Thoughts and quotations

[PacoFear]

She seemed to enjoy our 40th wedding anniversary well enough.

Congrats on the big 4-0, sr. It's heartening to hear about a couple that's going the distance. My wife and I just cleared the 5-year mark two weeks ago. Five years of careful study and I'm still learning about my better half.

 

[_Lynn_]

Don't want you to get the impression that I'm not ignoring that challenge. (Because I am).

Imagine that.

 

[AsheBurn]

So let me get this straight. Use either single or double quotations on thoughts correct?

 

[PacoFear]

So let me get this straight. Use either single or double quotations on thoughts correct?

If you're American and/or want to follow U.S. style, sr gave you your answer earlier. Don't use single quotes. Your choice really is between double quotes and italics, e.g.,

Choice A: "Why did my simple question get complicated?" wondered poor Asheburn.

Choice B: Why did my simple question get complicated? wondered poor Asheburn.

The babbling (the relevant parts of it anyway) that followed sr's answer was us observing that, as of the most current edition of the U.S. publishers' bible, there seems to be a preference for Choice A.

Go forth and internally dialogue, young paduan.

-PF

 

[_Lynn_]

If you're American and/or want to follow U.S. style, sr gave you your answer earlier. Don't use single quotes. Your choice really is between double quotes and italics, e.g.,

Choice A: "Why did my simple question get complicated?" wondered poor Asheburn.

Choice B: Why did my simple question get complicated? wondered poor Asheburn.

The babbling (the relevant parts of it anyway) that followed sr's answer was us observing that, as of the most current edition of the U.S. publishers' bible, there seems to be a preference for Choice A.

Go forth and internally dialogue, young padawan.

-PF

Or this could go right in the piece without italics:

Anyone looking could see the confusion in the young writer's eyes.

 

[sr71plt]

I now have the latest, 16th, edition of the Chicago Manual of Style in hand (to the tune of $65 retail--but who pay's retail?).

The "unspoken discourse" section is now 13.41. It reads: "Thought, imagined dialogue, and other interior discourse may be enclosed in quotation marks or not, according to the context or the writer's preference."

No mention is made of italics and none of the examples included italics. The section of italics does not include unspoken discourse as a use for italics.

So, they stuck to their guns as of the change with edition 15.

 

[PacoFear]

Booo! When I get mine, I'm penciling an italics option into the margin. Take that University of Chicago Press!

 

[CopperSkink]

Booo! When I get mine, I'm penciling an italics option into the margin. Take that University of Chicago Press!

You owe me a dollar.

Now we can stress an entire sentance of internal monologue without assuming it's only italicized because it's indeed internal. Even an entire sentance, which I felt mine needed at the time.

I can't help wonder if enslavement to a given book doesn't hamper inductive logic. It's as though a contributor to the book itself is told she's wrong when her views differ from what's written in a book only to find the book changes to fit her views a month later.

After all, what can writing be but inductive? It looks good, therefore it's good. It will continue to look good whether some book says it's okay or not until someone else reads the same passage to come to the opposing view no matter what some book says.

Standards are fine, but opposition to certain standards isn't criminal. Likewise, a given set of standards (a book, for example to simplify things) is not the sole source of information in the world unless only those who were involved in producing it are capable of the logic required to draw their conclusions (conclusions that seem to keep changing. Fifteen new editions, is it?); the same as saying that unless a person is involved in the production of the standards, she is incapable of writing fit to meet standards.

It goes with the argument that children born into the world are doomed to follow in the footsteps laid out for them, that they will never have an opportunity to add to the world because the laws have already been written long before they were born. Either the rules were set there in place before all men were born thereby necessitating some god who doesn't allow his children to mature, or there was a person of different quality born long ago who was so wise that all that spilled forth from her mouth was above and beyond that of her predecessors (if she had any), her peers (if she had any), and her descendants.

Personally, I choose to believe that I do in fact have something to add and cannot justify limiting myself to what some constantly-changing book tells me what I can or cannot do. The best part is when I finally do run into something I can't decide on myself and attempt to seek help, and discover the so-called "standards" dont' know any better than I do.

 

[sr71plt]

Once again, you look through the wrong end of the telescope in terms of the publishing industry. You can certainly dig into antistandard habits on Literotica. It's a "who cares?" other than the voters and commenters issue here.

When/if you move in to the world of publishing, you will find that publishers value the buyer/reader above the authors (who, quite frankly, are a dime a dozen until they've gone best-seller with a huge fan base). The publisher will, therefore, be much more interested in providing a standard read to the reader than entertaining the flights of fancy and lack of knowledge of the author. At that point, the publisher's editor will follow the guidelines given him/her (which will have some quirks of the publisher's own but will follow the Chicago Manual of Style at about a 98 percent acceptance), and if the author doesn't like that, he/she can self-publish.

Nearly all of these author quirks are the result of overrated self-importance, lack of experience and training in the craft, and stupid pigheadedness anyway.

 

[_Lynn_]

Nearly all of these author quirks are the result of overrated self-importance, lack of experience and training in the craft, and stupid pigheadedness anyway.

*glad I have the CMS*

 

[PacoFear]

Copper, if a publisher said he wanted to pick up your book but told you that it had to adhere to The Rules, would you buckle? Or would you stand on your, well, principle, or whatever the heck you were ranting about for several long paragraphs there? Just, you know, wonderin'.

 

[sr71plt]

I've found that most of the "authors" who rail against the industry standards don't even know what they are or why they are the standard--and are a bit too lazy and self-possessed to find out.

 

[CopperSkink]

As I've said before on at least two occasions, the same problem that kept me from succeeding in the classroom environment in both high school and college keeps me from reading an educational book to learn from the ground up how to write. I learned to write by writing like I learned to train dogs by training dogs. Like in writing, there will never be one book that has all the secrets of the art of dog training to the degree that I never need to use my brain again because everything's already written.

There are benefits to subscribing to a given standard in a given circle of industry publishing. Since this place here where we're discussing the issue doesn't concern industry publishing, I don't see what pertanence such an argument has.

If we can for once put the publishing industry aside since that's not what we're doing here, what I'm talking about comes to aptitude. As far as aptitude goes, two people with different reputations can come to the same conclusions. It's like putting my dogs up against much televised Cesar Millan's or World Seiger U.S. select Nate Harves'. We're all three dog trainers, but the two of them have worldwide recognition wheres I'm still in my journeyman's stage of learning. That doesn't mean I can't call up one of them for advice with a tricky dog, ask them for help, and find out their opinion is that I should keep doing exactly what I figured to do already.

Would I adhere to my principles? I have ideas so far, no principles that I know of. What's important is the ultimate clarity of the piece. Whose method I use doesn't interest me so well as whether a person can understand what I'm reading. If the CMS does a better job clarifying a given issue than me, that's what goes on paper; but it's likewise the reverse. I can't imagine pride getting in the way of producing a product worth someone's attention.

 

[sr71plt]

Sorry, Copperskink, but I think the advice you give on this forum very much reflects your stated views--that standards and experience and training don't matter much. However, when folks come here asking for advice, I don't think that's what they're seeking--or they'd just go ahead and do what they want. (which is OK with me.)

 

[_Lynn_]

As I've said before on at least two occasions, the same problem that kept me from succeeding in the classroom environment in both high school and college keeps me from reading an educational book to learn from the ground up how to write. I learned to write by writing like I learned to train dogs by training dogs. Like in writing, there will never be one book that has all the secrets of the art of dog training to the degree that I never need to use my brain again because everything's already written.

There are benefits to subscribing to a given standard in a given circle of industry publishing. Since this place here where we're discussing the issue doesn't concern industry publishing, I don't see what pertanence such an argument has.

If we can for once put the publishing industry aside since that's not what we're doing here, what I'm talking about comes to aptitude. As far as aptitude goes, two people with different reputations can come to the same conclusions. It's like putting my dogs up against much televised Cesar Millan's or World Seiger U.S. select Nate Harves'. We're all three dog trainers, but the two of them have worldwide recognition wheres I'm still in my journeyman's stage of learning. That doesn't mean I can't call up one of them for advice with a tricky dog, ask them for help, and find out their opinion is that I should keep doing exactly what I figured to do already.

Would I adhere to my principles? I have ideas so far, no principles that I know of. What's important is the ultimate clarity of the piece. Whose method I use doesn't interest me so well as whether a person can understand what I'm reading. If the CMS does a better job clarifying a given issue than me, that's what goes on paper; but it's likewise the reverse. I can't imagine pride getting in the way of producing a product worth someone's attention.

But that is what a lot of people are here for. They want to improve enough to one day see their work published in what many call the 'real world', not just on a website. They have dreams. And coming across someone whose method is whatever works best for them instead of publisher's guidelines is not going to help at all.

 

[sr71plt]

But that is what a lot of people are here for. They want to improve enough to one day see their work published in what many call the 'real world', not just on a website. They have dreams. And coming across someone whose method is whatever works best for them instead of publisher's guidelines is not going to help at all.

Many, I think, aren't here on Lit. to improve or to follow standards. And I say, let those go their merry way. But those aren't the folks who are asking editorial questions on the forum. When they do that, they are asking for best-practice advice. Publishing industry standards are best practice. I can't fathom why they would be asking for help from folks who don't know what best practices are and who wouldn't give them best-practice guidance rather than ignorant personal opinion.

The tragedy is that there are folks here giving advice without a shred of experience or training to be able to do so. They're just quacks.

 

[Tx Tall Tales]

I do enjoy the flexibility, as an author, to use italics to indicate internal dialog, so I can avoid having to explain it is internal.

"Go ahead, use my toothbrush."

I can't believe I said that; it must be love!

Of course, formatting everything for a literotica story with italics, has it's own complications. I hate to submit ".doc" entries because of the delay and inability to preview. And manually inserting italics is risky. But our choice of media here brings its own challenges and limitations.

 

[CopperSkink]

The only tragedy I see is people coming here declaring loudly that they have nothing to contribute to the writing world, that the only advice worth listening to is what's found in one book. People come here asking questions, not "where in the CMS do I find the ruling on such-and-such?"

Not one person that has asked me to edit has asked how she can get closer to publishing standards so that she may one day become published. I'm treated as the end editor, not a stopgap to future goals.

 

[sr71plt]

The only tragedy I see is people coming here declaring loudly that they have nothing to contribute to the writing world, that the only advice worth listening to is what's found in one book. People come here asking questions, not "where in the CMS do I find the ruling on such-and-such?"

Not one person that has asked me to edit has asked how she can get closer to publishing standards so that she may one day become published. I'm treated as the end editor, not a stopgap to future goals.

I don't think you listen very well. And I can see why you're defensive about this. It's a lot easier than becoming well grounded in the service you are offering. Sorry, but there it is.

 

[PacoFear]

The only tragedy I see is people coming here declaring loudly that they have nothing to contribute to the writing world, that the only advice worth listening to is what's found in one book.

I'm not following you here, Copper. Your two thoughts in this sentence do not seem connected to me. But then maybe I'm too hopped up on Halloween candy to read straight.

People come here asking questions, not "where in the CMS do I find the ruling on such-and-such?"

Not one person that has asked me to edit has asked how she can get closer to publishing standards so that she may one day become published. I'm treated as the end editor, not a stopgap to future goals.

See now, this I can follow.

First off, you may be editing for the wrong folks. I have a few semi-regulars who want the full publish-ready treatment (or the best I can manage ) before they ship their stuff off for e-publication.

I think you're right, most of the folks that come to us don't ask us about CMS or getting closer to publishing standards. They ask us some variation of "please fix up my story." So it becomes a question of what yardstick we measure "fixed" by. The way I see it, some neurotic bastards out in Chicago went through all the trouble of putting together CMS as a guide for the U.S. publishing industry. I'm just freeloading on their hard work by hijacking their spiffy rule book. Perhaps that mindset appeals to your rebel sensibilities, Copper?

 

[RedJohnny]

I doubt anyone really cares whether you put thoughts in quotes or italics. There's a valid case to be made for each approach. However, the question of whether to comply with publishing standards at a larger level is a more interesting one.

There is a standard model for communications that demonstrates each of the places error/noise can enter a signal and distort it. Using grammar or spelling that is inconsistent with accepted standards simply increases the likelihood of error and distortion entering your message, leading to a failure to communicate the message properly to the recipient.

If you communicate in a way that is consistent with the standard, you can have a fair amount of confidence that those who read it will understand what you mean, and by demonstrating that you know and understand the standards, you have the added benefit of being able to break them for meaning and/or emphasis.

If you choose not to follow the standards, but do it in a way that everyone understands, people may not complain because they believe that they are still getting the message you intended to send (although there are only limited ways in the LitE environment for you to verify that readers are understanding - they have to be sufficiently energized to post a comment), but because you don't follow the accepted standards, they may not give you the benefit of the doubt and may assume that you are ignorant of the standards.

If you make it too much work, readers will just stop reading. At the end of the day, complying with the standards (1) increases the likelihood that your message will be understood in the way that you intended it to be, and (2) makes it more likely that you can use violations of the standards as a tool in your writing (rather than having them perceived as error or ignorance).

 

[sr71plt]

I think the really basic question is what do folks deserve who actually ask an editorial question on this board? Do they deserve the best-practice answer or someone's personal opinion/whim who has little or no more experience in/knowledge about writing than the one who asked the question has?

And of course those who don't have the grounding and who are just pretending to have the credentials to edit other people's stories are going to pooh pooh industry standards whenever they can. And they may even say no one they've "helped" has complained. Of course not. The ones they "helped" asked for help because they didn't know what was best to do. They have little understanding of the harm they are being done by going with a quack.

 

[CopperSkink]

Since there's less course of logic and more "Look at me, I'm Scouries and the rest of you are idiots for not agreeing with me," there's little more I can hope to do by participating in a discussion. I've tried to make my points, but if they all get thrown away because I'm apparantly not getting the point because someone else just doesn't like the idea...

But this is the Internet where every person knows best and there's no telling anybody anything. So far, what I've seen the discussion fall to is that anyone with any kind of editing question should only get a quote from a book for help. The only credentials an editor is supposed to have is the ability to read the appendix of a book to find the solution. It wonders me why there's an editor's board at all and not a "who can help you find your answers in a book" board.

 

[sr71plt]

But this is the Internet where every person knows best and there's no telling anybody anything. So far, what I've seen the discussion fall to is that anyone with any kind of editing question should only get a quote from a book for help. The only credentials an editor is supposed to have is the ability to read the appendix of a book to find the solution. It wonders me why there's an editor's board at all and not a "who can help you find your answers in a book" board.

Ummm, no. I went to graduate school to learn how to use "the book"--mixed in with all the other authorities the one publishing provided and to apply these to specific works while doing as little harm to what was originally written as possible.

No, you just want to make this black and white because you want to claim you're an editor without actually learning anything about editing. And the easiest way to do that is to claim you don't need any grounding in editing.

If you want to be creative and do your own thing, editing is not a good activity for you to pursue (and certainly not for the one you are "editing").

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Not Choosing Sides

Ummm, no. I went to graduate school to learn how to use "the book"--mixed in with all the other authorities the one publishing provided and to apply these to specific works while doing as little harm to what was originally written as possible.

No, you just want to make this black and white because you want to claim you're an editor without actually learning anything about editing. And the easiest way to do that is to claim you don't need any grounding in editing.

If you want to be creative and do your own thing, editing is not a good activity for you to pursue (and certainly not for the one you are "editing").

I can understand both sides of this argument. SR is recommending teaching writers the accepted manner of writing, while CS is suggesting that Lit is not the "real world" and one can do as they please... if my interpretation is correct, which it may not be.

Did I mention that I'm reading War and Peace on my new kindle? Great story!

I have asked many questions about editing on Lit, at which SR was very kind to respond, teaching me at the same time. IMHO, I'd like to know the "accepted" way of writing, and not how somebody else does it.

Just me.