Deedi’s answer to “For those who 'eye' read the book, did you think the unconventional punctuation served a worthwhile…” > Likes and Comments

I can see from looking at the printed version what you mean about poetry. It is set out similar to poetry.

However, when I was listening to the audiobook it just sounded like prose, so perhaps this is more format than content.

Do you think the lack of punctuation was a necessary part of it being part-poetry?

"So many of the line breaks cut me in half, too." The precision of this comment levels me.

I don't see anything arbitrary in any of the author's choices and can't believe I am only now reading this book. I started with the audiobook (masterfully read by Anna-Maria Nabirye) and didn't realize that the book was grammatically unconventional. I wanted to slow down my experience of the novel so bought the book and am glad I did. I'm toggling back & forth between audio and print and am enjoying the choices made in the audio version but also appreciating some of the ambiguity Evaristo presents.

This is a good response! Yes the lack of punctuation was meant to break conventions so that a certain rhythm could be affected.

Sorry Ivan, I just saw your reply! Yes, I think that it was necessary. In fact I think that punctuation (or lack of it) and line breaking is more than half of what makes any poetry so powerful. When you read poems out loud you also can’t always hear the line breaks/form, but when you see it on the page, it can change the whole meaning.