copy grrl

A quick hit

2007-09-11T13:04:00.000-04:00

Radio 94.1's core artists will include: Dave Matthews Band, Nora Jones, Jack Johnson, Rob Thomas, John Mayer, Tori Amos, Matchbox Twenty, Coldplay, Sarah McLaughlin, Goo Goo Dolls, Bare Naked Ladies, and Sheryl Crow.

I know working on a deadline is tough. You know what's not tough? Googling the artists' names so that you don't misspell Norah Jones AND Sarah McLachlan in the same sentence. Going against style on Barenaked Ladies is just icing on the losing-all-credibility cake.

Comfort for newspaperwomen (and men) everywhere

2007-01-11T17:36:00.000-05:00

I do so love the New York Times' Talk to the Newsroom feature.

I was reading old installments when I stumbled across this lovely answer from executive editor Bill Keller. He's trying a little too hard to be funny, but in an industry that is widely expected to die within 50 years, Keller's conviction that we'll all have jobs in the future is comforting:

The Future of Newsprint
Q. Will the New York Times have a paper edition in fifty years, or will it likely be entirely Web-based and digital by that time?
-- David Myers, San Jose, Calif.
A. Fifty years into the future? That's the province of novelists, not editors. (Neal Stephenson! William Gibson! White courtesy teleport, please!) Will readers carry portable electronic tablets containing the Sunday NYT? Will we have foldable sheets of composite material that broadcast the news in electronic ink? Will we get our news beamed to us through cerebral implants? And will there be cults of newsprint enthusiasts who pay a premium for the retro pleasure of ink on paper, the way some audiophiles today insist on vinyl records? Heck, I don't know.
Will there be a New York Times, a Wall Street Journal, a Washington Post? Yes, I'm pretty sure there will be, or something very much like them, regardless of the medium in which they are distributed. What makes a newspaper is not the paper. It's resources and values. It's reporters and editors. It's the difficult and expensive and sometimes dangerous business of deploying talented people to witness events, ferret out information wherever it is buried, and try to make sense of it. It's a rigorous set of standards, enforced by experienced editors.
There is a hunger -- a market -- for trustworthy information about the world we live in, information that is tested, investigated, sorted, organized, analyzed and presented in a digestible form. Some people want it because it is essential to the way they make a living. (Out of touch means out of business.) Some want it because they regard being well-informed as a condition of good citizenship. Some want it so they can get the jokes on the Daily Show. I can't foresee such a drastic dumbing-down of civilization that the demand for good journalism goes away. And I don't know who else will provide it. Blogs? I love 'em, the best of them help keep us honest, but most of them don't do actual reporting. They riff on the news. Big Internet companies? Their business model is scale, awesome scale, not the kind of craftsmanship that goes into the best newspapers.
Barring new developments in organ regeneration (see today's Science Times), I don't expect to be around in 50 years. But we will be.

Of course, he does work for the effing Newspaper of Record. The rest of us might have more to worry about.

Ask the copy grrl

2006-09-20T09:02:00.000-04:00

Found this in comments:

Dear Copy Grrl,

I thought of you today when stuck in traffic next to a bus stop with an ad for the film "Gridiron Gang." The movie's tagline is "One Goal. A Second Chance." Do you think the first period should be a colon? I do.

Sincerely,
Gridlocked

Dearest Gridlocked,

I agree! I suppose it's possible that the film's marketers are trying to use punctuation in a clever multiple-meaning-type way, (i.e. the team has one goal: a second chance; but also they have one goal and are being given a second chance).

This sort of tomfoolery reminds me of that billboard near my house that reads Urban. Life. Style. Eric at Subjunctivitis has more on this, and the conclusion we both come to is that such shenanigans are very silly.

However, I would remind you that a poorly punctuated film tagline or title is no indication of its quality.

Since this film stars The Rock, its criteria for being a "good movie" are as follows: Does The Rock make a wry comment? Does The Rock cock his eyebrow? Does The Rock kick some ass?

Judging from the trailer, wryness might be hard to come by in this movie. But you never know - when scrappy young toughs are about, anything is possible!

Enjoy your traffic!
copy grrl

Intro to News Analysis

2006-06-21T11:43:00.000-04:00

Imagine that you open your local paper to find a front-page package headlined, "Census: Cincinnati losing at fastest rate."

The lede is, "No big city in America lost a greater percentage of its people during the past five years than Cincinnati, new U.S. Census figures show."

Also, every story in this package is labeled with a logo reading "Census Report."

There are two ways to interpret the thought process that went into this story.

One is to picture reporters and editors sitting around saying, "OK, we've gotta write a story on this new census stuff. What's the most interesting, newsworthy fact to come out of this report?" And then they decide that the city shrinking is more important than the growth in suburban Newtown, and they lead with that.

We'll call this Option A.

The other, apparently, is to picture reporters and editors sitting around saying, "OK, we want to write something really negative about Cincinnati. What can we find that's really bad about the city, so we can totally slam it and make it look like news?" And then they Google "Cincinnati" and "bad" and "yucky" and "we hate this place where we live" until they find - yes! - there's a census report that just happens to be coming out this week, and it has facts that could be interpreted in a totally factual - yet somehow incredibly biased - manner to make Cincinnati look bad!

We'll call this Option Jackass.

Look, when new census figures come out, the things they show are news. As such, the paper reports on them. You wouldn't ever decry the press for reporting on, say, a murder, because it made the city look bad - would you?

Or say there was some sort of war going on, and the paper ran a story about bad things happening in that war - you certainly wouldn't ever say that the fault was with the paper for reporting true things, would you?

Of course not.

(not so) Liveblogging ACES 2006

2006-04-25T23:55:00.000-04:00

Goodness, it's been a while! And I'm afraid this post will be short, as my cat is devouring me from the toes up. Assuming I can free myself from her fuzzy clutches, the next few days will be a veritable flurry of activity at Copy Grrl Central. A flurry, you hear me? FLURRY!

Anyway, I'm fresh from the American Copy Editors Society's national conference in lovely(-ish) Cleveland, Ohio. I'll try to post something about every session I attended, but for now, you'll have to content yourself with the conference blog.

Oh, gee, she's up to my knee ...

Oh, dear.

2006-01-31T08:48:00.000-05:00

My intrepid editor (whom I once described as "erstwhile," thinking it meant about the same thing as "intrepid" - one more reason you should never assume, chickadees!) has begun posting his weekly columns in blog format. Since I planted the idea in his mind, he identifies me (and links to this little project) in his first post.

I had rather liked the idea that I was laboring in obscurity, with my infrequent posts read even less frequently by a handful of uninterested but friendly pals. Now I suppose I'll have to brace myself for the influx of ones, nay, fives of new readers.

For the next few weeks, it's P's and Q's all the way.

Split this! (or, Correcting grammar on the Internet is the last refuge of a scoundrel)

2006-01-18T10:17:00.000-05:00

To the CiN Weekly staff blog commenter who includes a split infinitive in his reasons for never reading the publication again:

You might want to read this.

This is probably as good a time as any to talk about another grammar-related pet peeve: the habit some Internet scrappers have of using their opponents' poor grammar to rebut their argument. Yes, of course, a perfectly turned (and spelled, and punctuated) phrase lends strength to an argument. But a misplaced comma in your opponent's thesis does not invalidate it. Besides, criticizing others' grammar opens one up to all sorts of attacks on one's own use of the English language (as I have found out myself).

The example of the blog comment isn't the best, since it's referring to something that appeared in print and is therefore held to a higher standard than your average flame war - but we'll use it anyway, since the dynamics at work here are interesting.

Here, commenter "bw" seems to have us on the ropes with a barrage of intellectual superiority: factual error! another factual error! obviously you don't know your facts! aargh! Then he pauses ... and: "Split infinitive," he tosses off nonchalantly, intending it as a rhetorical gob of spit on our bruised and bleeding credibility.

But the effect is quite different. By using a grammatical error as an argument (and a false grammatical error at that!), the entire argument is cheapened. Suddenly, "bw" is transformed from a stalwart warrior for truth to a bitter troll who has to dig and scrabble for fodder for his nitpicking complaints. Suddenly, the rest of his points seem somehow less valid. (An example: How dare we say the PSP and DS were released in late 2004 without informing readers that this was the original Japanese release, not the American one? Well, um, we dare.)

Remember, dear readers: Grammar is a powerful thing. Do not use it as a weapon unless it truly is called for.

Important update!

2006-01-03T14:36:00.000-05:00

I note with interest that this has become a non-story with the release of a grammatically correct DVD.

The fine folks at Universal were probably shaking their heads in disbelief at editors for even making it an issue. But 'tis our true nature, and it cannot be denied!

The number of amounts

2006-01-03T14:13:00.000-05:00

Dear writers:

Did you know that you can't have an "amount" of books, turtles or comedy club performances? The word you're looking for is "number."

This one is pretty simple. If something can be numbered, it's a "number." As in, "She reduced the number of cigarettes she smoked each week."

And the number doesn't have to be in the sentence, dear writers; it doesn't even have to be known! As long as you can take the thingamabob under discussion and stick a number in front of it without it sounding insane, you've got yourself a numerable thingamabob. (Some prefer to describe it as a "thingamajig.")

If, when you try to stick a number in front of the 'bob or 'jig, you end up sounding like English is your second language, then you want to use "amount." Try, for example, having five cash, 14 water, eight soup.

Watch out for that soup thing, by the way, because you can of course have eight soups. Therefore, the restaurant increased the number of soups they serve, which is why you increased the amount of soup you eat.

That is all for now. All my love to the family.

Yours truly,
Kelly

Bad writing: it's not just for conservatives anymore!

2005-12-20T13:22:00.000-05:00

The alicublog has a pithy fantasia on the state of writing today - you'll laugh out loud, if you can keep from crying.

Roy pins his argument to right-wing scribes in particular, because that's his thing - but I daresay this brand of mush-mouthed, obtuse writing is free from any political bent. Replace the conservative shibboleths of Roy's imagination with journalistic ones - for example, the writers who pen flattering opuses to Ayn Rand would instead turn in their muddled messes well before deadline, with the requested number of inches, using accurate (if dull) quotes that won't get anybody sued - and you have a fairly accurate picture of the newspaper business today.

That's not to say that clear, engaging writing isn't out there; it just isn't a job requirement. (This is true, by the way; my company's performance review form for reporters has no place to rate good writing - which, to me, means that the story doesn't actually have to make sense, so long as it's turned in on time and all the quotes are correct.)

My, how depressing.

Yep - we're pretty much psychotic.

2005-08-29T00:00:00.000-04:00

I like that this is such a thing among editors, E&P wrote a story on it.

And the thing is, it's completely true; editors are freaking out over a movie title.

After "correcting" that title of The 40 Year-Old Virgin five or six times on a proof, I finally visited the Web site, realized that was actually how those bastards rolled, and re-corrected the proof.

After reading the E&P article, I asked the other two editors at my office, "Hey, did you guys notice that in The 40 Year-Old Virgin, there's a hyphen -"

"Yes," they said in unison.

(Thanks to Josh for the link.)

P.S. I certainly hope no one plans to boycott this funny, funny movie based on missing hyphens. Because it's, like, totally funny.

Cause of death: Alzheimer's + uncles

2005-06-16T13:40:00.000-04:00

"Cornett lost his father to Alzheimer's disease, as well as a few uncles."

Hee-hee. I can picture the autopsy now: "Mr. Cornett died from a number of causes: Alzheimer's played a role, as did the multiple stab wounds he received from his four brothers."

How about: "Cornett lost his father and a few uncles to Alzheimer's disease."

Even then, I'm somewhat perturbed by the vague "few" uncles. Even if it's only three (what I consider the minimum threshold for "a few"), that's still quite a lot of brothers to be brought down by the same affliction.

Subjunctivitis and other grammar-oriented puns

2005-06-13T23:07:00.000-04:00

Hee hee hee. How much fun am I having when I'm reading Subjunctivitis?

I'll give you a hint. It's a lot. It's as close as grammar gets to "edgy." (Which, since we're talking about grammar, is more like "standing close to the edgy, but not really close enough to be able to see straight down.")

Pet peeve of the moment: "free of charge"

2005-06-10T17:15:00.000-04:00

As in, "Classes are offered free of charge."

I guess plain old "free" isn't good enough, because the public might get really confused and think you mean "free from oppression." Or "sugar-free."

Astute copy grrls and bois will notice the sentence also contains a superfluous "offered." I promise you, gentle readers. If you simply say "Classes are free," your audience will understand that the classes are being offered.

Is "dark side" capitalized?

2005-05-17T09:43:00.000-04:00

Actually, no. According to the official Star Wars Web site, it's not.

Really, the AP should have planned better for this media blitz surrounding the (supposedly) last Star Wars movie; it should have released a stylebook supplement. Besides the "dark side" question, issues that arose during yesterday's proofing of our big movie blowout included:
- whether the opposite of the dark side can be described as the Force (it can't; the dark side also uses the Force)
- how to capitalize ice planet Hoth (that seems to be the correct way; the planet's name is Hoth, not Ice Planet Hoth)
- whether the planets depicted on our Star Wars board game (that's right!) bore the proper resemblence to the planets in the films (Tattooine is brown and dry; Hoth is, you know, icy-looking)
- how to spell Wookiee
- how to spell damn near everything

These sorts of details become even more important when you're writing about a beloved (well, once-beloved) cultural phenomenon such as Star Wars. The people who are reading the Star Wars stories – or rather, who are saving all Star Wars stories to read after they go to the 12:01 a.m. Thursday showing, because, oh no, they wouldn't want to have it spoiled for them that ANAKIN SKYWALKER BECOMES DARTH VADER – these people know how Wookiee is spelled. Heck, some of them know the population of Kashyyyk at the moment Luke Skywalker was born. If you misspell Wookiee, you will look like 1) a moron for misspelling Wookiee, and 2) an asshat for trying to tell people what to think about Star Wars when you obviously don't know anything about the Star Wars universe.

That is all for now. May the Force be with you . . . is a cliche and should be avoided.

Itty bitty little post

2005-05-03T15:46:00.000-04:00

The other day, and I have absolutely no lead-in context for this, co-worker Tabari said, "Copy-editing can't be a sport, 'cause there's no winners!"

I told him: "The PUBLIC is the winner."

I'm immensely pleased with myself.

The birth of a pet peeve

2005-01-07T10:33:00.001-05:00

I was reading the letters in the Cincinnati Enquirer today, and I became so incensed I couldn't even finish - I had to come here immediately and blog out my rage.

The letters themselves are full of good points, until this sentence in the fourth letter:

"I consider it an affront to the integrity of professional football when the Philadelphia Eagles come here with a playoff birth sewed up and put on an exhibition game."

A playoff BIRTH? I've never heard of such a thing.

... Oh, unless you count the ENTIRE YEAR I spent battling this as news editor for my college paper, when the football team was on fire and almost every sports story included a summary of the different bowl "births" the Buckeyes could land. Will they get a "birth in" the Rose Bowl, the reporters wondered? And if they beat Michigan, they'll most definitely nab a "birth to" the national championship, right?

Wrong. Because a team that lands a spot in a playoff, bowl or other major sporting event does not have a "birth to" or a "birth in" the event. It has a BERTH in the event.

You know how you can tell which of these words is right and which is wrong? BECAUSE ONE MAKES SENSE AND THE OTHER DOESN'T!!!!

I know why it happens: sports writers hear sportscasters talking about "playoff berths," and their minds, which immediately visualize the word as the more-used "birth," construct an elaborate image of the victorious athletes being plunged into cleansing fire and emerging, phoenix-like, from the ashes of their former selves as a James Earl Jones voiceover booms: "Now ... you are playoff material."

It's lovely and poetic, I know. And to make my point, I could construct a similarly eloquent image of the weary team members questing for the playoffs and, once they achieve their goal, collapsing into their beds with tired smiles, knowing that they are finally able to rest, if only for a short time. (The beds are berths, doncha know.)

But I think instead I'll just point you to this site and let Messrs. Merriam and Webster do the talking. Pay particular attention to definition 4b.

Go forth now, and err no more. (Well, err a little, lest my job become unnecessary.)

An everyday message

2004-11-22T22:44:00.000-05:00

This just went up on my IM away message, with slight changes to punctuation as necessitated by the addition of quotation marks:

"THAT TEARS IT!

"If you are reading this, and you work in advertising, please note: 'Everyday,' one word, is an adjective and not a noun. If you are writing that you will use the new Mercedes 'everyday,' or that the fish is caught fresh 'everyday,' you are both incorrect and making me tear out my hair.

"I hope we can put this ugliness behind us. That is all."

Actually, I've changed my mind.

These are national advertisements. I am livid. There is no putting this behind me. This means WAR.

Food for thought

2004-10-29T10:33:00.000-04:00

"But those things you printed aren't true! Isn't that slander?"
"Of course not.… Slander is spoken. In print it's called 'libel.' "
- Spider-Man (paraphrased for context)

I knew I was going to get in trouble when I said this was the first-ever copy-editing blog. I mean, there are blogs about my office's mini pong tournament, for the love of Pete! Of course there's a blog out there devoted to copy editing, and it's far superior to this li'l hole-in-the-firewall.

It's called Blogslot. Check it out.

And, blog? Let's not wait another two months before updating, all right? We do have our fans to think about.

Amongst? Amidst? I don't thinkst so!

2004-08-18T18:03:00.000-04:00

I'm still at work with piles of copy what need sifting, so I'll be (thankfully) brief.

It's "among," not "amongst."

It's "amid," not "amidst."

(This, of course, applies merely to journalism and similar sorts of writing. If you want the fair Elven maiden of Avalon to be walking amidst the flowering heath, it's your funeral.)

Parentheses and the punctuation marks that love them …

2004-07-24T12:22:00.000-04:00

Kelly reads from your comments …

"… could you write on punctuation and parentheses sometime? I don't think that was ever covered in my various English classes over the years.

- Neil"

First of all, thanks for writing, Neil. You stay classy. (Whee! A request! I'm famous!) … Ahem.

All right. The rules governing punctuation and parentheses are very simple (and, unfortunately, are not related in any way to those governing punctuation and quotation marks – but that's still a topic for another post. Must do that sometime).

Let's say you're ending a sentence with a parenthetical remark (as I'm doing just now). The remark is a dependent clause, so it's still part of the sentence, yet it's separated as something that is not entirely necessary to the sentence (something that could be excised without the sentence losing any of its clarity – although possibly some of its nuance). In this case, the period is outside the parentheses. (This rule also applies to commas and other types of punctuation; if a parenthetical statement is made in the middle of a sentence, all that stuff goes outside.)

Now, notice what I just did. A parenthetical statement which is its own sentence keeps the punctuation inside the parentheses.

And finally, imagine that you've got a statement that's in parentheses, but ends a sentence and begins another (like I'm doing right here. This sentence is my example). So you end the sentence within the parentheses, but then you place the period at the end of the second sentence outside the parentheses.

Here's the rule of thumb ("Ye couldn't hit much of anything wi' that. Perhaps they shoulda had a rule o' wrist"). Imagine that everything within the parentheses suddenly disappeared, because that's what parentheses mean: "The information within my borders is edifying, but unnecessary." Are your sentences still punctuated properly? Are you missing a period at the end of a sentence? Do you have a period out in the middle of nowhere, with no sentence to call home? If so, then revision is in order.

And if you can guess the movie from which the above parenthetical quote came, then you get a prize! (The prize of my undying appreciation for your knowledge of cult films. And that, my friend, is a gift you can take to the bank – where the tellers will probably look at you funny for trying to translate something like "appreciation" into something like "money.")

Ah, the proverbial fifth post …

2004-07-16T11:17:00.000-04:00

What we're gonna do right here is go back … way back … back into time. The year was 1999, and I was the opinion editor at the Milford High School newspaper. I already wanted to be a copy editor, although I didn't yet know what they were called. All I knew was the satisfaction I gained from making people's writing better – helping them say what they wanted to say but didn't know how to express clearly.

It was the year that I would have my first run-in with an all-too-common writer's gaffe that would become a thorn in my side for years to come. It remains one of my most treasured pet peeves.

A columnist submitted a (not at all badly written) piece on how people should not judge their fellow students by their secret love for 'NSync. She outed herself as a boy-band fan in the very first paragraph, then paused. "Did you hear that? The proverbial gasp!" she wrote – imagining, no doubt, the expressions of horror on the faces of her Hot-Topic-shopping readers.

Upon reading that sentence, I racked my brain for the proverb about "she who taps her toes to the beat of five 19-year-olds who dress in matching outfits and pop-and-lock in perfect unison shalt be subject to ridicule and gasping" – to no avail.

(That was an awfully roundabout way of getting to the point, and if I ever come across a piece of journalistic writing that takes nine sentences to get to the point, they had better be at least nine times more entertaining than what is written here. Do as I say, dear readers – not as I do.)

Here's the thing - and the "proverbial" thing is very similar to the "literally" thing. If there's no proverb about it, you can't use the word. Period. And a proverb, sayeth Dictionary.com, is "a short pithy saying in frequent and widespread use that expresses a basic truth or practical precept."

Therefore, I can say that I took the proverbial ounce of prevention, but I cannot say that I was on the proverbial fence. "On the fence" isn't a proverb; it's a metaphor. You can say you were on the metaphorical fence or on the figurative fence. (But here's an idea. Why not just say you're undecided?)

When you have the urge to use "proverbial" in your writing, give yourself a reality check. What exactly is the expression you're using? Are you sure it's a proverb? If not, is it a metaphor, figure of speech, euphemism - or something else entirely? (In the case of my 'NSync-loving columnist, what she actually meant was that, given the closed minds of her high-school audience, a gasp was the typical, familiar or expected reaction.) Make these distinctions, and assign the proper adjectives accordingly.

This will literally take no time at all …

2004-07-11T16:42:00.000-04:00

Welp, looks like something got my goat. I'd like to apologize to my legions of fans who were looking forward to reading about punctuation within (or without) quotation marks. Some other time.

But here's the thing. When a writer uses the word "literally," I'd estimate that eight times out of 10 it's redundant, and once in 10 it's incorrect.

Sometimes people think "literally" is just another word to add emphasis to what they're saying. Well, guess what, bucko. It's a word. Words mean things. And this one doesn't just mean "I'm a signifier that the writer is saying the following words in italics." (I was literally this close to the stage – I could literally see right up Britney Spears' dress! She is literally a 10!)

"Literally" implies two things: (1) that what you are saying has a figurative or metaphorical interpretation; and (2) that you can throw out that interpretation, because you wish to convey the literal meaning, rather than the figurative one.

Luckily for you, almost any phrase can have a figurative meaning – but come on. If you're saying that the store is "literally around the corner" from your own, how is that different from saying simply that the store is "around the corner"? Yes: if you're speaking in a global sense, Cleveland is figuratively "around the corner" from Cincinnati. But when you're talking about the local dry cleaner or adult video store, is anyone really going to mistake your "corner" for a figure of speech? Don't add an extra four syllables if your meaning is already clear.

Now for the other way people misuse "literally" – see my post title for one example and the "Britney = 10" sentence for another. In order to use "literally," your intended meaning has to be literal. There's no way my post could have actually taken no time at all, and there's no way Ms. Spears is really a 1 with a 0 next to it.

The only effective way to use "literally" is if a situation occurs which lends itself to a figure of speech, but through some twist of fate, the literal interpretation of the figure of speech also applies. Therefore, a man who is investing in breeding chickens in the hope of making some extra money to put away for the future is "creating a nest egg – literally." (You'll notice that even then, "literally" is not truly necessary. Astute readers will pick up on the double meaning without help.)

Hopefully, this post will make you so sick of looking at the word "literally" that you'll take special pains to avoid using it from now on. And just in case not ... literally literally literally literally literally!

Those pesky quotation marks

2004-07-09T12:54:00.000-04:00

I've been seeing plenty of copy lately from writers who think that the context of a phrase determines whether it gets single or double quotes. These writers put direct quotes from sources in double quotes; they put phrases that use quotation marks for some other reason (nicknames, sarcasm, unusual phrases, cuteness, etc.) in single quotes.

It's a nice idea, and apparently grammarians throughout history have experimented with something similar (see Eats, Shoots and Leaves), but it is, ultimately, incorrect.

Here's the rule for quotes (in America; in Britain, where they drive on the wrong side of the road, it only makes sense that they'd be backwards in their grammar rules as well). Always, always, always use double quotes, regardless of context. "But then when do I use single quotes?" I can hear you saying. Well, I'll tell you:

"You use 'single quote marks' when there is something quote-worthy 'inside' the already-quoted material. This rule is also context-free; it works the same way whether I'm telling you that Katie said, 'We should go to that bangin' party!' or I'm talking about something 'cutesy.'" (Actually, I think the majority of cutesy phrases don't need any quotation marks at all, but that's a subject for another post.)

Now, let's say that, for some reason, your quote is so very convoluted and postmodern that you need to put ANOTHER quoted phrase within the quotes that are within the quotes (and considering that your story itself could also be seen as one long quote, within which you the writer are talking to the reader and giving her the story, we're beginning to reach levels of hearsay rivaled only by high-school girls trying to find out if that boy in study hall is into them. Try not to let it happen). But say it's necessary. The quote within the already-single-quoted material will be in double quotes. Double, single, double, single. I say: "He said, 'She said, "He totally thinks Kelly's cute!"'" (All right! I better go put on some more lip gloss before study hall!)

Next time (unless something really gets my goat and I have to write about it instead): Punctuation and the Quote.

Let's talk Web sites

2004-07-08T21:55:00.000-04:00

(This post was inspired by real events, but identifying details have been changed, so as not to offend the offender.)

The rule of thumb: Keep it simple.

Say you're writing a story, and you want to add a Web site to which people can go for more information on the subject. For purposes of this example, you are writing a story about the Cincinnati Opera's performance of Carmen. You go to the Cincinnati Opera's Web site, which is www.cincinnatiopera.com. There, you see a link to the opera's Summer Festival, of which Carmen is a part. You click on that, and it gives you a list of the operas that are a part of the Summer Festival. Click on "Carmen," and you get a site with info about the show and a link to buy tickets. The site's URL is as such: http://www.cincinnatiopera.com/content.jsp?articleId=31

Now of course, this is the site to which you want to point your readers. But come on. They're never going to remember that. Don't bother with the jsps and the articleids - just list www.cincinnatiopera.com. The main Web site is simple enough to navigate that no reader is going to be flummoxed by it. (You like that word "flummox"? So do I, baby.)

Be nice to your reader - give them something that won't leave them hunched over the keyboard for an hour, flicking from paper to screen to make sure they put that last slash in the right place. Being led to a simple URL that's two clicks away from what you want is infinitely preferable to that miserable fate.

If it's something that's not linked directly from the homepage (say, a product listing on Amazon or eBay), just give the homepage and tell the readers to do a search for "ted koppel nude pictures" or whatever the story's about.

Of course, sometimes the only URL available will be long and complicated. C'est la vie. Go ahead and list it. It's better than nothing.

It's a blog! It's a copy-editing forum! Also makes julienne fries!

2004-06-30T18:04:00.000-04:00

Hmm, so as far as I know, this is the world's first copy-editing-centric blog. The only reason it's not called copyeditor.blogspot.com is because that name was taken three weeks ago by someone who made a single post complaining that copy editing is the worst job in the world, and (he asks his multitudes of readers) should he get out of the biz?

I disagree. I LOVE copy editing! So my plan is to use this blog to talk about the job I love. We'll have some pet peeves, some calls for clarity, and maybe a few rules everyone can use to make their writing better. We'll laugh, we'll cry, we'll all hate each other by the time all is said and done.

(Man, why did I have to put a mission statement in the first post? Now what if I want to use this thing to post about the awesome movie I saw last night? Do I have to get a whole 'nother blog called moviesisawlastnight.blogspot.com? Crap.)

Now here's what I need to know. How do I make permalinks? How do I create a link in the post? Please send copies of "Blogspot for Dummies," stat!