The question mark is the most ostracised and hated of the punctuation family. The mighty period adds finality, the comma leads to more, yet the lowly question marks only purpose to most that bring it into employ is to be removed, to be solved and replaced by the mighty period.

Everyone wants to know. This, that, the other thing..why..how..where..when.

I also want to know. I too wish to be rid of those pesky question marks, but I am always careful when I do to bring in the big P with the utmost caution. You see, the problem with the period is that it is a full stop. Once you employ it what precedes it becomes finalized, and in a sense crystallized.  Language becomes thought, which translates into perception. The period in that sense is also a bit of a delinquent as it tends to finalize things best left to a state of pause.

That is neither here nor there with regards to peoples drive to fill their lives with as many periods as possible, sometimes with its homie comma, sometimes not, while eliminating those question marks. While periods can follow nonsensical sentences, nobody believe their own to be such(else they would be re-written), and those finished sentences make the world sharper, clearer. They give it definition. An unfinalized one, on the other hand, gives nothing. They sit as only a temporary placeholder as one wonders and speculates how to get that period in there with due haste, even if it involves pilfering a line or two from some other author.

Once your particular manuscript is peppered with too many periods you will have written a document that will be much harder to alter than it was to write. After all, many of those finalized statements headed up by headstrong periods depend on other sentences headed up by other periods for their very existence, and to remove one might not only lead to the removal of others, but also to the inevitable insertion of that most  parasitic of all punctuation and undo the fine arrangement of full stops that have been so carefully laid. With too much of this going on, the entire thing might need to be scrapped, or at the very least fall into a disarray of word-soup that would give any editor a headache.

Yet with every period laid, and every question mark covered with white out, a potential sentence is eliminated. You know, the one that might have filled that space on the paper.  Yet for every question mark laid a door is left open to further sentences, as a question implies at the very least, the search for an answer. The price is one less crystallized statement, one less finalized bit of the document. Perhaps one step backwards, if the goal is to fill the parchment.

Yet, If one is to write a document of any quality one must be especially choosy about how he finalizes what, and must always write in a way that revisions are possible.


3 responses to “?

  1. Doubt has always been of the Devil. Being a perpetual mass of doubt won’t pan out well for survival though. Once you walk further down your own path, it’s a process of creating your own “dogma” – then destroying it when it’s no longer needed. Doubting (question marks) and dogmatizing (full stops) reveal themselves as two sides of the same coin.

    • I would disagree Meq. I see doubt as the seed of faith in my terminology. One must first question his own ideas/worldview to see where it lacks before He can climb to higher positions. I do not mean however mean doubt oneself.

  2. Awww! The reckless idea of believing what ‘You’ believe to be absolute and cannot be altered by future events or experiences(if I get your drift.) Believe it or not Mr. Dread I have a saying that goes “In search of the answers to questions unknown”, well I will have to give credit to John Denver for that quote but I live by it.

    Good post Mr. Dread 🙂