Chicago or some other guide?

[snoopercharmbrights]

With the strenuous promotion of the Chicago Manual of Style by some contributors to this forum, it is interesting to note that the site guidelines at http://www.literotica.com/storyxs/writ_stor.shtml offer three suggestions for writers to follow:

** Guide for Amateur Writers of Erotica - An awesome writing resource that covers all you need to know to write excellent erotic stories.

** Strunk and White's Elements of Style - An free online guide to the basics every writer should know.

** The Columbia Guide to Standard American English Usage - An online guide to the basics every writer should know.

The Chicago Manual is not mentioned and I deduce from that that its use is not considered a requirement, or even a recommendation, for publication on this site.

 

[oggbashan]

I write in British English, so the Chicago guide isn't appropriate.

If I need guidance, I use various publications by the Oxford University Press, especially their complete dictionary.

Og

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Snooper, as one who has weighed in at times against the cms, I claim the right to defend it.

Put simply, the cms is not a free resource online and is also aimed at a professional group of writers, editors and publishers. For these reasons I suspect Lit thought it too technical for us poor souls who struggle to differentiate between the confusions on when to regard commas with non-restrictive parenthicals as simply serial commas – or just wrong.

I would not start searching medical tomes to try to diagnose an ailment. I would go to a doctor (read – editor) to help.

Apart from publishing guidelines and rules (pretty well globally accepted) for citations and annotations in technical work, the cms is much more descriptive than prescriptive in grammar and punctuation. Try this as cms advice to editors;

About many matters in this world, grammar and logic included, there is abundant room for differences of opinion. [editors should] Grant writers the privilege of preferring theirs to yours.

I follow the cms Q&A site avidly but was gobsmacked by this;

Q. Some editors at my office believe the word so should always have a comma after it when it begins a sentence. (“I am a clumsy person. So, I try not to wear white on days when I will drink coffee.”) I believe so should be treated like and or but; they think it should be treated like thus. Yet they don’t use the comma if the clause is in the second half of a sentence. Is the comma optional, never allowed, or allowed only in certain situations?

A. So that begins a sentence or clause does not take a comma unless a parenthetical phrase or clause follows, and even then it’s sometimes optional: So, in light of his threats, I had to hide the chocolate. Sometimes a writer hears a pause after so, and if a writer really wants us to pause, then it’s hard to deny him a comma. But if a pause is that important, perhaps an ellipsis or dash is called for.

An ellipsis to mark a pause?? Shock, horror, and the cms is suggesting this? There would be pistols at dawn on Story Review if someone said ellipses, the pox mark of fiction, could mean pauses.

I subscribe to cms and love it but admit to using Oxford America for editing my work and stories stuff. Your antipathy is misplaced.

For most of the new fiction writers dipping their toes in the chilly Lit pond, the advice on erotic fiction writing given by whispersecret, The Earl and others plus the three references, are a pretty good 101 (even 102) grounding. Greybeards like you and the other volunteer editors can then take them further. This grammar – punctuation lark is harder than advanced calculus.

(sr, don’t have a cardiac arrest. I still believe that cms’s proactive approach to grammar and punctuation is not always properly reflected here).

 

[sr71plt]

I note that the Oxford Dictionary and Fowler's and Snooper's Aunt Mabel also aren't noted on the Website resource list.

When folks ask for specific technical guidance, I see nothing wrong in giving them responses based on the most-used standards in the publishing markets appropriate to where their target audience is.

Snooper and others often just give personal preference and feel threatened by more researched answers--which is why they start threads like this. If someone has asked, though, they usually are seeking to hit an audience a little broader than Snooper.

When responding to technical questions, I don't think I've ever posted that I'll send a policeman to the writer's door to ensure that they use CMS style. In fact sometimes--as I did just yesterday on this board on renderng thoughts--while citing the CMS style (for U.S. writers), I've given an alternative that many think is good enough for posting to Lit and that some in the business use rather than the CMS style.

I think you'll find that most here who rail against giving best-case industry (separate industry, usually U.S. or UK) advice and citation of an authority beyond their own personal preferences are just folks who have no training in the field and are too lazy to get the training--and feel threatened by anyone who has it.

If you ask a question, why wouldn't you want the industry-standard guidance rather than someone's Aunt Mabel's personal quirk on the matter?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

sr, you are wrong. cms doesn't get anything like as didactic as you, quotes other sources and openly claims that grammar and punctation are both fluid and evolving.

Try this against a recent stone-throwing thread.

Less or Fewer?Q.

Hi. My fellow editor and I disagree about the use of “less” and “fewer” when talking about percentages. In the example he asked me about, the first phrase of the sentence said something about a certain number of women who do something, then the following phrase said something like “less than 5%” did something else. My fellow editor says that because the sentence is referring to (multiple) women, the phrase should say “fewer than 5%,” while I believe that because the sentence is talking about a percentage (a single quantity), it should say “less than 5%.” None of our sources is helpful with this question of whether a percentage is a single quantity or a number. Please help straighten us out . . .

A. Let me start with the usage note in The American Heritage Dictionary (CD-ROM, version 4.0, 1995):
Usage Note: The traditional rule holds that fewer is used with expressions denoting things that can be counted (fewer than four players), while less is used with mass terms denoting things of measurable extent ( less paper; less than a gallon of paint). However, less is idiomatic in certain constructions where fewer would occur according to the traditional rule. Less than is used before a plural noun that denotes a measure of time, amount, or distance: less than three weeks; less than $400; less than 50 miles. Less is sometimes used with plural nouns in the expressions no less than (as in No less than 30 of his colleagues signed the letter ) and or less (as in Give your reasons in 25 words or less).

In my opinion, “less than 5 percent” could be added to the list of plural nouns that denote a measure of time, amount, or distance—where 5 percent is analogous to $400. A big reason I would say this is that “less than” refers primarily to “5 percent” which only in turn is an expression of the number of women. But 5 percent could be 26.7 percent (eight of thirty women); the percentage itself is an amount that cannot be counted because, theoretically, it is infinitely divisible.

Fowler’s points out that “less” has not always been considered incorrect with countable things (the usage began to face condemnation in the eighteenth century). It is a matter of the right idiom and not really a matter of meaning. If you were to say “there are less than five cats in this room,” no one would ever misunderstand you (unless you meant to imply that such-and-such a cat just wasn’t living up to her feline potential)—but our idiomatic ears say “ouch” and ask for “fewer.”

Cms quotes AHD and Fowler's to balance an argument so why do you not accept other sources?

You are very skilled but far too obdurate in your assertions - something that cms avoids. I can't imagine you writing such a reasoned piece on 'less and fewer' which is probably why they don't employ you.

 

[sr71plt]

sr, you are wrong. cms doesn't get anything like as didactic as you, quotes other sources and openly claims that grammar and punctation are both fluid and evolving.

No, the issue is that you lie. I do quote other sources as appropriate or when I think they are helpful and I do openly acknowledge that grammar and punction are both fluid and evolving. I also try to be careful to separate U.S. and UK usage, which few of the rest of you make any attempt to do.

When someone comes here and asks for guidance, they are asking at a moment in time. And I provide the standard guidance for that moment in time--which often gives alternatives. I also will indicate what is trending--or what the current guidance trended from--when I have a handle on that and when it seems responsive. And then I leave the writer to do what she/he wants to do--and I don't troll the story file and give unsolicited guidance and opinions.

I did this here just yesterday on the rendering of thoughts. Go look for yourself.

You are the didactic one here. For years when I've come in on top of you it was usually to tell the writer that you were being too stringent and/or had your head up your ass on what the "rules" were to begin with.

And here you are just lying.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

I read (and commented in agreement) with your post on 'thoughts' but still giggled at your guilt with the apostasy of not agreeing with the Chicago Qu'aran.

Dictionaries, style guides, even Lynne Truss are shadowy, dust-covered volumes that are constantly trying to follow the caravan which always moves on.

The cms continually cries that grammar and punctuation should be designed to help the reader clearly follow the written text in the present day context.

Punctuation didn't even exist in the days of illuminated manuscripts - it's just printers' marks.

We, writers, readers, publishers lead and the avant-train just follows.

BTW I and many others here have tried to help newbies. Screaming down against advice to avoid first person until you've got a handle on story writing and POVs has pushed a load of writers off this site.

 

[oggbashan]

...

Punctuation didn't even exist in the days of illuminated manuscripts - it's just printers' marks.

...

Even then, spelling was reasonably static, particularly in Latin.

My (real) family were scriveners then printers (from about 100 years after Caxton) and parish clerks. Since 1326, the earliest written record of the family, the unusual surname has always been the same with no variations at all.

The variations in spelling found in Shakespeare's earliest printed works were probably because he wrote fast and his writing was difficult to read. He wasn't concerned about how the words were spelled, more about how they would sound.

Clerks, scriveners and printers tried hard to be accurate but errors occurred. When only a small proportion of the population could read, getting other people to check your writing was almost impossible.

Og

 

[sr71plt]

BTW I and many others here have tried to help newbies. Screaming down against advice to avoid first person until you've got a handle on story writing and POVs has pushed a load of writers off this site.

Bullshit. You're the one who was telling them how they must write and how "everyone" on Lit. writes (less so of late but only because you were repeatedly called on your doctrinaire and wrong-headed advice)--which surely doesn't include you, because the last thing you wrote to Lit. was five years ago and was an essay on bra sizes.

 

[rwsteward]

Wow!

Good thing I work in a steelmill.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Wow!

Good thing I work in a steelmill.

sr doesn't debate or join a discussion, he just pontificates, insults and generally upsets neophytes who get frghtened by this vulture. Despite being a much nicer guy, he does sometimes mirror scouries' bullying of newbies.

He is a great editor and very knowledgable but he has gone so far on the 101 forums he overawes first time writers. The old approach of just nursing people up the greasy pole of erotic fiction has been destroyed by the IEDs he lays in their path.

We want a good story and can live with a tad of deviance from the Chicago Qu'aran.

 

[sr71plt]

sr doesn't debate or join a discussion,

I'm involved in discussions all across the forum--and in giving help too.

Your insidious lies are getting really, really tedious.

The only good side of this is that you are so transparent.

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Forget it

 

[ishtat]

Even then, spelling was reasonably static, particularly in Latin.

The variations in spelling found in Shakespeare's earliest printed works were probably because he wrote fast and his writing was difficult to read.

Og

Shakespeare's signature is known from only a few examples but in none of them did he ever spell it Shakespeare. His grand dad was Mr. Shakestaff.