Commentary: "Notes for the Copyeditor"

Sep 25, 2009 20:35

Science fiction writer Robert Sawyer's website has much of interest.

Something fell by the wayside; let it be. )

writing

Leave a comment

Comments 8

c_eagle September 26 2009, 07:01:18 UTC
Thanks for the links and funny comparisons, as always!

Reply

level_head September 28 2009, 02:12:36 UTC
You're welcome, sir.

===|==============/ Level Head

Reply


deckardcanine September 26 2009, 18:04:13 UTC
Robert Sawyer is too Canadian for me to take as an American grammar authority. But I like his Heinlein write-up. (I've followed the first four rules so far, tho not consistently.)

Reply

level_head September 26 2009, 18:41:36 UTC
Robert Sawyer is too Canadian for me to take as an American grammar authority.

I'm a bit surprised. He's not talking about Canadian English, and I wouldn't hold his country of birth against him.

His point stressed many times that if you write for a US audience, as he does, you must abide by US rules.

I do think his point on ellipses (so to speak) is a good one, but I haven't researched it. His contention is that, in dialog, there is never a fourth period when a character trails off, even if the sentence could be nominally ended at that point.

I use it regularly to indicate an omission that runs to the end of the sentence in quoted material, but four dots has never looked good to me in dialog.

===|==============/ Level Head

Reply

deckardcanine September 26 2009, 19:25:30 UTC
Guess I should read more than your snippets, then.

Reply

level_head September 26 2009, 22:12:43 UTC
There was a lot that seemed useful to me. He has an impressive track record and quite a good reputation, from what I can see.

===|==============/ Level Head

Reply


the_mcp September 28 2009, 01:57:02 UTC
The "foreign phrases shown by underlining" thing seems odd to me; I don't think I've ever seen that supposed convention used in any book I've ever read...

Reply

level_head September 28 2009, 02:12:04 UTC
The "foreign phrases shown by underlining" thing seems odd to me; I don't think I've ever seen that supposed convention used in any book I've ever read.

It isn't, generally. He's talking about a manuscript to send to an agent or publisher, which will (after editing) be used to make the actual print run.

The early insistence on underlining came from the fact that typewriters could not do italics. The later insistence seems to use the rationale that typos are more difficult to spot in an italic font.

===|==============/ Level Head

Reply


Leave a comment

Up