the record, because this possessive pronoun is referring to Gary Larson's work in the previous sentence, the usage is correct. [1] 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Pronouns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Pronouns

labster 6y ago
Unfortunately they have a terrible standard of spelling at the New Yorker. Every time I read one of those words with the umlaut, it causes a full parse error in my brain, to the extent that I usually have to read the entire paragraph again. Seriously, if you're not happy with "cooperate", spell it as "co-operate". This is an old standard, and it still works well. I don't get how the New Yorker tries to pretend they're the magazine of high society while spelling like Spın̈al Tap. The point of language is to have common understanding, and you can't do that if you're the only one using your weird spelling. (Also, I wish they just got the the point in their articles. At least give a summary of why I would want to read the whole long form article before launching into some anecdote about two people meeting at a bar.)
- rsynnott 6y ago
  As the New Yorker will grumpily tell you, it’s not an umlaut: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-the-diaeresis https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-curse-of-... > She said that once, in the elevator, [the editor] told her he was on the verge of changing that style and would be sending out a memo soon. And then he died. So, be careful whose weird house style you criticise, is the message.

rdiddly 6y ago

"Gary Larson (no relation)" is an appositive, and you separate those with commas, so yeah that's part of their same caring about grammar.

WillyF 6y ago

In 7th grade my English teacher had us each put together a book on grammar. I used "The Far Side" cartoons to illustrate all of the rules that I had learned. I wish I could link to it, but the only copy, a hard copy, is somewhere in my parents' basement or attic.

beervirus 6y ago

I mean... it's not ungrammatical. That's just an appositive. But you're still right. That sentence is clunky with all the commas, and your revision is an improvement.