Rant for the Day: Using Misspellings to Indicate Speech Patterns

by Persia on August 28, 2009

A Writer's Tools
Image by JohnCurtis via Flickr

As an editor at Gentle Pen Editorial Services, I see this time and time again: writers using egregious misspellings to indicate speech patterns, specifically poor grammar and poor pronunciation. My response is always the same: Don’t do it.

I’ll keep the reasons short and sweet:

  1. It makes your copy difficult to understand.
  2. It makes your copy difficult to understand.
  3. It makes your copy difficult to understand.

Anything that makes your copy difficult to understand slows down your story and kills reader interest. After a while, the reader (ahem, that does include your editor) will want to toss your book against a wall.

So what do you do when you want to indicate a character’s inability or unwillingness to speak standard English? Use standard English, at least as far as spelling and punctuation are concerned. You can play with the grammar and syntax, but you may not play with spelling and punctuation. (Okay, you can, but only to a very, very, very limited degree.)

Example:

“Whatchu doin callin me at dis time ah mornin? I’ma gonna wup you till you cain’t stand iffin ya do dat agin!”

Laugh if you want to, but folks, it’s painful writing this. No, I didn’t get a manuscript with this exact sentence. I would never hurt or embarrass an author that way. However, I have received manuscripts — and I do mean way too many — that contain page after page of these oddball phonetic misspellings. I have never given in to the urge to throw these manuscripts against the digital wall, but I admit that in one case, I gave up. I just couldn’t plow through pages and pages of such gobbledygook.

I had to tell the author that I had no idea whether her story was good. Why? Because I simply couldn’t get to it. The wall of nonsensical misspellings she had erected wore me down. It obliterated any insight into the story she was trying to tell. She was insulted. I never heard from her again. It was a shame, too, because the synopsis of the story indicated that it was worth telling.

Back to the above example. You might say, what’s the problem? By themselves, these sentences are easy to understand. But imagine pages and pages and more pages of dribble just like them. Pretty soon, you’d be sick of it. Any reader would be. Reading pages of idiosyncratic misspellings is like being forced to repeatedly listen to a very bad joke that wasn’t funny to begin with.

Let’s try rewriting the sentences with normal spellings, but keeping the odd syntax.

“What you doing calling me at this time of morning? I’ll whip you till you can’t stand if you do it again.”

OK, I did noodle with the tenses in the second sentence a bit, but mostly I just corrected the misspellings. Now, the sentences are readable and perfectly convey the folksy vocal pattern of the speaker.

A few “gonnas” or “ain’ts” aren’t going to destroy your readability, but any more than that and you’re entering risky waters. You’re damaging your story and doing a disservice to your readers. So please, stick to standard spelling. Develop an ear for how people arrange their words and formulate their sentences, for phrases that they rely on.

For those of you who would never use misspellings to indicate dialect, I apologize. I just had to get this off my chest. Now, I’ve got to get back to work, editing another one of those manuscripts. Grrrr….

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }

Sara J. Henry August 28, 2009 at 9:01 pm

I think at times you can “misspell” a word or two to indicate accents or speech patterns: I could live with “Whatcha doing calling me this time of morning? I’ll whup you till you can’t stand if you do it again.”

But too much of it, and it becomes impossible to read. Absolutely.

Reply

Persia August 28, 2009 at 10:37 pm

Actually, I’m OK with sentences that lightly mix in a bit of misspelling to give “flavor,” but page after page? Too much work.

Reply

Persia September 5, 2009 at 11:40 am

I love Huck Finn, but it was written at a different time and place. While fittingly reflective of its era, it encompasses techniques that I don’t believe would be appropriate or even necessary today. I do believe that misspellings reinforce negative stereotypes, and that this is one reason why the publishing industry as a whole eschews them. They are also unnecessary and lead to lazy writing. For me that’s just as significant an objection. But yes, Huck Finn is great and Mark Twain was no slouch as a writer. (It would take a writer of Twain’s caliber, by the way, to pull off that kind of misspellings.)

Reply

Lisa August 28, 2009 at 9:51 pm

I hope a lot of people read this, Persia. You wrote this well and hit the nail right on the head!

Reply

Dash September 3, 2009 at 8:43 pm

I think you make a good point. That said, sometimes using vernacular,
with what you’ve id’d as misspellings (why does that word seem
misspelled???), is essential and meaningful to the development and
unveiling of a character or characters. I think you could argue
this is true in Huck Finn. Jim’s dialogue often has what you call
“misspellings,” and may seem to reinforce a stereotype about black
people–that they are simple and inferior. However, Jim is probably
one of the deepest and most thoughtful characters in the book, and
he causes Huck to confront his prejudices and free himself from
damaging social conventions. I think the “misspellings” enrich
the story. Wonder what you think.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

]]>