Forum: Author Hangout

You need to fill in what the ellipsis replaced. It may be two complete sentences which would require a semi-colon.

... as long as I restrict myself to the millions of other humans on the planet.

It's definitely a conditional clause that's dependent upon the first statement (a further restriction).

The full unedited sentence is:

Our evening together proved my chances of finding someone else are virtually nil, as long as I restrict myself to the millions of other humans on the planet.

Our evening together proved my chances of finding someone else are virtually nil, as long as I restrict myself to the millions of other humans on the planet.

I don't think the comma should be there. To be honest, I don't know why. Maybe you can understand what's said in this link about it. It addresses using a comma before "because" and "as".

http://hgpublishing.com/blog/comma-before-as-or-because/

I don't think the comma should be there. To be honest, I don't know why. Maybe you can understand what's said in this link about it. It addresses using a comma before "because" and "as".

Switch, your argument makes sense, except it reads better with a break as it's a separate clause and not part of the original sentence (i.e. it's more of an after-thought than part of the original thought). The speaker is qualifying the original statement, saying the odds are nil as long as it's limited only to the planet Earth.

except it reads better with a break as it's a separate clause and not part of the original sentence (i.e. it's more of an after-thought than part of the original thought).

"As" is a subordinate conjunction. Most times they are not preceded by a comma. As I said in my earlier post, I don't really understand why. Here's a link from Purdue University (the example is "because" but it applies to "as" as well).

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/index.php?category_id=2&sub_category_id=1&article_id=37

Subordinating conjunctions are used to join independent clauses to make complex sentences. The subordinating conjunctions are as follows: after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, if only, rather than, since, that, though, unless, until, when, where, whereas, wherever, whether, which, and while.

You can use subordinating conjunctions to correct run-on sentences and comma splices. And you can use them to combine sentences so that writing is less choppy. Consider the following examples.

It seems that when the subordinate clause is in the beginning of the sentence, you have a comma. But when it's at the end, you don't.

Our evening together proved my chances of finding someone else are virtually nil, as long as I restrict myself to the millions of other humans on the planet.

In this you're making a clear statement before the comma, then you have the comma break to show that one is complete, and follow it with the qualification of the restriction which is a very closely linked, but separate statement. A comma is best there.

Neither's (neither person's) eyes leaving the pair.

I'd re-write it to be much clear, and drop the neither. Turn it around, something like:

They both stayed staring at the pair.

I'd re-write it to be much clear, and drop the neither. Turn it around

The full sentence (before) was:

She moaned and he pulled her towards him, neither's eyes leaving the pair.

As such, I'm not sure I can 'turn it around'. Instead, I think I need to explicitly state who's eyes they were--or "both keeping their eyes on the other couple".

Update: How about:

She moaned and he pulled her towards him as they continued watching the other couple.

She moaned and he pulled her towards him, neither's eyes leaving the pair.

How about:

She moaned and he pulled her towards him, neither of their eyes leaving the pair.

She moaned and he pulled her towards him, neither of their eyes leaving the pair.

That goes back to identifying who's eyes he's referring to, but I like it better than "as they continued".

She moaned and he pulled her towards him as they continued watching the other couple.

as the cat said, purrfect. Total clarity.

There is no reason for not allowing a possessive form for a pronoun like "neither".

I'd like to see a reference supporting that assertion, because according to most dictionaries, it's simply not a valid usage. (Has anyone ever seen it in a published work?) I suspect, most authors, without any supporting references, simply rework most sentences to avoid it, so while it may never have been considered 'improper', it's eventually become the assumed position.

CMOS 5.50 headed "Possessive pronouns versus contractions" states:

One quick caution on quoting CMOS as a source, especially now that you're doing general editing work, CMOS only applies if you plan to submit your work to a traditional publisher who abides by it's dictates. It's a Style Guide, and not everyone follows that particular one--especially SOL authors, who are under no such restrictions. Most independent authors--unless they plan to submit their work later to a trad. publisher, tend to pick and choose which rules they'll adapt on their own.

Following CMOS is easier, as there's less confusion and less need to pick and choose which rules to follow, but it doesn't follow that they have a final say. As the title says, it's simply a style choice. That said, it's generally good advice to ask authors whether they follow CMOS or not when you first sign on, just so you'll know what to advise them.

I don't agree it is just a guide. For American style of grammar and punctuation, it specifies what is generally considered 'correct'.

Being pedantic again, it's more a matter of being accepted (by publishers), rather than 'correct', since another style guide might contradict it. You accept a style guide's dictates, but that doesn't mean it's more correct than another alternative.

In the old days, it was either "follow this guide or hit the bricks". Nowadays, with more self-published than traditionally published authors, the various guides are no longer as strictly followed.

Being pedantic again, it's more a matter of being accepted (by publishers), rather than 'correct', since another style guide might contradict it.

It's my understanding CMOS has style guidelines, such as how to write an ellipsis and when to use the serial comma, but much of it contains actual grammar rules.

It's my understanding CMOS has style guidelines, such as how to write an ellipsis and when to use the serial comma, but much of it contains actual grammar rules.

My point wasn't so much an objection about their advice, but rather who it's directed to. They target a specific type of writing, so applying it's dictates to writers everywhere tends to misapply their advice. True, you want to know why rules exist before you flout them, but suggesting that some things are simply "never done" goes beyond that restriction by dictating what's worth considering and discouraging more creative approaches.

Again, I was merely suggesting caution in applying it to non-published authors who have no specific reason to follow its dictates. The issue in question might be addressed, but so are many others which aren't. :(

There are more than a dozen different style guides for American English. And there are likely very few rules on which they are all in complete agreement.

This is because all the style guides are written for specific purposes, and often specific industries. The much touted Chicago Manual of Style was originally written for academic works and text books, and still is. despite that many people use it for other publications because it's what they were told to use while in college, thus they stay with what is known. There's a very different guide for the newspaper industry, and so one.

The one thing many people forget about these style guides is the importance of the word guide because that's all they are, a guide, not a set of commandments - except when you want to get something to accept your work because they demand you work to that guide.

All the style guides are sets of preferred instructions on grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and word usage.

Damn, now I've forgotten which statement we're referring to!

This one:

"My chances of finding some are virtually nil[,] as long as I restrict myself to ..."

So the way it's written, you don't have the comma (the subordinate clause is at the end).

EDITED TO ADD:
But I'm not 100% sure (as I was with the comma splice that required a semicolon).

So the way it's written, you don't have the comma (the subordinate clause is at the end).

Okay, this time I accept your argument (as opposed to the last time you make the same point).

I am not a writer, but I have a different suggestion similar to yours.

Read those rules and such listed by others especially writers. Then pick and choose which ones fit your individual style of writing.

Add the selected rules to your own individual list.

Then review your individual list adjusting it as your understanding and knowledge grows.

This has always been my position. Since I'm not obligated to use a particular style guide, I bristle whenever I'm told that "ze must do things this way because such-and-such style guide dictates such". Style guides aren't even an optional list of writing choices, they're merely 'acceptance guidelines' for submitting your works to specialized publishing houses. If you're writing for newspapers, you use one. If you write non-fiction textbooks, you use another. If you submit works to publisher A you use a separate one, and if it's rejected, you then change the entire text to match another style guide to submit it someone else. They don't so much list 'what's correct' as they list what one particular group requires.

That said, Ross is correct. If you're a new writer, it's easiest to simply pick a style guide and then you can essentially ignore all the various guidelines and follow the dictates of that one style guide. Essentially, their a short cut to understanding the strictures of English. They TELL YOU what to do, so there's no question how to handle certain situations.

The main problem 'that experienced writers keep telling me' is that, in writing fiction, many of those rules don't fit as the style guides weren't written for fiction. There are few references in any of these style guides on the proper use of the em-dash or ellipsis in dialogue (to denote interruptions or hanging pauses). If you never plan to use either, then sure, feel free to pick a style guide and follow it's dictates.

However, in exchange for a simplfied learning curve, you also lose the opportunity to learn new tools which can often help your writing.

Ross has a point, for newbie writers, picking a style guide makes sense as it eliminates the indecision phase. However, I was merely cautioning (not lecturing) that he should first ask authors he's editing for which style guide they follow before quoting a particular style guide. That was my only point: that if a writer hasn't selected a single style guide as a starting point, then limiting their choices based on that one source is misguided.

In short, if you're writing to be published, following a style guide makes a lot of sense, and you can churn through one book after another until the publisher finally selects one to publish. However, if you're not limited to a specific publisher, one you've gotten a feel for writing, I'd suggest that authors spread their wings and try out different techniques to discover which ones work for them, rather than following random dictates that don't really apply to them.

In short, style guides are a choice. You either elect to follow them, or you don't. Quoting them as a reference doesn't carry much weight, as they're no more 'correct' than is every other style guide.

That said, I'm sick of kicking this particular dead horse. I wasn't picking on Ross. Instead I was simply cautioning him about an over dependence on quoting style guides to unaffiliated authors. Each author should decide for themselves whether to use a style guide for themselves, and editors telling them they're wrong because they picked the wrong guide isn't helping them write.

@Switch

I did recommend a style guide for authors — the Chicago Manual of Style. The reason is simple. It's what the publishing industry uses.

So since the goal is to be consistent, you might as well use what the traditional publishers use.

This is the long and short answer. If you want to pick a single guide (rather than struggling with each question individually), then go with the gold standard which makes it easier to eventually get published. But don't dictate what choice other authors make, because they might not have made the same decision you have.

@Ross at Play

Can you recommend a different starting point for NEW authors who want consistency in their grammar and punctuation? (with it taken as a given that fiction authors must relax some, or many, of their rules)

Since I've gone the 'no specific style guide' route, I tend to favor asking sites like Grammerly and Grammar Girl specific questions for the best options, rather than following what someone else decided to do. That way, you can make more informed decisions by understanding WHY one technique works better than others.

The main problem 'that experienced writers keep telling me' is that, in writing fiction, many of those rules don't fit as the style guides weren't written for fiction.

I don't understand that comment.

CMS, for example, wasn't written for fiction writers. But fiction writers adopted it so because CMS says to show interrupted dialogue with an emdash, that's what you'll see in novels.

A native Spanish speaking person on wattpad (from Costa Rica) asked about writing stories in English. He had questions on punctuating dialogue. One thing that came up was that he said that in Spanish dialogue was enclosed in dashes, not quotation marks, so that's what he was planning on doing. Everyone jumped on him saying if he did that, no English speaking reader would understand it. So he decided to use quotes. The point is, people read published books and expect all novels/stories to follow the same rules. If they don't, they won't be understood. And that's what a style guide is for — consistency for the reader.

Consistency is about formatting, such as how/where the emdash, ellipsis, and serial comma is used. But grammar rules are the same across style guides. If you want to have a run-on sentence for effect, go for it, but know that you're breaking a grammar rule. But other grammar rules that people disagreed with here will actually confuse the reader. Just because the author thinks the sentence means one thing, the reader might actually interpret it as something different. It's better to learn grammar and do it properly.

CMS, for example, wasn't written for fiction writers. But fiction writers adopted it so because CMS says to show interrupted dialogue with an emdash, that's what you'll see in novels.

Sorry. I last checked CMS before they added that allowance. When I was first researching using em-dashes in dialogue, I couldn't find any details in most of the style guides.

Apparently, times change.

I also agree with you. Grammar details are a separate category from other Style Guide stipulations. As is always the case, it's best to understand why you do things one way before you decide to reject it for effect. That's why I prefer researching the topic myself, so I can better understand how to apply the rules, rather than being told what to do in every case. But that's just me. When I wrote my first story on SOL, I decided to go the whole nine yards, using publication marks, foreign words and accent marks, and even considered (briefly) using the Interrobang.

I have asked, repeatedly, if anyone knows a guide which is suitable for authors. Nobody has identified one.

I did recommend a style guide for authors — the Chicago Manual of Style. The reason is simple. It's what the publishing industry uses.

So since the goal is to be consistent, you might as well use what the traditional publishers use.

I did recommend a style guide for authors — the Chicago Manual of Style. The reason is simple. It's what the publishing industry uses.

The question is: Which industry?

The academic industry and the text book industry use CMoS, and many authors use it because lazy publishing editors say to use it so it makes their job easier, but not even every book published in the USA is according to the CMoS rules. In fact, CMoS doesn't even recognise many of the ways used in fiction writing, and the great majority of fiction stories written using it come out stilted.

CMoS does incorporate many of the actual English Grammar rules, but that doesn't mean everything in CMoS is right, because a large amount of it is opinion only.

Can you recommend a different starting point for NEW authors

I've not yet found any one good source for everything, but these links below is good for most general grammar stuff.

http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp

https://www.grammarly.com/handbook

Most grammar rules are still used, but the big difference between good fiction and good academic writing is in areas such as the use of dialogue, contraction, dropping of excessive word. This is much more so if you move into using vernacular English.

edit to add: I'm starting to feel a little better than I was, and hope to get onto those outstanding emails of yours, and others, over the weekend.

The question is: Which industry?

The publishing industry. Fiction and non-fiction by the Big-5.

The publishing industry.

Then why don't all the publishers insist on using and adhering to CMoS? It's because it isn't and industry standard publication, is the answer.

Then why don't all the publishers insist on using and adhering to CMoS? It's because it isn't and industry standard publication, is the answer.

It's my understanding that all U.S. publishers (maybe not the little ones) follow CMS. I can't speak to non-U.S., but I'd be surprised if they didn't since the publishing industry is basically headquartered in NYC.

It's my understanding that all U.S. publishers

Just checked the submission guidelines for Harper Collins, Harlequin Books, Random House, and Penguin, none of them say you need to comply with CMoS. A few others I checked only take submissions via agents and have no submissions guidelines beyond that.

Just checked the submission guidelines for Harper Collins, Harlequin Books, Random House, and Penguin, none of them say you need to comply with CMoS.

Never said they did. I said they followed the CMS so their editor would request changes if you didn't.

Never said they did. I said they followed the CMS so their editor would request changes if you didn't.

Since they don't mention it on the submission guidelines, how can you be sure the editor follows the CMoS? That looks a lot like an assumption.

Since they don't mention it on the submission guidelines, how can you be sure the editor follows the CMoS? That looks a lot like an assumption.

Well, an educated assumption.

Remember what Grammar Girl said: "If I had to peg down The Chicago Manual of Style, I'd say that its primary audience is book authors, but as you might have gathered by now, I think Chicago is great for everyone."

I've read that elsewhere too, but don't have links.

Your assumption doesn't sound very educated at all.

Do you get a kick out of talking like that?

As I said earlier, it doesn't matter what their original audience was. It doesn't even matter that they don't gear the CMS to authors. What matters is the publishing industry embraced it for their use.

The question you're all asking is, "Why should I use the CMS?"

My answer is, "Why not?"

What matters is the publishing industry embraced it for their use.

Part of the problem with this discussion is the way you see the publishing industry as a single industry, when it's actually a group of sub-industries. The text book publishing industry isn't the same as the magazine publishing industry, or the academic works publishing industry, or the fiction publishing industry. Also, you've previously said you think all the US publishers use CMoS while I've found evidence Canadian, UK, and Australian publishers don't, so it would seem the fiction publishing industry is also broken up by countries, and may even be broken up by states in the US.

If you want national attention, you're probably dealing with a Publisher with offices in NYC, LA, and/or possibly Chicago.

If you're concentrating on US only, that's probably true, but when looking at international you need to look much wider. Off hand, I know
Harper Collins are in Ontario, and Penguin are in London, for two big ones.

You keep asserting that, but you offer no reliable evidence to support it. No, Grammar Girl's equally unsupported assertion isn't evidence.

Then here's another from a site geared towards freelance writers - http://freelancewrite.about.com/od/mechanicsofwriting/a/styleguides.htm

"Chicago Manual of Style. CMS is the standard for book publishing, both fiction and non-fiction. It is not generally used for scholarly publishing (journals and research), although it is sometimes used for history."

Past experience has taught me that nothing I reference will convince you so I will not try. My posts are intended for those in this forum who want to learn and have an open mind.

Then here's another from a site geared towards freelance writers

Switch,

I note this blogger and you state CMoS is the end all and be all of all writing and every publisher uses it, yet I don't see that being confirmed on the websites of the publishers, and the information I can get from the CMoS website is that it's for academic and technical publication, and wikipedia emphasizes it's for academic and technical publication and also implies it's only used in the US - which means it is not and industry wide staple or requirement as stated.

When you look at what CMoS does have to say about key fiction things like dialogue, it's talking about how to write the dialogue of the living person whose words you are quoting in your text as against quoting from a work they printed.

I'm aware that most US colleges and most creative writing courses in the US reference CMoS, which is why a lot of people educated in the US use it for just about everything they do, even when it's not appropriate. Add in CMoS is rarely even mentioned outside of the US, and you can see why non US educated people wonder why some US people treat CMoS as being handed down by God.

I note this blogger and you state CMoS is the end all and be all of all writing and every publisher uses it, yet I don't see that being confirmed on the websites of the publishers, and the information I can get from the CMoS website is that it's for academic and technical publication, and wikipedia emphasizes it's for academic and technical publication

I didn't read it as the "end all and be all." In fact, it listed many style guides. Keep in mind, it was written for people seeking freelance writing careers. It recommended which style guide was the standard for various types of writing. AP for journalism, for example. CMS for book writing.

They did not say it was for academic writing. I think they said MLA was for that. As I said earlier, it doesn't matter why the CMS came about or how broad they want it to be. All I said is it's the de facto standard for authors of books, fiction and non-fiction.

When you look at what CMoS does have to say about key fiction things like dialogue, it's talking about how to write the dialogue of the living person whose words you are quoting in your text as against quoting from a work they printed.

It does because it's not written for fiction writers. But it also addresses how to punctuate dialogue in fiction, as in the difference between ending an incomplete dialogue with an ellipsis or emdash.

As to publishers, as long as the manuscript is readable and pretty much error free they'll consider it (of course the Big-5 won't accept unsolicited manuscripts — needs to come from a literary agent) so they don't require you to follow the CMS style. I never said they did. What I said was that they follow it so their editors will make you change stuff if you don't comply with the CMS style. So why not do it their way up front? And I would guess your manuscript would make a better impression if it did originally.

I'm not suggesting you use CMS. I'm simply saying that's what the publishers use. So when you read a novel it probably followed CMS. Therefore, that's what readers are accustomed to. I strive to make my writing as professional as possible so I want it to look like a traditionally published book.

they follow it so their editors will make you change stuff if you don't comply

I'm not sure that's true. Since developing the intention of writing a SciFi novel which might bother dead-tree publishers, I've become very aware of the different styles used in novels I've borrowed from my local public library. I couldn't put names to the styles but some of them are clearly at odds with each other.

AJ

I couldn't put names to the styles but some of them are clearly at odds with each other.

Could be when they were printed. CMS is on its 16th edition.

And when we talk about style, it's not stuff like font or layout or the author's writing style. The word "style" is misleading.

it's not stuff like font

I consider that learning a style manual off by heart isn't a good use of time I could otherwise spend writing, but I've encountered a few style manuals in my time and one or two do actually list dos and dont's of fonts.

CMS is on its 16th edition

Funny, I was reading an article about planned obsolescence earlier this evening.

AJ

The publishing industry. Fiction and non-fiction

The wikipedia article on CMoS says:

quote
The Chicago Manual of Style (abbreviated in writing as CMS or CMOS [the version used on its website], or, by some writers as Chicago) is a style guide for American English published since 1906 by the University of Chicago Press. Its sixteen editions have prescribed writing and citation styles widely used in publishing. It is "one of the most widely used and respected style guides in the United States."

The Chicago Manual of Style is used in some social science publications and most historical journals.

The Chicago Manual of Style includes chapters relevant to publishers of books and journals. It is used widely by academic and some trade publishers, as well as editors and authors who are required by those publishers to follow it.

What now is known as The Chicago Manual of Style was first published in 1906 under the title Manual of Style: Being a compilation of the typographical rules in force at the University of Chicago Press, to which are appended specimens of type in use.

end quote

all of which emphasizes it was created by an academic print house for academic works, not fiction.

And from the CMoS website:

quote

The history of The Chicago Manual of Style spans more than one hundred years, beginning in 1891 when the University of Chicago Press first opened its doors. At that time, the Press had its own composing room with experienced typesetters who were required to set complex scientific material as well as work in such then-exotic fonts as Hebrew and Ethiopic.

end quote

And on the CMoS home page they list there most important tools and uses as:

The Chicago Manual of Style Online also provides convenient Tools, such as sample correspondence, proofreaders' marks, and a quick guide to citation.

Students, researchers, writers: for help citing sources, visit the Quick Guide to see clear examples of how to use Chicago-style citation.

Again, more to do with academic works than fiction.

The fact some lazy fiction editors and publishing houses in the USA wish to use it because it saves them having to think before they reject a story, does not make it an industry standard.

However, the biggest clue as to what the CMoS is for is when you look at the purpose of the organisation that created it, and put it out for use by their people:

Since its founding in 1891 as one of the three original divisions of the University of Chicago, the Press has embraced as its mission the obligation to disseminate scholarship of the highest standard and to publish serious works that promote education, foster public understanding, and enrich cultural life. Through our books and journals programs, we seek not only to advance scholarly conversation within and across traditional disciplines but, in keeping with the University of Chicago's experimental tradition, to help define new areas of knowledge and intellectual endeavor.

all of which emphasizes it was created by an academic print house for academic works, not fiction.

It doesn't matter why it was created, or even if it's intended for fiction. What's pertinent is that the publishers of fiction adopted it. It was the publishers, not CMS, that made it the de facto standard for fiction.

The question is: Which industry?

As a follow-up. This is from Writer's Digest University at http://resources.writersonlineworkshops.com/resources/writing-in-style/ (note the last part that I bolded):

I'm going to shock the English teachers among you: Most professional writers do not follow the style prescribed by the Modern Language Association of America. Joseph Gibaldi's MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers is the bible to high school and college English instructors alike. I use MLA only when I teach composition. Otherwise, I use the following:

- The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (AP) for much of my freelance business

- The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) for my consulting clients

- U.S. Government Printing Office Style Manual (GPO) for my engineering clients

- American Medical Association Manual of Style (AMA, not to be confused with the guide published by the American Management Association) for health and medical writing.

And of course, for those who are writing books, there's The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers (University of Chicago).

And from http://freelancewrite.about.com/od/mechanicsofwriting/a/styleguides.htm

Chicago Manual of Style. CMS is the standard for book publishing, both fiction and non-fiction. It is not generally used for scholarly publishing (journals and research), although it is sometimes used for history

So why go against the grain? If all the book publishers for fiction and non-fiction use CMOS, why would any author writing fiction not use it?

EDITED TO ADD:
And of course my grammar heroine, Grammar Girl, says: "If I had to peg down The Chicago Manual of Style, I'd say that its primary audience is book authors, but as you might have gathered by now, I think Chicago is great for everyone."

So why go against the grain? If all the book publishers for fiction and non-fiction use CMOS, why would any author writing fiction not use it?

There are seven publications listed there, and only one is CMoS - if they were all the same, you wouldn't need seven names.

There are seven publications listed there, and only one is CMoS - if they were all the same, you wouldn't need seven names.

They have different purposes, from journalism to medical. But the CMS is the one used by publishers of fiction. And that's what we write here.

They have different purposes

Exactly, and CMoS is for academic publications. I checked several major publishers of fiction and found none listing compliance with CMoS amongst their submission guidelines. You keep saying the publishers insist on people complying with CMoS, maybe you need to post the URL for the submission guidelines of the publishers involved that insist on CMoS compliance for their fiction. I've found some who insist on CMoS for scientific and academic works like text books, but none for fiction yet - but I've not checked every publisher.

they are only guides, and authors cannot be restricted to their rules.

I'm going to ruffle some feathers here, but that's a cop-out. It's an excuse for bad writing.

Yes, authors break rules. But it's really talented authors who break rules. I know I'm not that good.

But let's not confuse black-and-white rules, such as punctuation, with writing principles, such as "show don't tell" and adverbs. Those principles are not black-and-white rules. Stephen King says, "the road to hell is paved with adverbs" yet he uses adverbs. He doesn't mean never use an adverb. It's not a rule, like a grammar rule. It's the way you write your story.

If you can't see when you are being inconsistent, I don't think a style guide will help much.

Without a style guide, how will you know if you're being inconsistent? If you can spot an inconsistency, you are following a style guide, even if you made it up yourself.

On what basis do you suggest it's necessary to have a style guide to recognize that you have done the same thing in two (or more) different ways?

If you did it differently in two different places, which one is correct? Your style guide, even if it's the one you made up inside your head, tells you which is stylistically correct (for you).

Whether you like it or not, you're following a style guide. Whether you use parentheses or emdashes in certain situations is a style. Whether you write 15-yo or 15-year-old or fifteen-year-old or fifteen year old is a style choice.

For the life of me, I don't understand what the argument is.

Fine, let me correct my prior comment by saying that a formal style guide is not a necessary prerequisite to consistent writing.

I never said a formal style guide is required. I, as well as others, have said an author should be consistent so as not to confuse the reader. So if you strive for consistency and you have an inconsistency, one of the inconsistencies is incorrect (since it makes it inconsistent).

So to be consistent, you need to do it the same way every time. That's following some predefined way of doing it (a style guide).

If you want to make up your own style guide, go for it. But if you want to use an existing one, or use one as a starting point for your own, which do you choose? If I were writing newspaper articles I'd choose the AP Style Guide. If I were writing blogs about the medical field I'd choose the AMA Guide.

But we're writing fiction. Since the publishers of fiction use the CMS, I suggested we follow that one.

I never said one was right and the other wrong. All I said was to pick one.

We're not talking about grammar here. Whether you put internal dialogue in italics or single quotes or a blue font is not a grammar issue — it's a style issue. Whether you put spaces before and after an emdash is not a grammar issue. Whether you spell out numbers or write them as numbers in dialogue is not a grammar issue.

But then there are grammar rules that have nothing to do with style. Separating two independent clauses with a comma is called a comma splice and is grammatically incorrect (one of the examples in the OP). If you want a run-on sentence make it a comma splice. If you don't want to capitalize the first word in a sentence, don't. Many teenage writers on wattpad say why bother.

ETA: I see consistency within a given story (or a set of related stories) as vital.

I am not as convinced that style consistency across unrelated stories is that important.

Very true.

No, I reject that it has to be predefined. You do not necessarily have to explicitly decide how to do X until you discover an inconsistency in how you have done X.

Then we're done discussing it. I believe in being proactive.

I will encourage all those I edit for to do that, but I am not going to dumb down what I write.

That's always the key. You can avoid the 'ten-dollar' words (though when discussing technical details, they're often useful), but writing to the lowest-common denominator--who often don't read as much as the college-educated crowd--seems like backwards advice.

A better solution is to keep you stories, descriptions and explanations simple and straightforward--even if you enjoy complicated plots. There's no sense in confusing readers. But the 6-grade educated people that I've known over the years don't spend much on books anyway!

Sorry, for the way I came off, but the approach to grammar and writing style as rules handed down from authority and/or a search for such an authority is a pet peeve.

Part of that is the result of feedback and online advice. Other authors, who have dedicated themselves to a single publisher, dictate to everyone who asks that "this is way it's done" because it's the way THEIR publisher insists it be done.

For those of us not married to a particular Style Guide, this come across as bullying without any justification for why it's a good idea. So Independent Publisher, as a whole, are a bit short-tempered in this regard. You get screamed at enough by people you ask for help, and you start anticipating trouble.

It feels as if every time I cite a reference defining what is 'correct', experienced editors jump down my throat stressing there are multiple guides, they are only guides, and authors cannot be restricted to their rules.

If that is ALL you say, you may as well say the only rule is "Anarchy rules!"

I know I'm beating the same old dead horse, but ... I never said authors couldn't constrain themselves. What I cautioned was that, as an editor, you should first ask which style guides/approaches a given author uses. It doesn't make sense to quote CMOS to someone who doesn't follow it, but for someone who doesn't know diddly about style guides, then feel free to suggest it.

I understand your motives for repeating your caution, but I got it the first time.
For me the principle of first ask "What do you want?", must come well before "What tools shall we use?"

That's fine. In most cases, if the author knows about style guides, they'll reference their preference at that point. If they don't, it's an appropriate time to suggest one.