IMAGE:  August 2003
 

LINK:  Features
Moment of Decision  
Chicago's Ivy League  
The Weeds of Change
The CMS Syndrome  

Glimpses

 
 
LINK:  Class Notes
Alumni News  
Alumni Works  
Deaths  

LINK:  Campus News
Chicago Journal  
University News  
Uchicago.edu e-bulletin  

LINK:  Research
Investigations  
Citations  
U of C Research Organizations  

LINK:  Also in every issue
Editor's Notes  
Letters  
Chicagophile  
 
GRAPHIC:  University of Chicago Magazine
 
 
AUGUST 2003
Volume 95, Issue 6
 

PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION

The CMS syndrome
WRITTEN BY MARY RUTH YOE

In its second century and 15th edition The Chicago Manual of Style weighs in on rules for wordsmiths. With style.

Say Chicago to an editor, proofreader, indexer, or publisher—anyone who regularly deals with words in print—and the reference is clear. The authority being cited is a work long known on its spine and in catalogs, but not in the vernacular, as A Manual of Style. It wasn’t until 1982, preparing to publish the 13th edition, that the University of Chicago Press bowed to common practice and renamed its trademark product The Chicago Manual of Style (CMS in shorthand citation). This August, as the 15th edition debuts with a first-run printing of 150,000 copies, the Manual is still Chicago, and it still lives up to its subtitled billing as “The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers.”

How essential? Three weeks before its official August 15 print date, the title ranked No. 25 on Amazon.com’s sales chart (compared to Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix at No. 1).

The Manual is more than essential. With some 1 million copies of the first 14 editions sold, it’s the press’s No. 1 all-time bestseller, and its success has almost as much to do with style as substance. The Manual is quintessentially American, equally devoted to straightforward, paint-by-numbers, how-to instruction and do-your-own-thing individualism.

Think oxymorons. Think, along with F. Scott Fitzgerald, of “the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time.” Think the Ten Commandments and the Prodigal Son. Think of women’s magazines where the editorial content is one-part diet plans, one-part high-calorie recipes. In sum, think rule making and rule breaking.

Some users revel in the rules. In the Magazine’s November 1925 issue a reviewer praised the eighth edition’s black-or-white approach: “It is a model of clearness and definiteness. Alternatives are left out; questions are decided; for a guide that leaves many loopholes is not a guide at all.” But many readers like the wriggle room, delighting in the guide’s philosophy, expressed in the preface to the 14th edition (1993), that “although the purpose was, and remains, to establish rules, the renunciation, in the preface to the 1906 edition, of an authoritarian position in favor of common sense and flexibility has always been a fundamental and abiding principle.”

Elements of Style...
In the beginning, somewhere in the 1890s, was a single sheet of typographic fundamentals. With the increase of years came an increase of rules and pages. A 21-page pamphlet, the “Style Book,” was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1901. Next came the Manual, whose course is charted below. (For the first 11 editions, approximately 100 pages were devoted to type specimens.)

Title Edition Year Pages
Manual of Style 1st 1906 201
Manual of Style 2nd 1910 224
Manual of Style 3rd 1911 259
Manual of Style 4th 1914 276
A Manual of Style 5th 1917 300
A Manual of Style 6th 1919 300
A Manual of Style 7th 1920 300
A Manual of Style 8th 1925 391
A Manual of Style 9th 1927 400
A Manual of Style 10th 1937 394
A Manual of Style 11th 1949 521
A Manual of Style 12th 1969 546
The Chicago Manual of Style 13th 1982 738
The Chicago Manual of Style 14th 1993 921
The Chicago Manual of Style 15th 2003 956

Flexibility is the byword of the 15th edition. Approximately seven years in the making (the exact date cannot be easily determined; no sooner is one edition in press than notes are begun for the next), the project was led by Linda Halvorson, the press’s editorial director for reference publishing, assisted by Margaret Mahan, the press’s former managing editor, along with current editors Margaret Perkins and Anita Samen. Aided for the first time by a 14-person advisory board that included Chicago English professor David W. Bevington and physics professor Robert Wald, along with a listserv of managing editors from other university presses, the edition reflects how publishing has changed in the past decade. Most important, as Mahan notes in the preface, “Computer technology and the increasing use of the Internet mark almost every chapter.”

That means new material on electronic publications, an updated chapter on preparing mathematical copy, advice on how to cite electronic sources (including defunct Web sites), and information outlining contemporary design and production processes. As in the 14th edition the “Key Terms” section of the production chapter still begins with AA, or author’s alterations, but now ends with XML, “An abbreviation for Extensible Markup Language. A subset of the SGML standard, used for structuring documents and data on the Internet. See also SGML.”

The Internet’s influence is also seen in the layout, designed by Jill Shimabukuro. While the bold orange-red dust jacket remains, gone are the 14th edition’s traditional type faces (Times Roman and Baskerville), replaced by a modern face: Scala, designed in 1994. The explanatory text and the rules themselves—which retain their orderly numbering, from 1.1 (“A historical note.”) through 18.149 (“Authors, titles, and first lines combined.”)—continue in serif type. (A word to nonwordsmiths, the Magazine’s text is in a serif font, with short lines stemming from and at an angle to the upper and lower ends of a letter’s strokes.—Ed.) But examples of each rule stand out in sans serif type (see sidebar text at right) as do new, descriptive headings above each numbered paragraph of advice. Adding to the contemporary look is the use of a second color—a light blue reminiscent of a copy editor’s pencil.

The Internet’s biggest influence is found not in the design of the 956-page tome (selling for $55, as compared to $.50 for the 201-page first edition) but in the Manual’s online presence. A new Web site (www.chicagomanualofstyle.org) offers a “Search the Manual” feature: “Input the terms of your search, and you will receive a list of the numbers and subheadings of all paragraphs in the print edition that contain the words or phrases that you are looking for.” It’s quicker than paging through the print index and, in theory, should bring up more rules to consult. The site also offers registered users (you don’t need to buy the book to play) a searchable Q & A section, and, in the months ahead, discounts on an array of electronic products (a searchable CD-ROM edition should be available as early as fall 2004).

The guide’s Web presence is hardly new. As far back as 1995 stylistically challenged readers have been able to e-mail their most pressing queries to the CMS “answer lady” (the identity of the press staffer who pens the answers is kept secret to avoid a flood of direct e-mails and calls). In the early days every query received a personal response, always calm and reassuring (“That’s a tough one,” a response to this writer once began). Frequently asked questions and answers were posted on the press’s Web site; early this year, with monthly traffic hovering at 20,000 visits, personal responses became a thing of the past; each month representative questions and answers get posted.

Those questions generally are concerned with the stuff of minor detail. At the top of the current “New Questions and Answers” posting, for instance, is this weighty query: “Which is correct: ‘so and so, four months pregnant’ or ‘so and so, four months’ pregnant’?”

The answer is the former. And if you know why (“The apostrophe is reserved for the genitive case”), you’re likely to be the type of reader who ordered your new edition months ago and who will turn first to the new chapter on American English grammar and usage (by Bryan A. Garner, author of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage). Next you’ll flip through the chapters with an experienced eye, checking to see if the rules you love (or love to hate) are still in effect.

To aid less-detail-oriented readers, the Manual’s press kit lists some of the changes made. Here are a few of the shockers (the release, written in the authoritative yet comforting tone of the Manual itself, helpfully lists the CMS rules affected):

Punctuation and font. Preference is now given to setting commas, semicolons, periods, and colons in the font of the surrounding text. Question marks and exclamation points are (as before) italic only if they belong to the word they follow. The traditional system is fully acceptable, however. 6.3–7.

Dates. The month-day-year form (e.g., July 1, 2003) is now preferred; the day-month-year form (e.g., 1 July 2003) is a fully acceptable alternative, especially in documentation that includes numerous precise dates. 6.46.

Possessive versus attributive forms. A strong preference is expressed for retaining the apostrophe in plural forms (e.g., employees’ cafeteria, consumers’ group). 7.27.

Time of day. Lowercase p.m. with periods is now preferred to small-cap pm, though the small-cap form is fully acceptable. When small caps are used, there is no need for periods. 9.42, 15.44.

Abbreviations for states and provinces. The two-letter abbreviations used in postal codes for states and provinces are now recommended, with the traditional forms (Mass., Conn., and so on) an option. 15.29–30.

There’s a pattern here, and it goes deep to the heart of the reference’s style: preference, preferred, recommended, acceptable, option. Sometimes, a strong preference. The Manual suggests the rules, but the rules change to reflect usage.

Ruing the change announced in 8.34 (“Titles of dukes, earls, and such are dealt with in a more British way...” rather than in the more democratic, lower-case style long favored by the Manual), Anita Samen explains that the shift reflects a need to follow the prevailing practice: “It no longer seemed to make sense to be the only one.” Indeed, one hesitant finger held to the wind in the 14th edition—a suggestion, buried in a footnote on page 76, recommending the “‘revival’ of the singular use of they and their”—has disappeared in the 15th without a trace, revealed as a usage whose time has not yet come.

For a work known as “the bible,” handed down from generation to generation of wordsmiths with the solemn fervor of an initiation rite, such willingness to listen to its audience is unusual. And it’s part of the Manual’s charm. Although there is a reason for every rule and recommendation (Samen, who first met CMS as a junior editor at St. Martin’s Press, soon learned that “if I deviated, it was at my peril,”), there is also a willingness to let you do it your way, based on your own experience.

Ah, but there’s the catch. Experience counts.

So when the chips are down, the deadlines draw near, and the jury is out on matters of citation, punctuation, and style, remember that you have a friend. An older, wiser, seen-it-all friend who still prefers the serial comma, who still believes in hyphenating adjective-noun combinations when they’re used as adjectives, and who now offers three approved methods of dealing with ellipsis points. That’s Chicago.

…and e-Style

Back in 1993 when the Manual‘s 14th edition was published, only 36 percent of U.S. citizens over the age of 18 used e-mail—and only eight entries appeared in the CMS index under “electronic manuscripts, editing.” A decade later 57 percent use e-mail. (That percentage is in the high 90s for Chicago alumni.) Meanwhile the 15th edition contains five entries under “e-mail addresses” and one under “e-mail attachments.”

As the above example makes plain, CMS prefers e-mail to email. Plus, e-article, e-commerce, e-marketing, e-zine, and even e-graduate school. According to 7.90, section 2 (“Compounds Formed with Specific Terms”), these words are hyphenated, with “an en dash if e- precedes an open compound.” Clear? If not, “See also 7.85, 8.163.” The first tackles “hyphens and readability,” while the second discusses exceptions to the rule (brand names like iMac, for example).

On to URLs, covered in 7.44: “Where it is necessary to break a URL or an e-mail address no hyphen should be used. The break should be made between elements, after a colon, a slash, a double slash, or the symbol @ but before a period or any other punctuation symbols. To avoid confusion, a URL that contains a hyphen should never be broken at the hyphen.” And what about that bane of editors everywhere, “the particularly long element” that “must be broken to avoid a seriously loose line”? Just grit your teeth and do it, breaking the element “between syllables according to the guidelines offered above.”

Then there’s the issue of e-capitalization. According to 7.77, “The basic alphabet keys as well as all named keys (Ctrl, Home, Shift, Command, etc.), menu items (Save, Print, Exit, etc.), and icon names (the Cut button, the Italic button, etc.) are capitalized and spelled as on the keys or in the software.” And while you have your Shift key down, remember that, citing 7.81, “Proper names of computer hardware, software, networks, systems, and languages are capitalized.” Thus, it’s “the World Wide Web; the Web; a Web site; a Web page.”

Last but not least, if the 15th-edition index is any guide, online is one, unhyphenated, often-used word.

—M.R.Y.

 

 


Google
Search WWW Search magazine.uchicago.edu

Contact Advertising About the Magazine Alumni UChicago Views Archives
uchicago 2003 The University of Chicago Magazine 5801 South Ellis Ave., Chicago, IL 60637
phone: 773/702-2163 fax: 773/702-0495 uchicago-magazine@uchicago.edu