Stuart Aken: Style guide

Showing posts with label Style guide. Show all posts

Thursday, 25 October 2012

Does it Matter if the Words Are Not Right?

This might seem an odd question from a writer. I was prompted to ask by a fit of annoyance over poor language used by a journalist on television. She was reporting on a local news item and used the expression, ‘This problem is, of course, very unique to…’ and went on to ask her interviewee just ‘how unique’ he felt the issue was.

So what? Well, ‘unique’ is an absolute. There are no degrees of uniqueness. Something is either unique or not; it can’t be partially unique, very unique or, indeed, almost unique. We have other words to express such things. ‘Rare’, comes to mind, as do ‘uncommon’ and ‘scarce’. Because rarity is an elastic concept, we can use qualifiers with impunity. It’s fine to discuss degrees of scarcity, that degree dependent on the amount by which the object under discussion veers from the commonplace.

If we begin to use absolutes in such a way, we diminish their real power in describing an event or quality. If I say that a woman conveys a ‘unique beauty’ I paint a picture of someone who is singular, incomparable. If, on the other hand, I describe her as a ‘rare beauty’, then I put her in a class along with others; the number contained in that class can be defined more or less by using qualifiers such as ‘very rare’, ‘unusually rare’, ‘moderately rare’, etc. So, in the ‘unique’ case, the reader is clear that the person described has no equal. In the ‘rare’ case, we know that there are others, though not a great number, who are comparable. It’s a fine distinction, but one worth retaining, I think.

In another example of poor journalism, one increasingly repeated these days, I heard a reporter talking about how ‘…there are less people involved in…’, when, of course, he should have said, ‘...there are fewer people involved in…’. This is a slightly different matter, however. The use of less or fewer always provides the information that a smaller number is involved than the comparison. Whilst the use of the correct word is preferable, it doesn’t actually alter the basic idea being communicated. So, whilst I find the usage lazy and inaccurate, I can reluctantly accept its adoption because meaning isn’t changed when the error occurs.

This, then, is my question: If meaning is maintained, does it really matter if the wrong word is used to convey that meaning?

Are we concerned about correct usage simply for the sake of correct usage? Or is our concern, as writers, more to do with style, perhaps? Does wrong usage, whilst acceptable to many non-writers, merely illustrate a lack of care, education, or intelligence to those of us who write?

Language is primarily a means of communicating ideas. So, if those ideas are expressed without confusion in spite of wrong usage, does that incorrect usage really matter?

I pride myself on knowing correct usage, most of the time, but do my readers care, or even notice when such errors occur? As a writer, I feel duty bound to utilise the many fine shades of meaning possible within the English language. I feel that allowing such distinction to be eroded by ignorance, carelessness or expedience is a step along the road toward ultimate confusion and bedlam, as fine discriminations disappear under a carpet of banality. The poet in me abhors such laziness. But, apart from other poets and writers, do my readers care? That’s what I ask you. And I welcome your responses.

Thursday, 26 July 2012

A Plea for Uniformity in the Presentation of Writing for Editorial.

Typographic quotation marks (top) versus straight quotation marks, or "dumb quotes" (bottom). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you’re a writer, you’ll understand my frustration at the multitude of different formats we’re required to adopt in presenting our work to various different organisations, I’m sure. You may even share it.

You write a story and want to send it to a British magazine. So: wide margins, double spaced lines, double, curly quotes for speech, indented paragraphs without space between, a standard proportional font like Times New Roman or Ariel, and, of course, British English spelling and idiom. The latter two are understandable; though, more on that later.

You then decide to send it to an American magazine. So: wide margins, double spaced lines, single, straight quotes for speech, no indents for paragraphs, but each separated by a line space, a non-proportional font like Courier, which makes the piece look as though it’s been produced on an old-fashioned typewriter, and, depending on editorial policy, either your original or American spelling and idiom.

Next, you wish to produce it as an ebook. So: strip out all formatting, reduce margins, single line spacing, use straight quotes and avoid any ‘special’ characters, paragraph formatting again requires an indent, but a smaller one than for the printed text, and a proportional font again. Here, it’s a personal choice which linguistic idiosyncrasies you choose to adopt, though consistency throughout the work is advisable, of course.

These are just three of the varied styles we’re required to adopt. There are many small variations, dependent on the house style of the publication chosen. And, as the writers, we’re expected to adapt to each individual set of requirements. The fact that we are the creators, the originators, of the material is immaterial as far as the publications are concerned. It is we who have adapt to their specific peculiarities.

Almost without exception, the reasons for these idiosyncrasies of presentation are based on simple tradition. The publishers have always done it this way; therefore, that is the ‘right’ way for it to be done. I’ve argued, in a previous post, that tradition is not always a good thing. In fact, it can frequently be a very bad thing. It’s tradition, after all, that maintains the custom, prevalent amongst certain ill-educated and socially backward clans, of violating their women by the horrendous imposition of female circumcision. I doubt there’s a single modern individual who would uphold such a tradition.

Is there, in reality, any reason why there should not be a single, straightforward style of presentation that could be used for all manuscripts submitted to journals, publishers and ebook producers? I can think of no technical reason. The oddities of ebook formatting requirements are largely down to lazy and/or non-standard software programming; something that could so easily be changed. Such standardisation would be of benefit to readers as well, since it would make it very straightforward for them to read their purchased books on any given ereader.

All the individual publishers, publishing organisations, national bodies and organisations would no doubt come up with reasons why their particular style should be the one adopted, of course. Such is the nature of tradition and habit. But such objections could be negotiated into a sensible solution and, in reality, once a standard form of presentation was adopted, users would very quickly become familiar with it. We, the writers, the creators, the originators, would then be left free to get on with our job of making instead of having to mess around with all the variations we’re currently required to deal with.

The linguistic elements I alluded to earlier represent a more difficult area of change. However, it’s clear from current developments that English will be the language most widely spoken (and, perhaps, written) for the foreseeable future. Perhaps, instead of allowing it to deteriorate organically into the more or less incomprehensible Panglish that is the predicted outcome, we should organise ourselves into a guiding role and consciously modify the language to make it more understandable by the majority? Clearly, the use of phonetic spelling would help non-native speakers to learn and use the language; a plus in the spread of our means of communication. There will always be a need for irregulars, of course. But, surely, we could determine that plow is a more sensible version than plough. I’d even argue for the more sensible thru to replace through.

I know the purists will hate the very idea. But we live in a world with a growing population and shrinking borders. Surely it makes sense to help our decedents get along with each other and remove one of the many barriers to cooperation and mutual understanding. It’s been said, with some justification, that wars have been started because of linguistic misunderstandings. Let’s actually do something to avoid future incomprehension rather than allow events and tradition to dictate ever increasing chaos in our methods of communication. Language is how we swap ideas. Let’s work to make the exchange easier, rather than increasingly difficult.

Or am I being idealistic here? What do you think?

Tuesday, 24 May 2011

Stuart's Daily Word Spot: Apostrophe

Image via Wikipedia

Apostrophe: noun - punctuation, an inverted comma that designates either possession or a contraction of a word or phrase; an address to a person, place or thing not currently present; exclamatory address or passage to a particular person or thing.

‘In “Eats Shoots and Leaves”, Lynne Truss has provided a humorous, entertaining but scholarly treatise on the misuse and proper usage of, amongst others, the much abused apostrophe, as a punctuation mark.’

‘The simple way to remember whether you should use “it’s” or “its” is to decide whether or not you could substitute “it is”, in which case, the contracted form, “it’s” is appropriate.’