HOME | DD

Description
Shifting Gears

The great thing about punctuation is that there is rarely one single, correct, perfect way to punctuate a poem.  Given to a number of different poets, a poem could be punctuated and re-punctuated in as many different ways.

So let's take a breather from so many rules and look at Leave the Door Open, by KrystalIce :

Crash!
=Thud=
~~Twang~~
*Shatter*
+BOOM+
Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duht
^Pink^
,
^Pink^
,
^Pink^
,
&Clatter&
rollrollroll @
(Ri-i-i-i-i-i---ng)
.STOP.

“…”
“Damn; I should've left the door open.”

At first glance, this could make a grammarian twitch!  It's just a jumble of symbols and shapes and - hey, take a deep breath.  Come back down from Oxford and pay attention.

This poem is an example of using punctuation, not just to punctuate ideas but to illustrate them.  It's actually more typographical than anything, as the only punctuation being used comes in the very first line with "Crash!", the random commas, with the periods offsetting "STOP", and in the quotations.  So let's look at these few cases within the context of the poem.

First things first, the "Crash!" line is the perfect use of the often overused exclamation point.  A period would've left that line with an entirely different, less aggressive feel; a question mark would've changed the entire tone of the poem.  If ever there was an exclamatory word, crash would be it!

Admittedly, I am not sold on the commas.  They're representing pauses, which is their role and job, but I would almost rather periods to separate the lines.  However, the period plays an important role further down in the poem, and I'd hate to see it lose its impact because it's being used here.  The commas can stay, but I have to wonder if some revision might reveal a new way to show the pause.  I'd suggest a dash, but that might fall too flat, aesthetically, for the poem.

I really enjoyed the use of the period to offset "STOP", and I am glad the poet chose to reserve the periods for this line instead of using one after "Thud" in the second line.  The equal signs on either side of "Thud" paint a lovely picture that a period just couldn't have pulled off.  That said, what's the use for a period?  It's meant to tell us to - stop.  Using it to add emphasis to an already emphasized word is drawing on its traditional use - which all of us are aware of - and applying it to a new context.

Then we come to the quotations marks - one of the few examples in this workshop.  In both lines, they are being used correctly.  In the first, with the ellipsis, we see a very common and acceptable use showing words unsaid.

In the second, we see appropriate use of the quotation marks again, but this time let's look at the punctuation inside the marks.  In particular, let's examine that semicolon.

Remember that a semicolon should only separate two grammatically-correct, complete thoughts.  Damn, while a thought all unto itself, loses a lot of its flavor when it's followed by a semicolon.  Instead of being a statement of frustration, it's just a shrugged-off sentiment.  In other words, we need a more dramatic pause here, and a period would do it.  In dialogue, especially, semicolons should be avoided.  We do not normally speak in semicolons.  We speak in fragments and run-ons.  This is why the period, dash, and ellipsis are often our best tools for representing speech in print.

My only advice for this poem, in regards to punctuation, would be this minor change: "Damn.  I should've left the door open."

Fun With Formatting

In keeping with the nontraditional use of punctuation, we turn now to Druken-Splice 's poem, Bathroom Sound Waves .

With this poem we see formatting, such as indentations and stretched words, combining with the enjambment to take the place of traditional punctuation points.  Out of respect for the formatting, which is difficult to copy, I commented directly on the work .  If nontraditional formatting and enjambment interest you, I highly suggest taking a look at Druken-Splice 's work!

Parenthesis and Quotations

There were other poems in the workshop that made use of formatting and enjambment options, too.  One such was ? by teenagegeek .  In this poem we see a combination of several things: typographical and formatting options, like all-caps, underlined words, and italics, and also the use of parentheses and quotation marks to further the message.  Observe:

'Judge not lest ye be judged',
(It's from the Bible)
I'd say I stay true.

There are a few things happening in these opening lines.  One, the poet is paraphrasing a quotation from the Bible (Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, that ye be not judged") and using quotation marks to emphasize this.  In truth, since it's not a direct quote, the phrase should not be in quotation marks.  To be fair, however, most people who quote this particular phrase use the wording the poet did and assume it is a direct quotation.  Because there's a gray area, I'd actually suggest getting rid of the quotation marks and formatting this line in italics.

However, if we're looking at "most people" who would be familiar with this reference, it makes us wonder why the parenthetical phrase telling us it's from the Bible is necessary.  It's true that parenthetical phrases are never technically necessary, hence the reason they are included in parentheses, but they are often included to provide the reader with inside information or additional information (or to represent the speaker, character, or narrator's thoughts).  It's true the speaker is giving the reader inside information by explaining the quote is from the Bible but, with something that well-known, it seems redundant.  Parenthetical phrases should never seem or feel redundant.  In this regard I would say the lines are properly punctuated, as they stand with the parentheses, but I might suggest a revision.

What is not quite appropriate is the comma after "judged".  This is a statement that stands alone, further explained by the parenthetical phrase but not dependent on it.  Because of this, I'd end the line with a period and not a comma.  And, in a similar way, I would include a period inside the parentheses to finish that thought properly:

Judge not lest ye be judged.
(It's from the Bible.)
I'd say I stay true.

However, I can understand the hesitance to use italics here when it appears later in the poem:

And yet, when the tables
just tilt
tilt in my direction:
flirtatious, slutty, slaggy, be careful (worried about
you) LOUD! Never ever been like this before, hore,
takingthingsabittoofast,
weirder
than
usual,
you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],

Let's figure out what's going on here.  In regards to italicizing "tilt", I really do think it works for emphasis, although I feel as if the "just" in the line before kills a lot of the effect; it's redundant, at this point, to italicize a word you've already qualified.  One suggestion I might have:

And yet, when the tables
tilt -
just tilt in my direction:

or, to preserve the italics:

And yet, when the tables
tilt -
just tilt in my direction:

In either example, the dash provides the appropriate pause and change of tone, and it sets up the colon very nicely.

Where I find inconsistency in the italics is with the next part:

flirtatious, slutty, slaggy, be careful (worried about
you) LOUD! Never ever been like this before, hore,
takingthingsabittoofast,
weirder
than
usual,
you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],

Above, the italics were being used for emphasis on behalf of the speaker.  Here they are being used to emphasize speech on behalf of the subject.  Having the italics so close together, with these two similar-yet-distinct uses, seems like it may be some overkill.  I would definitely look for ways to have punctuation help break up these formatting options, and I'd ask the poet to consider which use of the italics is accomplishing her intent better.

But let's look at the parentheses in this section.  What purpose do they serve?  Are they clarifying what "be careful" means, or are they just breaking up more words in what accounts to, structurally, a list?  It's difficult to tell.  In the first instance, I'd say the parentheses are being used appropriately but, because there is some ambiguity here, I am not certain they are necessary.

Without the parentheses, however, the lines would certainly resemble little more than a list.  In that way, format-and-structure based versus practical punctuation, they do help.

The problem of inconsistency comes up again, though.  Remember, the first time the parentheses were used they were being used to insert the speaker's thoughts.  We can see other examples of this throughout the rest of the poem:

I've let you get through the
one two five
(fifty)
guys that have come along and kept my

And again here:

you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],
But I'm just looking out for you, you never listen to me, this is

And here:

But I'm just looking out for you, you never listen to me, this is
exactly
what
you
said
to
me
(I never asked for your advice),

When reviewing these examples, it makes the "worried about you" section stick out even more.  In truth, it shows that some revision is necessary for this poem.  Also, when you consider the use of brackets to represent what I can only guess is the 'friend's' speech "he's disgusting anyway", it makes the "worried about you" line feel every more out-of-place.

The important thing to realize about punctuation and formatting - if you are going to jump outside the box and try something nontraditional - is to make sure your decisions are consistent.  If you use the same convention to represent several different things in the same poem, you risk losing and confusing your reader.  In this regard, I'd suggest the poet, for this poem, reconsider why she's made some of the choices she's made and think about other options to get her point across.

For more suggestions on teenagegeek 's poem, check this link .

Exclamation Points and Question Marks

We're coming to the end of the workshop's reach now, but we couldn't leave a punctuation party without talking about the question mark and exclamation point.  To explore the former, let's take a look at rainbowsaur 's poem, itkeepsmemupatnight :

Sometimes I wonder.

Do you notice me?

Am I seen as more? than just a nice girl
Am I more? than just the sweet one
that brings you candy on Halloween, when you forgot the date.

Why do I let you? talk over me
Why do I let you? ignore me
when I need attention, because I really can not stand to be invisible anymore

A question mark, of course, is meant to indicate that someone is asking a question.  This poem opens with a question, and the questions continue throughout.  However, instead of seeing the question mark at the end of each question, the poet chose to break up the lines by placing the question mark in the middle.  In this way, the question stands, but it's also extended through the rest of the line.

Does this work well for the poem?  Is this appropriate?  To begin, it's definitely used consistently - which is the first step to experimenting with punctuation.  However, because it's nontraditional, it can be distracting and off-putting to many readers.  This is an important point to consider when experimenting, because you want to be sure that the techniques you try draw the reader in, not turn the reader away.

What I like about the question marks in the middle is that they show how many different thoughts or answers the speaker can create from a simple question instead of simply being one question and one specific answer.  It does break up the list-like feel of the poem a little, but I am not sure it breaks it up enough to make the use truly effective.

What I do not like is how repetitive and tiresome the structure gets and how the questions are repeated - but for small changes - back-to-back.  Because the poet is already showing the reader that there are many answers to the same question, I feel as if developing those answers, or showing more variety in them - or including more imagery - might have helped break up the middle-of-the-sentence question marks and made the convention less distracting while also making the poem feel less like a list.

I also have a problem with the inconsistent end punctuation.  Because we eliminate the question mark at the end of each line, it leaves us asking whether we should punctuate those lines or not.  I'd lean towards "not," if only to keep the punctuation less distracting and less complicated so that it doesn't wind up detracting from the message.  In this, the poet was inconsistent.  There is a period at the end of the first question stanza ("date."), but then it does not appear in the three question stanzas that follow.  I'd remove the period after "date" and leave the end punctuation to thoughts that really do have an end, such as you see in the very beginning lines of the poem or at the very end:

All-in-all I'd say this was a good attempt at experimenting, and I appreciate the thoughts behind it, but I think a few revisions are in order for the poet to really accomplish something special with the unique punctuation choices.

We also see question marks, combined with unique formatting options, in UnfeelingAlloy 's poem, Trust :

     loftiness
The             of thy
incessant ascension?

A trophied divinity:

and here:

Thy Winter renaissance?

A benevolent validation:

At first glance the questions may appear awkward, as they are fragments and not complete thoughts, but when the poet combines the fragmented question with the apparent answer, it helps to clear up confusion the reader may feel.

However, it's important to note that questions, generally speaking, should represent complete thoughts that stand alone - without need for clarification - in much the same way a regular sentence would.  The only true difference in structure is the intent connected to the words and not, necessarily, the structure of the thought.

In this poem, I'd hesitate to make the questions into complete thoughts, as I believe that would take a lot away from the "answer line," which is only a beginning in and of itself due to the introduction and appropriate use of the colon.  In other words, I think this risk with the convention - this twist in asking questions - is working for the poem.

Now, we already talked about exclamation points briefly above, but let's dig a little deeper now.  Luckily, we have just the poem to do it with: The Grammar Gangsters, by CyberPhantom .  Check it out:

Beware the grammar gangsters!
The mafia of the literary underworld.

Just as "Crash!" seemed like the perfect word to accompany an exclamation point, so too does "Beware" seem fitting.  It's true that a period would work just as well to warn people about those grammar gangsters, but the tone would be completely different.  Indeed, this is the perfect example of a punctuation point creating tone.  The exclamation point adds excitement, immediacy - it makes an urgent statement that shouldn't be ignored.  And, in this poem, I think it works wonderfully.

However, exclamation points - much like a few other punctuation marks - should be used sparingly.  Too many is overkill and can become distracting; it can give the impression that the poet is shouting at the reader, and no one likes to be yelled at.  This is why we should examine a further example from CyberPhantom 's poem:

They can make you talk,
"With just a few well-placed speech marks,"
Leave you shouting! Where you should have whispered!
And pulp your bold statements into quavering questions?

The double exclamation points in the "Leave you shouting!" line are a bit much and, in truth, they are contradicting the intended effect.  Even though the second half of the line is talking about when you "should have whispered", because the question mark appears after "shouting" it begs for the punctuation to follow the indicating words and not the would've, should've, and could've part.  In other words, in order to show the difference in print between shouting and whispering, despite the verb, the "whispered" line should end with a quiet punctuation mark, like the period or comma.  Also, though it is an outdated and uncommon convention anymore, when an exclamation point appears in the middle of a sentence, the word following the exclamation point should remain lowercase.

Beyond that, there's a slight problem with the quotation marks and their surrounding punctuation.  It's true that quotations and speech should generally be marked by a comma or colon to introduce them, but that mark is unnecessary here.  Because the line is going for an effect - that effect being that the line, on its own, has been forced into speech by the grammar gangster - it does not need the punctuated introduction and, in many ways, the comma after "talk" takes away from the "punchline" in the quoted line.  Also, though it feels grammatically incorrect, I would suggest a period after "marks" instead of the comma.  As these lines really are going for effects and impressions, and are not really trying to make grammatically-sound statements, I think the punctuation should work to help the intent rather than hinder it.  Consider this:

They can make you talk
"With just a few well-placed speech marks."
Leave you shouting! where you should have whispered,
And pulp your bold statements into quavering questions?

Again, this isn't the only way these lines can be punctuated - and it always remains the poet's choice - but sometimes we have to be sure our puncuation is working with our effect instead of against it.  What a poet, or even a prose writer, must decide is whether staying true to the steadfast rule is more important that achieving the intended effect; in that regard, given the choice, punctuation should happen practically and meaning should not be interfered with simply to make a grammar gangster happy.

This becomes more apparent as we muddle through the rest of the poem, as the colon, dash, and semicolon are not used in a grammatically correct way - and yet they illustrate, very well, the effect that such punctuation can have in a poem.  Here, intention is winning over systematic rules, and I believe it's working better than the beginning:

They'll trap you (between brackets)
As you - dash - to the exit.
Then: punch a blunted colon
Into the gut of your text
Or worse;
Force-feed you a poisonous semicolon,
Then hack/slash your work to shreds.

Were we going for grammatically correct, the "dash" couldn't be alone between its dashes, a colon would never appear after "then" as it's redundant, and where the semicolon is there should be a colon in its place.  However, were we to punctuate this to all of the set rules, it would destroy the humor and the effect.

In other words: choose wisely, but try to err on the side of intent when it makes sense to do so.

The Period

Last, but certainly not least, is the one piece of punctuation that gets ignored because everyone assumes they know how to use it.  Sadly, it might be the most oft-abused punctuation mark for this very reason.  And so, to pay the period its due, let's take a look at wonderfulrachel 's poem, untitled i:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as the evening shattered and rained
on cupped flesh. his eyes grew dark
with forgotten promises
as mine grew bright with either fear
or anticipation.
i was unsure, even then.

The period after "flesh" is perfect.  It's not forced, it's not standing out or making to strong of an impression, it's hidden within the lines and thus works well with the enjambment (i.e. it isn't distracting), and it completes the thought without fanfare.

The periods back-to-back at the close of the stanza, however, leave a little to be desired.  This is a place where diction and enjambment really come into play to help the punctuation work for you instead of against you.  It's not that a poem can't have two period-punctuated lines back-to-back, it's simply that the rest of the lines in this stanza are clean or free of punctuation, and that makes the last two lines stand out - perhaps more so than is necessary.  To remedy this I might suggest:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as the evening shattered and rained
on cupped flesh. his eyes grew dark
with forgotten promises
as mine grew bright:
i was unsure, even then.

In this case, a colon or a semicolon can help to break up the repetitive punctuation, and the removed words represent redundant descriptions taken care of by the "i was unsure, even then" line.  However, there's still double punctuation at the end of this stanza, which might yet be undesirable to some readers.  It's the poet's job to decide whether or not it's appropriate in the context of the poem.

Moving on to the next stanza, we're greeted with quite a few periods:

trust me, he said, and i did.
believe me, he said, and i did.
take me, he said, and i did.
love me, i said, and he was silent.

Here the poet chose not to include quotation marks or italicize the speech and, in truth, I feel this was the right decision for this poem.  Everything in the poem is understated while still being incredibly clear, including the capitalization, and adding the quotation marks here would bring unneeded emphasis to the lines.  punctuated as they are - with repetitive structures and repetitive punctuation - they speak for themselves.  However, with so many periods at the end, it makes those last two lines in the previous stanza very important and, in all honesty, I would still try to avoid a double-period stanza end.

The periods are powerful in this stanza.  Could a semicolon work here or there?  Sure.  A colon?  It's possible.  But no piece of punctuation could tackle the finality in the lines as well as the period, and the poet did an excellent job of using what was needed to enhance the meaning instead of shying away from a punctuation point some poets unduly feel is provincial.

Observe:

he smothered my words with his lips,
and bound my hands with trust.
he lay back and watched
as i struggled with myself.
trust me, he said.
believe me, he said.
take me, he said.
and i did.

In this stanza, I would remove the comma after "lips" as the statement following the conjunction "and" is not a complete thought.  The periods, however, are consistent and still retain the power seen in the earlier stanza.  I am not certain I like the repetitive end to this stanza, as I feel those first attempts were sufficient, but I can appreciate the structure.

Let's see if the periods stay consistent throughout:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as day splintered in from dark.
you'll never tell, will you? he breathed
heavy with himself, stifling a response.
he traced fault-lines across my cheek,
closed his eyes, and pretended
he couldn't see me crack.

i know you, he said. i know you.

First, let's point out the question mark.  Again, there are no quotation marks to note the speech, but as this is consistent with the earlier usage it works really well where it's placed; the question mark is working, and having it in the middle of the line instead at the end really helps to keep it from being a distraction or a detraction from the periods.

All I can say about the actual period use, however, is "Wow."  The poem is all about making statements, and there isn't one point of punctuation better at making a strong statement than the period.  Here, where some others would try to get creative - would under-punctuate or over-punctuate the lines - we see the poet relying on the simplest mark to make its mark.  And it works.  And it works well.  This is what period use in poetry should look like.

Closing Remarks

The very first poem submitted to the workshop, in a simpler form, was Haibun Love by 8ankH .  It started small, but it showed in few words and few marks how punctuation can really transform meaning:

I know this:
Is not love
but to dream it?

I know this
is not love--
but to dream it!

I'd like to say that both stanzas speak for themselves, as do the changes made by the marks, and I think they make the impression they need to without explanation.

Punctuation is important.  It can change the tone.  It can change the meaning.  It can connect ideas or break them apart, enhance enjambment or destroy an effect.  Punctuation can even add to formatting and structure, helping some risks to work and showing why others may fail.  And while there are no set rules for punctuating poetry, knowing the general rules of grammar and punctuation and making informed decisions about where and when to apply certain marks (or remove them) can only help a poet achieve more in the writing.  What it comes down to is a decision, and only the poet has the final say.

Of course, we can all use a little help sometimes--.

Additional Editing Suggestions and Commentary

Commentary on Late Afternoons in Poland v06 by GrimEden

Commentary on I hate chicken wings by ilutiern

Commentary on The Sunset Line by dimerization

Description
Shifting Gears

The great thing about punctuation is that there is rarely one single, correct, perfect way to punctuate a poem.  Given to a number of different poets, a poem could be punctuated and re-punctuated in as many different ways.

So let's take a breather from so many rules and look at Leave the Door Open, by KrystalIce :

Crash!
=Thud=
~~Twang~~
*Shatter*
+BOOM+
Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duht
^Pink^
,
^Pink^
,
^Pink^
,
&Clatter&
rollrollroll @
(Ri-i-i-i-i-i---ng)
.STOP.

“…”
“Damn; I should've left the door open.”

At first glance, this could make a grammarian twitch!  It's just a jumble of symbols and shapes and - hey, take a deep breath.  Come back down from Oxford and pay attention.

This poem is an example of using punctuation, not just to punctuate ideas but to illustrate them.  It's actually more typographical than anything, as the only punctuation being used comes in the very first line with "Crash!", the random commas, with the periods offsetting "STOP", and in the quotations.  So let's look at these few cases within the context of the poem.

First things first, the "Crash!" line is the perfect use of the often overused exclamation point.  A period would've left that line with an entirely different, less aggressive feel; a question mark would've changed the entire tone of the poem.  If ever there was an exclamatory word, crash would be it!

Admittedly, I am not sold on the commas.  They're representing pauses, which is their role and job, but I would almost rather periods to separate the lines.  However, the period plays an important role further down in the poem, and I'd hate to see it lose its impact because it's being used here.  The commas can stay, but I have to wonder if some revision might reveal a new way to show the pause.  I'd suggest a dash, but that might fall too flat, aesthetically, for the poem.

I really enjoyed the use of the period to offset "STOP", and I am glad the poet chose to reserve the periods for this line instead of using one after "Thud" in the second line.  The equal signs on either side of "Thud" paint a lovely picture that a period just couldn't have pulled off.  That said, what's the use for a period?  It's meant to tell us to - stop.  Using it to add emphasis to an already emphasized word is drawing on its traditional use - which all of us are aware of - and applying it to a new context.

Then we come to the quotations marks - one of the few examples in this workshop.  In both lines, they are being used correctly.  In the first, with the ellipsis, we see a very common and acceptable use showing words unsaid.

In the second, we see appropriate use of the quotation marks again, but this time let's look at the punctuation inside the marks.  In particular, let's examine that semicolon.

Remember that a semicolon should only separate two grammatically-correct, complete thoughts.  Damn, while a thought all unto itself, loses a lot of its flavor when it's followed by a semicolon.  Instead of being a statement of frustration, it's just a shrugged-off sentiment.  In other words, we need a more dramatic pause here, and a period would do it.  In dialogue, especially, semicolons should be avoided.  We do not normally speak in semicolons.  We speak in fragments and run-ons.  This is why the period, dash, and ellipsis are often our best tools for representing speech in print.

My only advice for this poem, in regards to punctuation, would be this minor change: "Damn.  I should've left the door open."

Fun With Formatting

In keeping with the nontraditional use of punctuation, we turn now to Druken-Splice 's poem, Bathroom Sound Waves .

With this poem we see formatting, such as indentations and stretched words, combining with the enjambment to take the place of traditional punctuation points.  Out of respect for the formatting, which is difficult to copy, I commented directly on the work .  If nontraditional formatting and enjambment interest you, I highly suggest taking a look at Druken-Splice 's work!

Parenthesis and Quotations

There were other poems in the workshop that made use of formatting and enjambment options, too.  One such was ? by teenagegeek .  In this poem we see a combination of several things: typographical and formatting options, like all-caps, underlined words, and italics, and also the use of parentheses and quotation marks to further the message.  Observe:

'Judge not lest ye be judged',
(It's from the Bible)
I'd say I stay true.

There are a few things happening in these opening lines.  One, the poet is paraphrasing a quotation from the Bible (Matthew 7:1: "Judge not, that ye be not judged") and using quotation marks to emphasize this.  In truth, since it's not a direct quote, the phrase should not be in quotation marks.  To be fair, however, most people who quote this particular phrase use the wording the poet did and assume it is a direct quotation.  Because there's a gray area, I'd actually suggest getting rid of the quotation marks and formatting this line in italics.

However, if we're looking at "most people" who would be familiar with this reference, it makes us wonder why the parenthetical phrase telling us it's from the Bible is necessary.  It's true that parenthetical phrases are never technically necessary, hence the reason they are included in parentheses, but they are often included to provide the reader with inside information or additional information (or to represent the speaker, character, or narrator's thoughts).  It's true the speaker is giving the reader inside information by explaining the quote is from the Bible but, with something that well-known, it seems redundant.  Parenthetical phrases should never seem or feel redundant.  In this regard I would say the lines are properly punctuated, as they stand with the parentheses, but I might suggest a revision.

What is not quite appropriate is the comma after "judged".  This is a statement that stands alone, further explained by the parenthetical phrase but not dependent on it.  Because of this, I'd end the line with a period and not a comma.  And, in a similar way, I would include a period inside the parentheses to finish that thought properly:

Judge not lest ye be judged.
(It's from the Bible.)
I'd say I stay true.

However, I can understand the hesitance to use italics here when it appears later in the poem:

And yet, when the tables
just tilt
tilt in my direction:
flirtatious, slutty, slaggy, be careful (worried about
you) LOUD! Never ever been like this before, hore,
takingthingsabittoofast,
weirder
than
usual,
you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],

Let's figure out what's going on here.  In regards to italicizing "tilt", I really do think it works for emphasis, although I feel as if the "just" in the line before kills a lot of the effect; it's redundant, at this point, to italicize a word you've already qualified.  One suggestion I might have:

And yet, when the tables
tilt -
just tilt in my direction:

or, to preserve the italics:

And yet, when the tables
tilt -
just tilt in my direction:

In either example, the dash provides the appropriate pause and change of tone, and it sets up the colon very nicely.

Where I find inconsistency in the italics is with the next part:

flirtatious, slutty, slaggy, be careful (worried about
you) LOUD! Never ever been like this before, hore,
takingthingsabittoofast,
weirder
than
usual,
you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],

Above, the italics were being used for emphasis on behalf of the speaker.  Here they are being used to emphasize speech on behalf of the subject.  Having the italics so close together, with these two similar-yet-distinct uses, seems like it may be some overkill.  I would definitely look for ways to have punctuation help break up these formatting options, and I'd ask the poet to consider which use of the italics is accomplishing her intent better.

But let's look at the parentheses in this section.  What purpose do they serve?  Are they clarifying what "be careful" means, or are they just breaking up more words in what accounts to, structurally, a list?  It's difficult to tell.  In the first instance, I'd say the parentheses are being used appropriately but, because there is some ambiguity here, I am not certain they are necessary.

Without the parentheses, however, the lines would certainly resemble little more than a list.  In that way, format-and-structure based versus practical punctuation, they do help.

The problem of inconsistency comes up again, though.  Remember, the first time the parentheses were used they were being used to insert the speaker's thoughts.  We can see other examples of this throughout the rest of the poem:

I've let you get through the
one two five
(fifty)
guys that have come along and kept my

And again here:

you've changed (plagiarised from the bitch's manual), never thought you were like this [he's disgusting anyway],
But I'm just looking out for you, you never listen to me, this is

And here:

But I'm just looking out for you, you never listen to me, this is
exactly
what
you
said
to
me
(I never asked for your advice),

When reviewing these examples, it makes the "worried about you" section stick out even more.  In truth, it shows that some revision is necessary for this poem.  Also, when you consider the use of brackets to represent what I can only guess is the 'friend's' speech "he's disgusting anyway", it makes the "worried about you" line feel every more out-of-place.

The important thing to realize about punctuation and formatting - if you are going to jump outside the box and try something nontraditional - is to make sure your decisions are consistent.  If you use the same convention to represent several different things in the same poem, you risk losing and confusing your reader.  In this regard, I'd suggest the poet, for this poem, reconsider why she's made some of the choices she's made and think about other options to get her point across.

For more suggestions on teenagegeek 's poem, check this link .

Exclamation Points and Question Marks

We're coming to the end of the workshop's reach now, but we couldn't leave a punctuation party without talking about the question mark and exclamation point.  To explore the former, let's take a look at rainbowsaur 's poem, itkeepsmemupatnight :

Sometimes I wonder.

Do you notice me?

Am I seen as more? than just a nice girl
Am I more? than just the sweet one
that brings you candy on Halloween, when you forgot the date.

Why do I let you? talk over me
Why do I let you? ignore me
when I need attention, because I really can not stand to be invisible anymore

A question mark, of course, is meant to indicate that someone is asking a question.  This poem opens with a question, and the questions continue throughout.  However, instead of seeing the question mark at the end of each question, the poet chose to break up the lines by placing the question mark in the middle.  In this way, the question stands, but it's also extended through the rest of the line.

Does this work well for the poem?  Is this appropriate?  To begin, it's definitely used consistently - which is the first step to experimenting with punctuation.  However, because it's nontraditional, it can be distracting and off-putting to many readers.  This is an important point to consider when experimenting, because you want to be sure that the techniques you try draw the reader in, not turn the reader away.

What I like about the question marks in the middle is that they show how many different thoughts or answers the speaker can create from a simple question instead of simply being one question and one specific answer.  It does break up the list-like feel of the poem a little, but I am not sure it breaks it up enough to make the use truly effective.

What I do not like is how repetitive and tiresome the structure gets and how the questions are repeated - but for small changes - back-to-back.  Because the poet is already showing the reader that there are many answers to the same question, I feel as if developing those answers, or showing more variety in them - or including more imagery - might have helped break up the middle-of-the-sentence question marks and made the convention less distracting while also making the poem feel less like a list.

I also have a problem with the inconsistent end punctuation.  Because we eliminate the question mark at the end of each line, it leaves us asking whether we should punctuate those lines or not.  I'd lean towards "not," if only to keep the punctuation less distracting and less complicated so that it doesn't wind up detracting from the message.  In this, the poet was inconsistent.  There is a period at the end of the first question stanza ("date."), but then it does not appear in the three question stanzas that follow.  I'd remove the period after "date" and leave the end punctuation to thoughts that really do have an end, such as you see in the very beginning lines of the poem or at the very end:

All-in-all I'd say this was a good attempt at experimenting, and I appreciate the thoughts behind it, but I think a few revisions are in order for the poet to really accomplish something special with the unique punctuation choices.

We also see question marks, combined with unique formatting options, in UnfeelingAlloy 's poem, Trust :

     loftiness
The             of thy
incessant ascension?

A trophied divinity:

and here:

Thy Winter renaissance?

A benevolent validation:

At first glance the questions may appear awkward, as they are fragments and not complete thoughts, but when the poet combines the fragmented question with the apparent answer, it helps to clear up confusion the reader may feel.

However, it's important to note that questions, generally speaking, should represent complete thoughts that stand alone - without need for clarification - in much the same way a regular sentence would.  The only true difference in structure is the intent connected to the words and not, necessarily, the structure of the thought.

In this poem, I'd hesitate to make the questions into complete thoughts, as I believe that would take a lot away from the "answer line," which is only a beginning in and of itself due to the introduction and appropriate use of the colon.  In other words, I think this risk with the convention - this twist in asking questions - is working for the poem.

Now, we already talked about exclamation points briefly above, but let's dig a little deeper now.  Luckily, we have just the poem to do it with: The Grammar Gangsters, by CyberPhantom .  Check it out:

Beware the grammar gangsters!
The mafia of the literary underworld.

Just as "Crash!" seemed like the perfect word to accompany an exclamation point, so too does "Beware" seem fitting.  It's true that a period would work just as well to warn people about those grammar gangsters, but the tone would be completely different.  Indeed, this is the perfect example of a punctuation point creating tone.  The exclamation point adds excitement, immediacy - it makes an urgent statement that shouldn't be ignored.  And, in this poem, I think it works wonderfully.

However, exclamation points - much like a few other punctuation marks - should be used sparingly.  Too many is overkill and can become distracting; it can give the impression that the poet is shouting at the reader, and no one likes to be yelled at.  This is why we should examine a further example from CyberPhantom 's poem:

They can make you talk,
"With just a few well-placed speech marks,"
Leave you shouting! Where you should have whispered!
And pulp your bold statements into quavering questions?

The double exclamation points in the "Leave you shouting!" line are a bit much and, in truth, they are contradicting the intended effect.  Even though the second half of the line is talking about when you "should have whispered", because the question mark appears after "shouting" it begs for the punctuation to follow the indicating words and not the would've, should've, and could've part.  In other words, in order to show the difference in print between shouting and whispering, despite the verb, the "whispered" line should end with a quiet punctuation mark, like the period or comma.  Also, though it is an outdated and uncommon convention anymore, when an exclamation point appears in the middle of a sentence, the word following the exclamation point should remain lowercase.

Beyond that, there's a slight problem with the quotation marks and their surrounding punctuation.  It's true that quotations and speech should generally be marked by a comma or colon to introduce them, but that mark is unnecessary here.  Because the line is going for an effect - that effect being that the line, on its own, has been forced into speech by the grammar gangster - it does not need the punctuated introduction and, in many ways, the comma after "talk" takes away from the "punchline" in the quoted line.  Also, though it feels grammatically incorrect, I would suggest a period after "marks" instead of the comma.  As these lines really are going for effects and impressions, and are not really trying to make grammatically-sound statements, I think the punctuation should work to help the intent rather than hinder it.  Consider this:

They can make you talk
"With just a few well-placed speech marks."
Leave you shouting! where you should have whispered,
And pulp your bold statements into quavering questions?

Again, this isn't the only way these lines can be punctuated - and it always remains the poet's choice - but sometimes we have to be sure our puncuation is working with our effect instead of against it.  What a poet, or even a prose writer, must decide is whether staying true to the steadfast rule is more important that achieving the intended effect; in that regard, given the choice, punctuation should happen practically and meaning should not be interfered with simply to make a grammar gangster happy.

This becomes more apparent as we muddle through the rest of the poem, as the colon, dash, and semicolon are not used in a grammatically correct way - and yet they illustrate, very well, the effect that such punctuation can have in a poem.  Here, intention is winning over systematic rules, and I believe it's working better than the beginning:

They'll trap you (between brackets)
As you - dash - to the exit.
Then: punch a blunted colon
Into the gut of your text
Or worse;
Force-feed you a poisonous semicolon,
Then hack/slash your work to shreds.

Were we going for grammatically correct, the "dash" couldn't be alone between its dashes, a colon would never appear after "then" as it's redundant, and where the semicolon is there should be a colon in its place.  However, were we to punctuate this to all of the set rules, it would destroy the humor and the effect.

In other words: choose wisely, but try to err on the side of intent when it makes sense to do so.

The Period

Last, but certainly not least, is the one piece of punctuation that gets ignored because everyone assumes they know how to use it.  Sadly, it might be the most oft-abused punctuation mark for this very reason.  And so, to pay the period its due, let's take a look at wonderfulrachel 's poem, untitled i:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as the evening shattered and rained
on cupped flesh. his eyes grew dark
with forgotten promises
as mine grew bright with either fear
or anticipation.
i was unsure, even then.

The period after "flesh" is perfect.  It's not forced, it's not standing out or making to strong of an impression, it's hidden within the lines and thus works well with the enjambment (i.e. it isn't distracting), and it completes the thought without fanfare.

The periods back-to-back at the close of the stanza, however, leave a little to be desired.  This is a place where diction and enjambment really come into play to help the punctuation work for you instead of against you.  It's not that a poem can't have two period-punctuated lines back-to-back, it's simply that the rest of the lines in this stanza are clean or free of punctuation, and that makes the last two lines stand out - perhaps more so than is necessary.  To remedy this I might suggest:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as the evening shattered and rained
on cupped flesh. his eyes grew dark
with forgotten promises
as mine grew bright:
i was unsure, even then.

In this case, a colon or a semicolon can help to break up the repetitive punctuation, and the removed words represent redundant descriptions taken care of by the "i was unsure, even then" line.  However, there's still double punctuation at the end of this stanza, which might yet be undesirable to some readers.  It's the poet's job to decide whether or not it's appropriate in the context of the poem.

Moving on to the next stanza, we're greeted with quite a few periods:

trust me, he said, and i did.
believe me, he said, and i did.
take me, he said, and i did.
love me, i said, and he was silent.

Here the poet chose not to include quotation marks or italicize the speech and, in truth, I feel this was the right decision for this poem.  Everything in the poem is understated while still being incredibly clear, including the capitalization, and adding the quotation marks here would bring unneeded emphasis to the lines.  punctuated as they are - with repetitive structures and repetitive punctuation - they speak for themselves.  However, with so many periods at the end, it makes those last two lines in the previous stanza very important and, in all honesty, I would still try to avoid a double-period stanza end.

The periods are powerful in this stanza.  Could a semicolon work here or there?  Sure.  A colon?  It's possible.  But no piece of punctuation could tackle the finality in the lines as well as the period, and the poet did an excellent job of using what was needed to enhance the meaning instead of shying away from a punctuation point some poets unduly feel is provincial.

Observe:

he smothered my words with his lips,
and bound my hands with trust.
he lay back and watched
as i struggled with myself.
trust me, he said.
believe me, he said.
take me, he said.
and i did.

In this stanza, I would remove the comma after "lips" as the statement following the conjunction "and" is not a complete thought.  The periods, however, are consistent and still retain the power seen in the earlier stanza.  I am not certain I like the repetitive end to this stanza, as I feel those first attempts were sufficient, but I can appreciate the structure.

Let's see if the periods stay consistent throughout:

from a distance, i watched him take me
as day splintered in from dark.
you'll never tell, will you? he breathed
heavy with himself, stifling a response.
he traced fault-lines across my cheek,
closed his eyes, and pretended
he couldn't see me crack.

i know you, he said. i know you.

First, let's point out the question mark.  Again, there are no quotation marks to note the speech, but as this is consistent with the earlier usage it works really well where it's placed; the question mark is working, and having it in the middle of the line instead at the end really helps to keep it from being a distraction or a detraction from the periods.

All I can say about the actual period use, however, is "Wow."  The poem is all about making statements, and there isn't one point of punctuation better at making a strong statement than the period.  Here, where some others would try to get creative - would under-punctuate or over-punctuate the lines - we see the poet relying on the simplest mark to make its mark.  And it works.  And it works well.  This is what period use in poetry should look like.

Closing Remarks

The very first poem submitted to the workshop, in a simpler form, was Haibun Love by 8ankH .  It started small, but it showed in few words and few marks how punctuation can really transform meaning:

I know this:
Is not love
but to dream it?

I know this
is not love--
but to dream it!

I'd like to say that both stanzas speak for themselves, as do the changes made by the marks, and I think they make the impression they need to without explanation.

Punctuation is important.  It can change the tone.  It can change the meaning.  It can connect ideas or break them apart, enhance enjambment or destroy an effect.  Punctuation can even add to formatting and structure, helping some risks to work and showing why others may fail.  And while there are no set rules for punctuating poetry, knowing the general rules of grammar and punctuation and making informed decisions about where and when to apply certain marks (or remove them) can only help a poet achieve more in the writing.  What it comes down to is a decision, and only the poet has the final say.

Of course, we can all use a little help sometimes--.

Additional Editing Suggestions and Commentary

Commentary on Late Afternoons in Poland v06 by GrimEden

Commentary on I hate chicken wings by ilutiern

Commentary on The Sunset Line by dimerization