Forum: Editors/Reviewers Hangout

I'm convinced this is a "Bone Apple Tea" kind of situation.

Sorry, that's over my head.

A viola is a musical instrument, after all.

That seems to be the main usage on SOL. In second place is the female name. Synonym for 'voila' comes third.

AJ

Sorry, that's over my head.

bon appétit

I tested and my spell-checker wants to change it if it does not have the diactitical mark, but leaves it alone if it does, reinforcing my point above!

I make extensive use of diacritical marks in my writing.

Viola almost certainly is a typo.

I found this:

"Voilà (usually followed by an exclamation mark) is French, and can be interpreted as "Here it is" or "Presto" or some similar idiomatic phrase. If you transpose the paired vowels, you get Viola, which if it's not being used as a name, is a musical instrument."

you get Viola, which if it's not being used as a name, is a musical instrument.

And a type of plant and its flower ;-)

AJ

You want a real fight? "Champing at the bit" vs the incorrect, but more widely used, "Chomping at the bit".

The usual one I see is 'for all intensive purposes' (vs the correct 'for all intents and purposes'). I bet a search on SOL will find that phrase! :-)

Edited to add — yep, 16 times! 🤦🏻‍♂️

The one I keep seeing is, 'have another thing coming' rather than the correct, 'have another think coming' I've never understood why that has gained a foothold.

"Champing at the bit" SOL 104
"Chomping at the bit" SOL 266 ;-)

AJ

"Champing at the bit" SOL 104
"Chomping at the bit" SOL 266 ;-)

Confirming my belief! And refined stats:

"Champing at the bit" Mike Loucks 22
"Chomping at the bit" Mike Loucks 0

:-)

"chomping at the bit", "baited breath", "peak my interest" and "have another thing coming" all cause a misstep when I'm reading — I see them an my mind goes, 'No, that's not right'. Then I debate whether to notify the author and usually skip it.

I daresay I haven't made any of those errors, but if I have, I want to know about it!

If I end up reading any of your stories I'll let you know if I see errors. Mostly the ones I skip it on are where there are so many other errors that it's obvious the author doesn't care or has no clue. Sadly all too common.

Commenters have criticized me for including spaces before and after an em dash.

Just be consistent. It seems that some style guides do it one way, others do it another. I don't use a specific style guide, just how it looks best to me Em Dashes and Ellipses

I use spaces before and after an emdash, but not before or after ellipses. Personal style.

Remember, style guides are just that — guides — and apply to the specific context (e.g. the company for which you work, the publisher you are using, etc).

SOL has its own style guide (even if not published as such), in that, for example, ellipses are displayed with a space before and after if they occur mid-sentence, despite me not including spaces in my submitted text.

Remember, style guides are just that — guides — and apply to the specific context (e.g. the company for which you work, the publisher you are using, etc).

Exactly. If an author wants to adopt a style guide outside of one being imposed upon them, that's okay, too. It relieves them of having to make some decisions (Oxford comm, when to spell out numbers, spacing questions, etc …) If an author doesn't, that's okay, too.

criticized me for including spaces before and after an em dash.

Chicago Manual of Style says there are no spaces before or after the em-dash.

But webpages typically have spaces before and after. I think for readability.

Now an ebook is a webpage but it follows Chicago since it's a book. Just like indenting rather than a blank line between paragraphs which webpages use.

it follows Chicago since it's a book

That doesn't follow. Chicago was designed for books but that doesn't mean books necessarily follow it.

AJ

but that doesn't mean books necessarily follow it.

Most, if not all traditional publishers, follow a version of the Chicago Manual of Style.

(Just like most, if not all, newspapers and magazines follow a version of the AP Style Guide.)

Since I want my books to look like what people buy in bookstores, I follow Chicago. Well, my version. I don't follow it to the letter. So my own style guide is a version of Chicago.

Most, if not all traditional publishers, follow a version of the Chicago Manual of Style.

When I researched it last time we had this discussion, I was unable to find any publishers who admitted to using Chicago. Although about half were reticent about what they did use, the others used their own in-house style guides.

Wikipedia (spit!) says 'It is used widely by academic and some trade publishers' so presumably some publishers do use it, although they would appear to be in a minority. Chicago was, after all, designed for non-fiction.

AJ

Although about half were reticent about what they did use, the others used their own in-house style guides.

Which would pretty much preclude me from any traditional publisher, as I would neer, ever agree to have my work modified to fit their style. It would defeat the entire point.

I can see an argument for it with print books, but I'm not so sure about e-books. Would an e-book in landscape format be viewable on e-readers?

AJ

I can see an argument for it with print books, but I'm not so sure about e-books. Would an e-book in landscape format be viewable on e-readers?

My eBooks work fine in landscape mode in Apple Books on my iPad.

There are actually novels written in landscape format? I can believe it of children's pictorial books, but it would be very courageous to write an adult novel that way.

AJ

I must be missing something. I'm using Apple Books now, but I've used other apps on the iPad, and they all do fine showing an eBook in landscape. With Apple Books a lot of the layout is adjustable (single column or multiple, font size, line spacing, etc…) and it works in either orientation.

The novels aren't written in landscape orientation as far as I can tell, the software just allows them to be rendered that way.

I don't know if a dedicated eBook reader would work the same way.

There are actually novels written in landscape format? I can believe it of children's pictorial books, but it would be very courageous to write an adult novel that way.

EBook readers (hardware and software) are designed to reflow documents. I can set iBooks on my Mac and iPad into either orientation, and resize the screen on the Mac. The text just flows.

The University of Chicago Press uses it.

That serves me right. I meant fiction publishers :-(

AJ

I was unable to find any publishers who admitted to using Chicago.

From Writer's Digest:

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.

From acrolinx:

Currently on its 17th edition, The Chicago Manual of Style is beloved by writers, editors, and publishers. It's the standard for book publishing in fiction and nonfiction and is often used in the arts and humanities for academic papers.

And from University of Chicago:

Intended originally as a guide for publishers of academic books and journals, it is especially popular in the humanities and social sciences. Chicago style is also used widely by students and by publishers of novels and trade books.

From reddit (with some answers):

Q: I'm a freelance editor. I have about 3 years' experience, mostly fiction. Everything I've read says the standard style (beyond their in-house guides) for traditional, American fiction publishers is Chicago Manual of Style. I even happened to check 4 semi-recent hardcover novels on my shelf today and they all use CMS ellipses and em dashes. But I just handed back my proofreading to a client and they claim that Chicago Manual of Style is not for fiction, only nonfiction. What?!

A1: I'm a production editor at a Big 5 house and "Chicago is only for nonfiction" is not a thing. We use it for everything.

A2: Have worked for several publishers of fiction. All use Chicago

A3: Officially, CMS is for "formal" nonfiction writing, but as I've seen by comments above & suspected, many many fiction publishing houses do base their in-house style guides off it.

I'd like to see them name names, otherwise it's just advertising and hearsay. As I said, the publishers who did provide evidence of which style guides they used in house did not name Chicage.

Answer A3 strikes me as the most honest - much of Chicago is common sense so it's no surprise in-house style guides have elements in common with it.

Cormac McCarthy's writing style drives a coach and horses through CMOS. Have any of his novels been published by the so-called big five? That would prove they don't use CMOS.

AJ

otherwise it's just advertising and hearsay.

Simply look at a traditionally published novel. Does it have "ten-year-old" (Chicago) or "10-year-old" or "10 year old" (not Chicago)?

Does it have the ellipsis as " . . . " (Chicago) or is it "…" (not Chicago, but the way I do it)?

And so on.

Does it have "ten-year-old" (Chicago)

I don't think Chicago owns the copyright of that format. They probably adopted it because it was already the most popular format in academic writing.

And so on and so forth. A fiction book would need to pass a hell of a lot of such tests in order to prove Chicago was used. And even then it could be the choice of the author rather than a standard imposed by the publisher.

ETA Last night I checked three different novels by three different publishers. A quick skim didn't find any ellipses or n-year-olds (which surprised me because I expected to find it in car descriptions), but I noticed three different formats of em-dashes; a double dash with no surrounding spaces, a long dash with no surrounding spaces, and a long dash with surrounding spaces.

AJ

I don't think Chicago owns the copyright of that format. They probably adopted it because it was already the most popular format in academic writing.

You won't find "ten-year-old" in any newspaper, magazine, or probably webpage. They follow the AP Style Guide which would have "10-year-old."

So if it seems to be the most popular to you, it's because you're basing that on novels read which typically follow a version of Chicago.

There are 3 style guides that dominate academia: MLA, APA, Chicago.

I think you misread what I wrote. I don't know which is the most common form for age definition, but the style Chicago adopted is probably the most common form in academic writing.

ETA I write novels and I'd also write ten-year-old, therefore I must use Chicago! Although it probably wouldn't be happy with five million, four hundred and eighty three thousand, six hundred and ten-year-old - something I'd write if I kept slavishly to my current policy of writing out numbers in full wherever possible ;-)

AJ

but the style Chicago adopted is probably the most common form in academic writing.

I don't know the answer, but it's which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Spaces before and after an em-dash are a Style Guide issue (i.e. it's allowed for specific publishers, and not for other publishers), yet for most SOL authors (technically 'self-published' authors, it's best to have your own standards, so your writing is more consistent and not chaotic and random.

Thus, I've always dropped the extra spaces, yet that too pisses certain readers off. Yet, in those specific cases, I just shrug and ignore the complaints, as it's more common in non-fiction than it is in fictional uses (formal vs. informal writing).

Of course, em-dashes, at least in fiction, can also indicate an interrupted sentence (just as an ellipsis can also indicate a 'hanging sentence' where the speaker intentionally doesn't complete the sentence, as letting the listening make the necessary connection is more impactful) in which case, if the same speaker continues, it's considered a separate sentence, requiring an intervening space and a capital letter for the next sentence.

English can indeed be a very weird language at times.

You want a real fight? "Champing at the bit" vs the incorrect, but more widely used, "Chomping at the bit".

Put up your dukes. I'm ready for that fight.

I never heard "champing at the bit." Grammarist.com says "champing" is more correct, but both are acceptable.

I never heard "champing at the bit." Grammarist.com says "champing" is more correct, but both are acceptable.

Both are 'acceptable' because most people get it wrong, thus it is 'accepted'. And, in the long run, it will won out because most people don't know the word 'champing'. But that doesn't change which is original and 'correct'.

:-)