At the online Q&A, the Chicago Manual of Style often hears from writers and editors who are frustrated that they can’t find a rule about something. “I’ve searched everywhere!” they say, like kids looking for their shoes.
Never mind that half the time the answer can be found in a dictionary or online search, or in the CMOS index, table of contents, or Search results. It’s the other half the time I’m talking about here. What do you do when you can’t find a rule?
In my experience, the number 1 reason it’s difficult to find a given rule is that there is no rule. I realize that this concept perverts centuries of American educational practice, but I’m telling you that it’s true: beyond a certain reasonable point, English expression is not legislated. We are free!
“After Mary Smith is first mentioned in a text, should she then be referred to as Mrs. Smith, Ms. Smith, or Smith? I can’t find the rule anywhere.” “Is it Lost Boys of Sudan, lost boys of Sudan, or ‘lost boys’ of Sudan? I’ve searched CMOS but can’t find it.” “CMOS lists ‘Department of History’ and ‘the department,’ but what about ‘the history department’?”
Standard grammar and style rules are not that hard to find. If you are at risk of spending more than a minute or two chasing down a rule, consider this ploy: Use your head and make a decision. Record it in your style sheet. Move on.
Good advice! Rules are so beaten into us that we forget we can make choices. I'm also surprised at how we can get caught up on style "rules." We forget that style rules aren't hard and fast and can vary greatly from one style guide to another. Some writers and editors have a difficult time with that variance.
Posted by: Ebrenner | 10/13/2010 at 07:45 AM
I think this is particularly good advice for editing on-screen. Back in the days of copyediting hard copy, if I changed my mind (or found a rule!) midway through the book, all I could do was page through everything I had already done, looking for the earlier instances I wanted to change. Today it's so much easier!
Posted by: Carol Kennedy | 10/13/2010 at 08:02 AM
I accept your advice here—I've actually been practicing it for years. But the issue for me is not whether there is a rule, but being able to justify my decision to customers who _believe_ there has to be a rule, and want to know it so they can feel reassured that someone else isn't going to call them onto the carpet over the editorial decision!
Posted by: James Lockhart | 10/13/2010 at 10:20 PM
James, I know what you mean. Sometimes is works to shift the burden of proof to the other person. Say "I'm confident there's no authoritative ruling on this; if you can show me one, I'll be happy to follow it." --Carol
Posted by: Carol Saller | 10/14/2010 at 07:17 AM
Well said. But "perverts"? "Subverts" seems more consonant with the blog's theme (besides sounding less creepy [to me anyway!]!)!
Posted by: Michael Koplow | 10/19/2010 at 11:02 AM
Well, now this is going to seem like stalking, but . . . It seems to have nagged at some attenuated pseudopod of my poor old brain off and on all this while that there was something the matter with "loose," there, and God alone knows what caused it to snag today, but--there is (isn't there?). "Loose" is more or less synonymous with "free" or "set free" and not at all with "loosen."
Posted by: George Ernsberger | 10/23/2010 at 05:56 PM
I'm new to the blog, so if this post is out of line, please forgive me.
George, "loose" the verb means to unfasten or detach, the meaning meant here. "Loosen" on the other hand, means to make less tight.
Posted by: Elisabeth | 11/11/2010 at 09:46 AM