January 12, 2007
City Paper Copy Editor Angry, Angry, Angry
What do you do when you, the dutiful copy editor, is are forced to adhere to an in-house style that flies in the face of the rules of grammar you hold in such high esteem? You blog about it.
Andrew Beaujon, the City Paper's Copy Editor, seems to have had enough. In a witheringly comical post he published on the paper's blog yesterday, Beaujon takes issue with the "serial comma." He writes:
I hate the serial comma: the final comma in a series, e.g., "this, that, and the other thing."He goes on to detail his grief with the serial comma, though promises not to launch a "serial-comma coup" against his superiors. Phew. We already lost Erik Wemple once, and we wouldn't want to see him booted a second time for blaspheming against the righteous wisdom of AP Style and its strongest adherents, the Copy Editors.The one after "that" is the serial comma. Associated Press style, and the style at most newspapers, is to not use the serial comma, i.e., "this, that and the other thing."
Most magazines use the serial comma. The Washington City Paper uses it, too (even though we otherwise adhere to AP style), and since it's my job to enforce our house style, I dutifully add that last comma anytime it's missing from someone's copy.
That doesn't mean I have to like it.
Rest easy, Andrew. We've had the same debate plenty of times. We've also feuded over dangling modifiers, DC vs. D.C., affect vs. effect, and comma splices. Shit. I just used a serial comma. I'm so fired.
|
should there really be any debate about "affect" vs. "effect"? they're different words entirely. i can understand D.C. vs. DC because they can both be considered correct, but i hope the affect/effect debate was a short-lived one.
The serial comma is an honest debate because there are valid points for and against its use.
There is no debate in the affect vs. effect argument. Both have well-defined roles and can be used as nouns or verbs. When the "A's" and "E's" are mixed up, the usage is incorrect, end of discussion.
It was a joke. We've never debated that one.
Ha. I was about to write the same kind of "Are you out of your mind?!" comment as the first two, but then I decided that the third time was probably not the charm. But seriously, we grammar nerds can't take a joke.
I think that Andrew should spend more time worrying about the garbage writing of the City Paper instead of serial commas.
Also, DCist, why do your links open in the same window since your redesign? I would think that a website linking other sites would always want their links to open in another window/tab so as to ensure that the user still has access to the page they were looking at.
Cyber Agatha calls this the "Oxford comma." I have no idea why, but she seems to think that's pretty clever.
I totally support this comma; especially on the Internet where copy space isn't an issue. As for the City Paper, it's not like a few extra usages of punctuation are going to get in the way of the hooker-laden classified ads. No harm, no foul, right?
Opening links in another window via HTML is stupid. If I want the link to open in another window/tab, I'll fucking tell my browser to do that.
Thank you, DCist, for maintaining some sanity on the interweb.
... you, the dutiful copy editor, is forced ...
What about subject-verb agreement?
"DC" is only correct when it follows "Washington" in an address. "D.C." should be used otherwise.
Scott, our policy on links opening in a new window is based roughly on the opinions expressed by Politburo, with slightly fewer expletives. It's one of those things, like flash animation, that's frowned upon by Internet geeks worldwide.
Here's why the serial comma is necessary:
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham and cheese."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham, and cheese."
In the first line, the last item is obviously a ham and cheese sandwich of some type. In the second line, the ham and cheese are to be ordered separately, a la cold cut style. QED.
Politburro,
There is no way to open the links in the "Links" pulldown section in another window. You can't right click on them without automatically going to them.
Also, it's pretty standard protocol to have your links, especially those that are in the "Links" section, open in _blank target window.
So, idiot, know what you're talking about before you type.
Someone but him a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves, stat.
Scott, two things:
1) No need for namecalling. Keep it civil, please.
2) We're all mostly talking about html coding for links inside posts. It wasn't clear you were referring to our new dropdown blogroll. And I'll look into it now that you've mentioned it. Thanks.
Links that go to other parts of DCist should open in the same window. If they didn't, then that would be idiotic.
Links to OTHER SITES that open in the same window is totally stupid and wrong. And as a web developer AND an internet geek, I do know what I'm talking about.
PS...You can't open the links in the pulldown menu in another window by right clicking or center clicking. Even in Firefox.
See - what i can't wrap my brain around is how Scott can be a web developer, an internet geek, AND have an irrational sense of importance and infallibility all at the same time? i mean, i just don't understand how that's possible.
Boss T,
If you were a math professor and you told the class that 2+2=4 and a student, let's say his name is politburro, in your class calls you stupid for saying 2+2=4, then it would get under your skin a little bit.
It's my fault though because I just said "Link" not "Links in the pulldown menu".
its friday, people! relax! jabber on about commas!
Now if we could just pound into people's heads: "it's" should ONLY be used when it can be replaced by "it is" or "it has." "It's" is not possessive. I see this mistake *so* many times on DCist.
Perhaps Agatha calls it the "Oxford comma" because it's standard usage in the UK. I always use the serial comma because it's seems more logical to me than the common US usage, as demonstrated in rattofest's example. I'm not a big Anglophile, but there are other UK usages I prefer, such as not always putting periods inside of quotation marks @ the end of sentences & using an apostrophe "s" after words ending in s to indicate plural possessive (e.g., birds's nests).
"Here's why the serial comma is necessary:
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham and cheese."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham, and cheese."
In the first line, the last item is obviously a ham and cheese sandwich of some type. In the second line, the ham and cheese are to be ordered separately, a la cold cut style. QED."
Although I am a supporter of the serial comma (as I commented in the original blog post) this is a poor example as both of these statement ARE the same. A ham and cheese sandwich may be called, "a ham and cheese" but I don't think any fluent English speaker would refer to one as "ham and cheese." I don't know about others but that just sounds totally wrong.
I am NOT an internet geek or computer geek (I am not part of the grammer police either). But (see what I mean) as a regular computer user, I like it when external links open in new pages. I hate loosing my place on the internet and I hate having to right click etc. I don't know what is right or what is wrong- just what's easy.
"The terms "Oxford comma" and "Harvard comma" come from Oxford University Press and Harvard University Press, where use of the serial comma is the house style."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Comma
Well the dropdown box certainly is a different matter, but I still think opening links in a new window is stupid (note, I didn't call you stupid, and a difference of opinion on opening links in new windows is far from challenging the fact that 2+2=4).
Ah, Chris beat me to it. But yes, it's because of its traditional usage at the Oxford University Press.
Furcafe,
You just hit a sore spot for me. My least favorite thing about AP style is their insistence that singular words ending in "s" should not have another "s" after a possessive apostrophe. This drives me insane. That is wrong and illogical.
I disagree with your feelings on adding the extra "s" after the apostrophe because people and groups (like the stupid AP) already make this more confusing than it needs to be.
2+2=,
Admittedly, I'm using Safari on a Mac, but you can make a link go to a daughter page, by either right clicking -- where you have a list of options (Open link in new tab, new window, etc. etc.) or command clicking the link. It's pretty easy, and I suspect that PC's can do this as well.
I hate daughter windows.
But I love serial commas, and since the CityPaper is a magazine style alt-weekly, I think the usage makes perfect sense. AP style is dumbed down, you'd think he'd get that. (By the way, business and legal newspapers do not often adhere to AP style either. You'd think the CP house sense of superiority and arrogance would naturally rebel against AP style. Perhaps he's working at the wrong paper.)
The traditional argument for the serial comma is the difference between the sentences:
"I'd like to thank my parents, God and Ayn Rand" (implying that God and Ayn are your parents)
vs
"I'd like to thank my parents, God, and Ayn Rand" (thanking all four)
If you want to go to a new window, why not just hit the shift key when you click?
To add another voice to the chorus:
1. I'm a fan of the serial comma. Strunk and White made a compelling case for it, based on clarity, that I've not heard persuasively rebutted. The cost/benefit surely weighs in its favor. It's not like that extra ","--sometimes vital to avoid misunderstanding--is an aesthetic eyesore, typographic chasm, or onerous added workload.
2. Target = _blank is, technically, invalid. Common, sure, but it is invalid. Take your grievance up with those who standardize these things, not the web authors who are mindful in following them.
.. oh, and speaking of heinous editorial standards and practices, it's hard to top the bizarre *ist official practice of using "we" when "I" is more sensible and avoids the illusion of some sort of hive-mind editorial collective drafting material. Kudos to DCist for eventually (mostly) bucking this trend, despite its initial adherence.
I DESPISE the serial comma. A comma signifies "and" or "or" in the mind of the reader. By using the Oxford (serial) comma, it causes a sentence to read: I like bananas, [and] apples, [and] and oranges. Plus, it is just plain ugly.
And only certain words require an apostrophe s: Congress's bill is appropriate; James 's cat is not (even Firefox believes that James 's is incorrect, NOT Congress's - As such, I had to add the space before the 's in James.).
Ha! This is so timely for me. I agonize over it every time I have a series of things. I was taught both ways, but I was taught the serial comma first, so it usually takes precedence in my writings, but then I get paranoid wondering if that's the "right" way or the wrong way to use it. Habits are hard to break, and I usually leave it in there.
Off topic: it is considered bad usability for a site to have links open new windows, and the W3C validator won't validate pages that do it. I spent a couple weeks grumbling about that when I was trying to get a site to validate a few years ago and the validation robots were forcing me to change my ways, but now I have to agree with the standards enforcers on that one. Opening a separate window the user didn't ask for is bad. If the user wants a new window, he can open it himself pretty easily.
Back on topic: I was taught the serial comma -- and only the serial comma -- all through school. I prefer it.
Aside: Eats, Shoots and Leaves is too clever by half. Her comma and apostrophe rants are pretty good, but the introduction affects a breezy tone that gets old fast, and the end chapters aren't as well organized as the comma and apostrophe parts are. She doesn't really come down as forcefully as I might like on the inappropriate adoption of the ellipsis (…) by people who don't know how to punctuate, either. But that's neither here nor there. You can read the whole book in an afternoon if that's your sort of thing.
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham and cheese."
DOES NOT EQUAL
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, ham, and cheese."
In the first line, the last item is obviously a ham and cheese sandwich of some type. In the second line, the ham and cheese are to be ordered separately, a la cold cut style. QED."
This is a GODAWFUL example. In the first sentence, if you were actually referring to a ham and cheese sandwich, as ONE entity, you would write:
"Go to the deli. Buy a quart of milk, half dozen of eggs, and a ham and cheese."
what is written is the equivalent of writing a series with no "and":
"Buy milk, eggs, sandwich."
For the record- Serial commas are taught as correct in most U.S. schools, and not used in Britain. You could have been taught either, and technically you are correct with either. It's really a matter of preference.
hey dcist since you claim to care about grammar maybe you can try figuring out proper usage of its and it's it's is ALWAYS a conjunction of it and is. it is NEVER a possessive. you get this wrong ALL THE TIME and it gets on my nerves. for example: The team is proud of its record NOT The team is proud of it's record. PLEASE!
It's a contraction, not a conjuction.
I grew up with the serial comma- It's more unnatural to exclude it than include it.
This is the same type of insight from Andrew that made his seminal 80's art band, Eggs, so admired.