Forum: Author Hangout

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.

This is an important point, as many of our discussions focus on how the CMS's overly generalized focus often misses the uses only used in fiction. They've gotten better over the years, adding more 'purely fictional' content/exceptions, but you're still comparing apples and oranges (or parentheses and em-dashes) most of the time, so you're never sure which usage fits what you're looking for—which always provokes fights in the Author's Forum.

Now as to publishers using CMOS: https://www.thebalancesmb.com/which-style-guide-should-i-use-1360722

That's a 'for interest' article on a small business site, and it contradicts your previous statement that style guides don't cover grammar.

I've can't find my checklist but my research showed that at least one major publisher used a press-based style guide.

CMOS isn't really a go-to style guide for fiction, it's a reluctant default, like buying IBM used to be the reluctant default when buying mainframe computer. By its own admission, it's not targeted at fiction writers but if you're American and you follow it, you probably won't be worse off than most other writers.

AJ

I've found that said in many, many sources. That's why I believe it. NY Times is an exception to AP. Maybe some book publishers don't follow CMOS, but I bet their own is based on it.

It's the same as the NY Times relationship to the AP. Each book publisher has it's own, specialized Style Guide, who's complexity is largely determined by their funding and manpower constraints. The larger houses have more robust Style Guides, while the smaller houses rely entirely on CMOS.

The problem for most of us here, is that every author chooses their Style Guide on where they plan to publish, reformatting their articles for each publisher they submit to. Since we NEVER publish to a single, definitive source, we're each compiling our own 'unofficial' Style Guide, where we combine the elements of each which we think best first our writing, but which then conflicts with every OTHER SOL author's personal (and often unwritten) Style Guides.

Hell, it's no wonder we all argue so much!

To me, that's exactly the way it SHOULD be.

I agree, and I LOVE discussing the various alternatives and how (or whether) we should each incorporate them, but then we have many who go into conniptions over our convoluted discussions, finally insisting we shouldn't do anything but use whatever THEY do!

As it said, the underlying premise results in our protracted arguments. :(

According to Formatting & Submitting Your Manuscript (and editors I've spoken to at conferences), most book publishers use The Chicago Manual of Style—or some variation of it—as a formatting guide for their books. So when writing your novel or nonfiction work, it's best to follow those guidelines.

True enough, but just like your NY Times example, saying they 'follow' the CMS doesn't account for everything they add to it, otherwise ALL novelists would use the exact same formatting, and they wouldn't have to reformat each book for each submission. The NY Times follows the AP Style Guide, but it's stories look nothing like the other magazines and newspapers which follow the same Style Guide.

Saying that most novelists follow the CMoS is misleading, as it's the ONLY Style Guide for publishing, so you can't follow any other style guide, but if you ONLY follow CMS, you'll never be published!

otherwise ALL novelists would use the exact same formatting, and they wouldn't have to reformat each book for each submission

Don't confuse formatting with style.

The size and type of font to use is formatting. Spelling out numbers is style. Using an em-dash for interrupted speech is style. There are no grammar rules for those. Same with the Oxford comma.

But is using the ellipsis font vs nbsp.nbsp.nbsp.nbsp style or formatting?

And, yes, the style guides go into grammar. But that should be the same in all style guides. Grammar rules are rules (again, the Oxford comma is not a grammar/punctuation rule).

Actually they're conventions, derived from what the majority of people have done in the past plus a few hangovers from Latin. All very well, since doing the same as most other people facilitates mutual understanding, but the grammarians' self-serving love of jargon and their addition of complicated rules to try to cover some of the many exceptions only serves to make writing seem more complicated than it really is.

Descriptive, not prescriptive, and a snapshot of what was OK at the time of the creation of the guide.

It's similar to the 'not a word' debate. If you say a collection of syllables which communicate an idea, and the other person understands what you mean, then it IS a word, irregardless* of what the dictionaries and English teachers say.

* regardless, for purists. I was making a funny. Next lets talk about the differences between flammable and inflammable. :-)

It's similar to the 'not a word' debate. If you say a collection of syllables which communicate an idea, and the other person understands what you mean, then it IS a word,

A lot depends on if everyone understands what's being said as against a few select individuals.

One of the oddest arguments I ever resolved was at a meeting of middle level financial managers from across the RAAF where two groups at lunch were having an extremely heated discussion about their AERs being due soon or overdue. When I noticed the split seemed to be uniform officer saying overdue and the civilian staff saying they were due soon I realized it was a terminology misunderstanding between the uniform officers filling in Airmen Evaluation Reports and their civilian counterparts preparing Additional Estimate Returns. Same language, same term, different meanings and requirements.

Descriptive, not proscriptive, and a snapshot of what was OK at the time of the creation of the guide.

Did you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive? That's the term I've most heard used to describe one of the main reasons for 'Modern English Usage' losing its popularity.

Style guides seem to be trending towards greater prescription as they mission-creep into covering complex grammatical issues. And, insidiously, that's accompanied by greater monetarisation. I think that's something the writing community should resist - we shouldn't have to pay money to write in our native language.

AJ

Did you mean prescriptive rather than proscriptive? That's the term I've most heard used to describe one of the main reasons for 'Modern English Usage' losing its popularity.

Indeed I did, and I fixed it. Brain and fingers don't always communicate the way I want them to!

From a fire insurance background, flammable is somewhat less likely to catch fire. Wooden furniture, as an example. Inflammable is more likely to burn, a can of gasoline kept to fill a lawn-mower.

Which wasn't what I was going for. I have run into a number of people who think 'inflammable' means it won't burn! (e.g. incomplete == not complete; inaccurate == not accurate; thus inflammable == not flammable). :-)

Ain't English grand!

Ain't English grand!

It is, my English is always exactly a thousand. 'D

Or is that "ingrand" (i.e. not a thousand)?

Prefixes which generally create negatives occasionally become intensifiers for words which already have a negative connotation.

The examples I can think of now are:
inflammable = highly flammable
disgruntled = very gruntled

Or discombobulated = very ??? 'D

All very well, since doing the same as most other people facilitates mutual understanding, but the grammarians' self-serving love of jargon and their addition of complicated rules to try to cover some of the many exceptions only serves to make writing seem more complicated than it really is.

Now that's something we agree on, as I recently raised the same point with Ross (about ignoring the 'grammatical justifications' for most 'common-sense' grammar rules and simply going with what 'sounds right' while leaving it up to editors to explain when we screw up.

We all should understand how to compose sentences, but the 'grammarians' often cloak what they do, like most professions, behind a wall of impenetrable jargon, and it's just not worth it for me as an author to learn to decode such nonsensical phrases, when I still have so much to learn about writing!

Don't confuse formatting with style.

The size and type of font to use is formatting. Spelling out numbers is style. Using an em-dash for interrupted speech is style. There are no grammar rules for those. Same with the Oxford comma.

Good point, but the comment authors have complained about for generations has been about having to make massive changes in the punctuation and grammar with each submission, so it fits with each Publisher's particular Style Guide, so while my wording was incorrect, it doesn't change the underlying argument.

complained about for generations has been about having to make massive changes in the punctuation and grammar with each submission, so it fits with each Publisher's particular Style Guide,

This is what I don't understand. I've read that most publishers follow a variant of the CMOS. So as long as you follow that, you'll be okay.

Now every publisher has their own formatting rules for submissions. Font size. Margin width. Line spacing. Etc. And if you don't follow it to the letter, they won't even read your submission. My guess is that's what people are complaining about.

Now every publisher has their own formatting rules for submissions. Font size. Margin width. Line spacing. Etc. And if you don't follow it to the letter, they won't even read your submission. My guess is that's what people are complaining about.

That's the underlying presumption, but it rests entirely on 'just a few minor alterations, where realistically, it often governs how you construct sentences, to which titles you use, when you capitalize and when you don't, how information is acknowledged and displayed. So it ends up covering a LOT more than just adjusting you margins and line spacing.

Granted, all the professional authors I had dealings with were when I lived in Manhattan, and had NO interest in writing at the time. And since most have died since then, I've got no way of asking my original contact specifically what they had to modify each time. At present, I know Zero dead-tree published authors aside from a few one-book wonders who feel no need to write another. (rolls eyes at the randomness in the universe.)

a few one-book wonders who feel no need to write another

They probably found out how much work writing can be.

what they had to modify each time

From what I know about submitting to traditional publishers…

1. If they have submission formatting rules, and I believe they all do, if you don't follow them to the letter they won't read your submission. The reason is they get thousands of submissions so if one is not in their format it takes more time. And they don't have the time. Also, it's an indication you don't follow instructions.

2. If your submission is filled with typos and grammar errors, they'll stop reading. They expect quality. But they will overlook some errors. After all, they have editors.

3. They are looking for consistency within the manuscript, not consistency with their style guide. After all, they don't publish their style guide. But if their style guide is based on/similar to CMOS, your manuscript will read easier for them and probably look better to them because that's what they're familiar with.

So the only thing I can think of that would require an author to make changes for each submission is the submission formatting rules, such as margins, fonts, line spacing, etc.

Now the query letter should be customized to the person you're submitting to so that would have to change each time. You may even have to modify the synopsis. Some want no more than 2 pages while some might want not more than 5.

most book publishers use The Chicago Manual of Style—or some variation of it—as a formatting guide for their books.

Interesting choice of words. I wonder whether the lack of mention of writers was deliberate.

As far as my writers' group goes, very few had heard of CMOS before the subject was raised at a meeting, and that mostly excluded the handful who had actually bothered dead trees. More members had heard of Strunk & White, although they were mostly course junkies and didn't actually use it.

AJ

More members had heard of Strunk & White, although they were mostly course junkies and didn't actually use it.

Strunk & White is a romedial Style Guide with major flaws which (back when I was a teen) was taught in lower level high school courses. It was originally written a LONG time ago, and was incorrect when it was first published. An author saying they 'know of' Strunk & White is essentially saying they use no style guide, and they'll have trouble submitting their stories to ANY publisher (i.e. they haven't done their homework before undertaking their new careers, not that this information is ever easy to figure out).

those guides are derivative of the AP style guide.

Which is what I originally said. Then was told the NY Times style guide pre-dated the AP Style Guide. I found that to be true.

But the comment from Writer's Digest said:

Most magazine and newspaper publishers, on the other hand, use The Associated Press Stylebook and Libel Manual as a guide for their publications. Although many, like Writer's Digest, take a few liberties with it to fit their own particular house styles.

So they follow the AP Style Guide with some tweaking.

To assert that the New York Times follows the AP style guide with some tweaking, is misleading.

The article I linked to was about the NY Times being an exception.

Just wondering. When someone is in college studying journalism, is the AP Style Guide part of the curriculum? Is that what they are expected to follow for their assignments?

I bet the majority of what's in all the style guides is the same. The article on the NY Times pointed out a difference in using Mr. Jones vs simply Jones. Stuff like that. Nitpicking stuff.

But my interest is novels so CMOS is what I go by, with my own tweaking. I use the ellipsis font instead of x . . . x because I'd have to use non-breaking spaces and I'm not sure how Calibre would handle Word's non-breaking spaces. So my ellipsis is different than CMOS's. No big deal as long as I'm consistent.

After that, the Times announced, it no longer would use the Mr. with surnames for individuals who had been convicted of felonies.

Which is yet another example of how Style Guides often reflect the views of the individuals in charge of producing it, rather than basic grammar, punctuation and composition rules. Whatever the 'man in charge' says, everyone does if they expect to retain their job. And after your entire staff has been using that Guide, you can't change how something is done without multiple errors popping up. :(

By the way, all these objections I'm raising does not imply that I'm against Style Guides, or even opposed to CMOS or the AP, just that it's misleading to say that ALL publishers follow the same Style Guide, as that's clearly not the case. They follow similar Style Guides, but that's as much as you can assert.

I bet the majority of what's in all the style guides is the same. The article on the NY Times pointed out a difference in using Mr. Jones vs simply Jones. Stuff like that. Nitpicking stuff.

In those cases, since it is the AP, it's mostly concerned with saving a few characters on each line vs. accurately referencing who someone is. (In the Times case, they typically show greater respect towards those they write about, and subsequently, more people are willing to speak to the Times than would speak to other newspapers.

Note: During my times in Manhattan, I knew many Times and Daily News reporters, and they constantly referenced how the 'other papers' handled similar issues. Even while in downtown Chicago, there was always 'The Tribune' and 'the other papers' (the crucial issue always being how professional they though the other outlets were in reporting facts).

But my interest is novels so CMOS is what I go by, with my own tweaking. I use the ellipsis font instead of x . . . x because I'd have to use non-breaking spaces and I'm not sure how Calibre would handle Word's non-breaking spaces. So my ellipsis is different than CMOS's. No big deal as long as I'm consistent.

I can answer that, as I use both frequently. A non-breaking space does just what it claims, it doesn't break! So it treats the single space as a space, and any non-breaking space as a formatting non-entity (i.e. do not much around with).

The bigger issues, though are many outlets (WORD among them) are unable or unwilling to treat smart quotes as punctuation, so often I'll see books where the ending quote ends up on a line all by itself!

But, the convention in publishing is the ellipse always had spaces around it, while for the AP (print or wire media), the focus is on plain text as they know how it's handled (i.e. the size doesn't vary based on the font required to print a foreign name).

In fact, I doubt you could guess what CMoS recommends if I gave you three goes at it!

It isn't a space on each side and a space between the dots?

No.

From Grammar Girl:

Now that you know how to use ellipses, you need to know how to make them. An ellipsis consists of exactly three dots called ellipsis points—never two dots, never four dots—just three dots.

Most style guides call for a space between the dots. Typesetters and page designers use something called a thin space or a non-breaking space that prevents the ellipsis points from getting spread over two lines in a document (6). Also, many fonts have an ellipsis symbol that you can insert, but for everyday purposes, it's fine to use regular spaces between the ellipsis points. Type period-space-period-space-period (7). Just make sure your dots don't end up on two different lines.

Also, usually there is a space on each side of an ellipsis. The ellipsis is typically standing in for a word or a sentence, so just imagine that it's a word itself, and then it's easy to remember to put a space on each side.

And on another site: https://turnerproofreading.com/ellipsis-chicago-vs-ap-style/

Chicago uses three spaced periods, like so . . .

AP Style says to treat the ellipsis as a three-letter word, i.e., three periods surrounded by a space on either side, like so …

Remember that it's standing in for another word so treat it like you would any other word in a sentence and put a space on either side.

Some of the entries in all the style guides really are not driven by language or good grammar, but by the requirements to program computers so they will know what to do when they "see" particular combinations of alpha-numerics and spaces.

And with most publishers, rather than being based on what's proper or even appropriate, it's often based on what the founder, or whoever commissioned the first Style Guide's preferences were, thus it often flies in the face of the accepted 'publishing standards' as established in CMOS.

Enough does fit in that it won't create a problem, but various components often have little to do with the selection process.

P.S. This is based, not on my discussions with Published authors in the '80s, but with my academic authors or those in highly specific fields, who have to work with a single publisher.

So they follow the AP Style Guide with some tweaking.

The biggest question is: how much tweeking can one do before you'd admit they're not 'following' the AP or CMS Style Guide. If they follow most of it's dictates, but decide to go another way 40% of the time, then are they really 'following' the Style Guide, or are they just like we are, picking and choosing which guidelines apply to their own particular set of stories?

In short, where does this fiction of everyone following the same style guide collapse from its own weight? I understand your point, Switch, but you've adopted an overly generous interpretation of 'everyone following' the commonly but rarely accepted Style Guides in each industry.