Punctuation is a dangerous subject. In her fabulous volume Eats, Shoots & Leaves: A Zero Tolerance Guide to Punctuation, Lynne Truss warns that those who venture too far into this realm risk becoming "punctuation sticklers" – "unattractive know-all obsessives who get things out of proportion and are in continual peril of being disowned by their exasperated families." High stakes, to be sure. But last month on The Slam, punctuation became a hot topic of debate. Many of you posted comments on L. M. Zhukov's "ptitsa snezhka," weighing in on L. M.'s choice to completely eschew punctuation in this piece. Some thought it was poetic genius; others viewed it as literary calamity. And Jenna of Missouri asked me to join the discussion with my own thoughts on punctuating poetry, elaborating on what kind of punctuation I look for on The Slam.

So I'm here to risk life, limb, and potential stickler-hood for the cause. But I'm not going to lay down ultimatums. Poetry is – and always will be – a subjective experience. In certain circumstances, a good writer could break any rule I might lay down, and still create a beautiful and effective work. e. e. cummings has been cited as an example of this – but even in prose, writers as diverse as James Joyce and Jamaica Kincaid break punctuation rules and get away with it – spectacularly. You want to know the rules before you break them, of course (even Picasso honed his talent at realistic still lifes before he ever turned to the abstract). But rules can be learned in any number of places, from Truss's wonderful volume mentioned above, to more formal grammar guides. More difficult is the decision of when and where to break the rules once you know them.

This month on The Slam, our poets approached punctuation in different ways. L. M. Zhukov in "Tavarisch" and m.black in "Yellow Sonnet" used very traditional punctuation; eponine-pontmercy in "twins" and wordgirl89 in "Finishing My Sentence (Google’s Suggestions)" used hardly any punctuation at all. And yet, each of these poets found the very best way to communicate his or her message. What was the common link? These writers knew what rules they were breaking, and made deliberate choices to create deliberate effects. Moreover, they kept their styles consistent, to produce a unified whole.

From the opening of "Tavarisch," it's clear that L. M. Zhukov is tackling a complex subject. In this poem, crucial differences exist between thoughts and spoken words, imagined titles and real ones. Punctuation helps to accentuate this. Quotation marks set words apart; ellipses show uncertainty; periods and exclamation points give definition. If the author left out the punctuation in this piece, it would be at the risk of confusing the reader – and of losing some of the poem's complexity. The punctuation style fits the subject matter.

There are similar issues at play in m.black's "Yellow Sonnet." By selecting the sonnet form, m.black has chosen to write a more structured piece, held in place by strict rhyme and meter. Using detailed punctuation, such as repeated commas and semicolons, helps to support this style. And the author's creative enjambment would cause confusion without punctuation: "I would sleep / Outside, your letters safe" has a meaning very different from "I would sleep / Outside your letters safe." Punctuation untangles the syntax.

And yet, while "Tavarisch" and "Yellow Sonnet" make good use of punctuation to communicate their ideas, not every poem needs commas and semicolons to get a concept across. In "twins," eponine-pontmercy deliberately leaves out most punctuation in order to create the sense of identities flowing together, of boundaries blurring. Just as the twins in her poem feel "tangled in and out of each other like blackberries on the dying vine," so her words tangle in and out of each other. Where she needs to distinguish between two voices, m.black uses parentheses to give the reader a chance to catch a breath – but then the lines surge on again, punctuation-free.

In "Finishing My Sentence (Google's Suggestions)," wordgirl89 also uses punctuation (or lack thereof) to mirror her subject matter. Her piece is a found poem, a collection of phrases typed into a search engine. So she presents each line as the casual web surfer would type it: without punctuation or capitalization, sometimes even (as with "why are there school") without correct grammar. The one element of punctuation she chooses to use, the colon, gives a bold introduction to the other lines, adding emphasis beyond the regular line breaks. Rather than being out of place, the colon fits in as a necessary element. And the effect is all the stronger given the lack of punctuation in the rest of the poem.

The next time you're penning a poem, dear Slammers, think less about what punctuation is right in every circumstance, and more about what punctuation is right for your individual piece. What fits the mode of your poem? Are there confusing elements that need punctuation for clarification? Can you use line breaks or other means to create rhythm without punctuation? What makes sense? And the next time you're writing a critique of another Slammer's work, why not follow the same broad-minded approach? Each work deserves to be evaluated on its own terms, not by any universal set of rules. As Slam Master, I don't look for any particular style, but rather for thoughtfulness and consistency. I will be disappointed if I read poems with erratic punctuation, or punctuation that demonstrates a lack of grammatical knowledge. But I won't be opposed to any work that deliberately breaks rules in order to best communicate an idea. Lynne Truss may warn of the perils of punctuation, but she also maintains that the right punctuation is "both the sign and cause of clear thinking." In that event, any punctuation that demonstrates clear thinking on the writer's part – and helps the reader to that same clear thinking – is just the right punctuation to use.

Cheers,

Ann Pedtke
Slam Master