some thoughts on quotation marks and italics

+updated 6/19/08+

I wrote this for another context, but I haven't posted in a while, so I thought I'd bore the world rather than just my colleagues.

As you may know, my day job is as an editor for a university. In this position I work for a bunch of academics, and over the last five years I’ve developed the bias that many academics are not great writers.

This is compounded by a few factors.

First, the overarching goal of most academic writing is not the creation of good writing, it’s the generation of new ideas, or if I’m a bit less generous, the goal is to sound smart and innovative. Thus, academic writing is by its very nature flush with field-specific terminology and verbosity.

Second, because academics are bright and successful within their field, many seem to naturally assume that they are also good writers. Actually, this is probably true of non-academics also, but in my department, I’ve found that it takes a long time for the higher level faculty to seek editorial assistance. But they all need help, and once I find my way to their manuscripts, they hardly ever bat an eye if I swap some quotation marks for italics or make a few nouns roman type (I suppose they’re usually too busy!).

Likewise, I think the academics that write for nonprofit theology journals could use some help, and I doubt they’ll really care if lowly journal editors assert their will on matters of emphasis. But if they do care, such editors have the big guns in their arsenal: (1) they’re using CMOS, the king of style since the early 1900s—it happens to be the stylebook of most book publishers, the stylebook of most scholarly work in the humanities—and as far as writing style is concerned, CMOS is like the US constitution, and the journal editors are the Supreme Court; (2) they’re attempting to keep all of our articles consistent, so an author could be consoled that there’s nothing wrong with their style, they’d just like it to match the rest of the issue’s content; (3) they’re attempting to make their content relevant to a larger audience than just other theologians; (4) they’re an interdisciplinary journal with a creative writing section, so unlike other theology journals, great writing will never take a backseat to great theology; and (5) even if the author is a big name that they just have to publish, they are still the one’s pulling the strings, so authors are really beholden to their editorial decisions.

My perspective is that academics, especially in the humanities, attempt to compensate for their lack of writing genius by using artificial means of emphasis like the quotation mark. In most instances, a word can be emphasized naturally in the sentence or paragraph construction without stooping to quotation marks or italics. Moreover, by making sparse use of this convention, words that are set off by italics will stand out more. Also, many writers seem to use (or overuse) quotation marks for ironic use (see CMOS 7.58) when it really doesn’t make much sense.

So given that it’s generally best to trim a manuscript of excess italics and quotation marks, here are the guidelines that I'd recommend for a theology journal:

• Foreign words unfamiliar to readership = italics
• Emphasis (try to avoid) = italics
• Terms, words used as words, letters used as letters = italics
• Nonstandard, ironic, or other special sense (try to avoid!) = quotation marks

Of course, ultimately, the author is always right. Editors can usually get away with enforcing matters of style, but if there’s an impasse, an editor's only options are to give in or reject the piece.

march madness (1) and a clarification (2)

1. here's the st. louis region of my march madness bracket. i haven't watched much college ball this year, so it would be a miracle if i nailed many of these games. but not according to the newspaper industry--i was browsing a forum of angry newspaper editors this afternoon, and those crotchety red inksters insisted that there is no room for miracles in the media. writers, get your religious beliefs out of our stories, they cried. this seemed rather excessive to me. i appreciate that a journalist's duty is to report the news and not reflect on it (that's what the quasi-anchors and pundits do), and perhaps we over-use the term in colloquial speech, but as one poster suggested, miracles have been around since chaucer, why should they stop now?

(despite the presence of a few upsets, the closest thing to a miracle in my bracket is the prospective advancement of UNLV into the sweet sixteen.)


2. i hope yesterday's post wasn't misleading. i started the post by describing authorial out-of-body experiences in which writers swap the self for the other and then i concluded with a subtle variation on that idea: rather than dwelling within another soul, my next step is to sample others' experiences and make them my own. thus you won't find me speaking in an unfamiliar dialect or complaining about cramps. i'll still be expressing some sense of myself, but i'll be using new avenues for this exploration. that is, if i follow through and actually write something....

the something that i wrote

A lesson

Any linguist will tell you that there are several universal steps in language acquisition. Like puberty and death, speech (and sign language for that matter) progresses in a relatively similar fashion for everyone. This should be no surprise; monkeys, marmots, and your aunt's cursing pet parrot all learn to communicate in a predictable fashion. However, humans are unique. We lack feathers, fur, and a universal ceiling for language acquisition. (per linguists, we also have the uncanny ability for infinite creativity; that is, rather than mimicing others or reciting a preprogrammed response to certain stimuli, we string thoughts together in our own independent way. there, if you get nothing else from this blog, you've at least learned enough linguistic fundementals to obviate the horror of an actual linguistics class). Thus, some folks stay at the plateau of language fluency. These unlucky souls never experience the birth of language consciousness, the appreciation (or lack thereof) of language mechanics. Unfortunately, many of those that consider language get stuck questioning the comma. So many rules and restrictions -- put a colon here, capitalize this, check your tense there. But there is life-changing news for all but the most hard-core language anarchists: the minutia of grammar is sensible. It is poetic logic that supports grammar, not some powerful coalition of grammar gods making senseless decisions in their ivory thrones. And I have proof...

On September 16th, I referred to my blessed moment with the AMA Manual of Style. While there I (re) discovered the following procedures:

1. Spell out all numbers at the beginning of sentences
2. Spell out all numbers less than 10 in literary writing
3. Spell out no numbers in scientific writing (unless there is some other reason to do so, like #1)

Okay, why the strange rules regarding numbers? Why does Andrew think this isn't simply a stupid random decision by grey-bearded academicians? I suggest taking a look at the AMA MoS cause I feel like a bit of hack spoiling their tasty tidbits. Oh well, I suppose it took a number of well-meaning monks to pass down the original Bible, and perhaps they didn't get every word in its original most eloquent self. Then again, they probably did. But they were God inspired and in case you couldn't tell, I'm defnitely AMA inspired

In literary writing numbers function as yet another building block to the sentence. Authors intend for words to flow into sentences to flow into paragraphs to flow into pulitzer prize winning pieces. In contrast, the scientist reads/writes with attention focused on the particulars -- how many patients participated in how many procedures? The words are necessary only in a secondary function, to convey the meaning behind numbers.

I'd give a link to the AMA Manual of Style, but I doubt you can find it for free online...

an INTRODUCTION (and the wanna' be bible)

so, if i were really writing a blog, i'd have something witty to say. some hooker to draw you in. a clever analogy or personal antidote. or maybe you might just like me, and to humor me, you say 'yeah, andrew, i'd love to be the 1 person to read your blog this year.' actually, i tend to edge my way off the sidewalk and into traffic when i see hookers. apparently it takes someone of quite strong character to walk freely and unihibited in hookerland. the judgmental phobiacs teeter on sidewalk cornices, risking automobile rub, while the sexually enthusiastic leer or creep into the waiting arms of wantonness. okay, besides quaffing a gallon of verbosity juice, i'm also stretching the truth a bit. i doubt that i really alter my course perceptibly, but my steps might fall a shade quicker as i tunnel away. in any case, i hope that my blog won't cater to any particular sidewalk style. almost all are welcome here. doesn't that make you feel warm and fuzzy?

ummmm...so, today at work i was faced with the intriguing dilemna of numbers. Is it three chickens or 3 chickens? perhaps one of the more pressing questions of science. that is, when submitting a manuscript to the archives of neurology, do you spell out 'three' or leave it in numerical form? After a frustrating google search, I visited our delightful VA librarian (ex-technical writer, ex-Navy recruit, ex-Nepal peace corp vet) to acquire the bible of scientific writing: the AMA Manual of Style.

Christmas list:

One manual of style, 1 ipod, and 1 piano