Comments 'R' us

Recently the online magazine Slate carried a pugnacious article by Farhad Manjoo. It went under the headline “Space Invaders”, and began with these words: “Can I let you in on a secret? Typing two spaces after a period is totally, completely, utterly, and inarguably wrong.”

Apparently in America it is common practice for anyone writing a block of prose, whether e-mail, legal document or college assignment, to insert two spaces after every full stop. (Click and click on the space bar.)

In fact, says Manjoo, “the correct way to end a sentence is with a period followed by a single, proud, beautiful space”. He offers expert evidence. “The people who study and design the typewritten word, decided long ago that we should use one space, not two, between sentences.” And he follows that up with a little history lesson, the gist of which is that two spaces after a period was the practice when mechanical typewriters were in use.

Who type-writes now? Hardly anybody. But their schoolteachers may have in their youth. It appears the continued popularity of two spaces may be owed to traditional-minded teachers. In almost no professionally published modern work, whether a periodical or a book, will you find two spaces used.

That is Manjoo’s basic argument. It’s hardly a hot-button issue. But the article, published on January 13, has already (as of this writing) collected 2,140 comments.

Most are by fervid two-spacers. Some are variations on “Who cares? Get a life!” And some, not many, are by relieved one-spacers.

The two-spacers’ argument is this: “There are no hard and fast rules in language. Why does Mr Manjoo think he knows best? I like two spaces, and I will continue to use two spaces, thank you very much.” A few angry outliers say: “I will now use three spaces.”

A handful say they will stop reading Slate.

Fun, isn’t it? But I was struck by the difference. The one-spacers make an argument. The two-spacers say “This has worked fine for us, thanks.”

Why is it, I asked my scientific sibling, that the holders of the more reasoned, and liberal, viewpoints tend to be better writers? And why the fury on the other, more conservative side?

That’s what I asked my brother, who is a research biologist. He told me about a recent study by University College London, which found that a conservative is likely to have a larger amygdala, a part of the brain associated with anxiety and emotions. And a liberal, a larger anterior cingulate, which is associated with, among other things, rational thought.

If true, that explains why another recent online spat is so rich and rewarding. Hartosh Singh Bal of Open wrote a tetchy essay on January 1 about the England-centredness of India’s literary establishment. In it he dissed the Jaipur Literature Festival as largely driven by the famous overseas authors who come, and by William Dalrymple, who he says benefits from the lingering Raj effect in the minds of India’s literary bigshots.

Dalrymple wrote a rejoinder calling Bal’s piece “blatant racism”. That was easily dismissed. In both cases, however, the joy is in the comments. Author, publishers, reviewers, columnists and readers have written reasonable and well-argued, yet still passionate criticisms or defences.

I think this proves the scientific study right. Who but a liberal readership would take part in a quality argument like this, about how reading Indians engage with books and the book world? Of course liberals are smarter!

(rrishi.raote@bsmail.in)