A proofreading reader

[reformedhack]

Style is overrated by lazy people who think that memorizing a bunch of rules is a shortcut to quality writing.

Nonsense.

Quality writing has nothing to do with a stylebook. You can still write great stuff and observe the agreed-upon guidelines for grammar, spelling and usage.

Style has nothing to do with grammar, and it's at best tangential to spelling and usage. People can't tell the difference between style, grammar, spelling and usage are what get on my nerves.

Style absolutely corresponds with grammar (as well as spelling and usage). Here's one example: In AP style, a sports team name without an S on the end (such as the Orlando Magic) takes a plural verb ("Magic win NBA title"). At some publications, the style is to give them singular verbs ("Magic wins NBA title"). One of those is grammatically correct, which means the other isn't. Yet both are in a stylebook.

Again, there's nothing about a stylebook that prevents anyone from great writing. House style simply settles disputes about specific writing issues -- whether it's grammar choices, preferred spelling or word usage. If it's not otherwise in a stylebook or a dictionary, tie goes to the writer. Most good editors understand that.

Your blanket statement that "style is overrated by lazy people" is a sweeping generalization bordering on the ignorant. If you've got editors who are wielding the stylebook like a cudgel, that's a bad thing and you should bring a newsroom boss into the situation. But here's my sweeping generalization: Anyone who would soberly assert such a ridiculous statement probably gets edited rather frequently, and they've been corrected on basic style points so often that they confuse editing with the ruination of their precious verbiage. Now, my generalization might be as outrageous as yours, but somehow I don't think so.

A publication's style is developed to provide accuracy, clarity and consistency. The lazy thing would be to let any ol' thing get into print.

 

[CentralIllinoisan]

1. The woman is absolutely correct, 'buses' is the preferred spelling. Busses are kisses (did you really just learn that fossy?)
2. Stitch, it's say her 'piece'
3. Why would you hang up on this woman if she was politely pointing out an error?

This.

 

[RickStain]

Style absolutely corresponds with grammar (as well as spelling and usage). Here's one example: In AP style, a sports team name without an S on the end (such as the Orlando Magic) takes a plural verb ("Magic win NBA title"). At some publications, the style is to give them singular verbs ("Magic wins NBA title"). One of those is grammatically correct, which means the other isn't. Yet both are in a stylebook.

False. One is gramatically correct because it is the standard of commonly agreed grammar, and the other one is wrong for the same reason. In American English, only the former is correct, no matter what anyone's stylebook says.

Stylebooks often include reminders of common grammatical issues, but that does not make those specific entries matters of style. Style is a standardized system for consistently choosing from multiple grammatically correct choices. If you are dealing with a question of style, then all your choices must be grammatically correct.

Again, there's nothing about a stylebook that prevents anyone from great writing. House style simply settles disputes about specific writing issues -- whether it's grammar choices, preferred spelling or word usage. If it's not otherwise in a stylebook or a dictionary, tie goes to the writer. Most good editors understand that.

The fact that style is frequently misused isn't an attack on the institution of style. Your defense is pointless.

Your blanket statement that "style is overrated by lazy people" is a sweeping generalization bordering on the ignorant. If you've got editors who are wielding the stylebook like a cudgel, that's a bad thing and you should bring a newsroom boss into the situation. But here's my sweeping generalization: Anyone who would soberly assert such a ridiculous statement probably gets edited rather frequently, and they've been corrected on basic style points so often that they confuse editing with the ruination of their precious verbiage. Now, my generalization might be as outrageous as yours, but somehow I don't think so.

A publication's style is developed to provide accuracy, clarity and consistency. The lazy thing would be to let any ol' thing get into print.

The obsession with style frequently is often at odds with the goals of accuracy and clarity.

It's not that learning style isn't important. It's that it's only a small piece of the arsenal of writing and editing. It shouldn't take much effort to learn the basics of style, and you should keep a reference handy to check. But many editors and writers waste time memorizing obscure points of style and take a lot of pride in their mastery of it, when that time would be better spent working on the many other facets of writing and editing.

 

[reformedhack]

In American English, only the former is correct, no matter what anyone's stylebook says.

I agree with you on this specific point, but, clearly, style affects grammar in some instances, as my example proved, contrary to your assertion.

The fact that style is frequently misused isn't an attack on the institution of style. Your defense is pointless.

Calling style a tool of the lazy makes your offense impotent.

The obsession with style frequently is often at odds with the goals of accuracy and clarity.

It's not that learning style isn't important. It's that it's only a small piece of the arsenal of writing and editing. It shouldn't take much effort to learn the basics of style, and you should keep a reference handy to check. But many editors and writers waste time memorizing obscure points of style and take a lot of pride in their mastery of it, when that time would be better spent working on the many other facets of writing and editing.

Spoken like a writer who's been told hundreds of times that his writing is muddled, and that it needs more clarity and accuracy.

Let me reiterate: If you've got editors who are missing the forest for the trees, by citing the stylebook and ignoring substance, there are bigger problems that need to be dealt with. But you're coming across as someone who resents being edited and doesn't understand the need consistency in professional communication.

 

[RickStain]

You can keep throwing out personal attacks and keep being wrong all day if you want, I'm not going to rise to that bait. I absolutely understand the need for consistency. You are reading things that aren't there. Can you find one instance where I said style shouldn't be followed?

I'm not talking about one specific editor. I'm not even talking about editors I've directly worked with. Across the industry, I've found that low-level often copy editors think that memorizing the AP Stylebook is the apex achievement of their craft.

Style is overrated. "Overrated" is a word with a meaning. That meaning is not "worthless," "useless" or "unneccessary."

 

[reformedhack]

I'm not talking about one specific editor. I'm not even talking about editors I've directly worked with. Across the industry, I've found that low-level often copy editors think that memorizing the AP Stylebook is the apex achievement of their craft.

I have, too. Fortunately, I find they don't last very long in the publishing business.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your remark about "lazy" ... but I wasn't alone, and I still think you're wrong. That said, my position is that style isn't overrated. It's essential to clear communication.

Is it sometimes used by editors as a chainsaw when precision surgery is required, sucking the life out of great prose? Absolutely. Are there writers who blatantly and ignorantly disregard the rules because they misguidedly believe their words are golden? Absolutely.

But there has to be common ground for getting the words into print, and the product out the door, and the stylebook is usually it.

 

[fossywriter8]

For those trying to keep up:

1. "Buss" was not the issue. "Busses" was the issue.

2. She didn't call. She tore the photo out of the paper, scrawled a message on it and mailed it in.

3. No, I did not know "buss" means "kiss." I had never heard of the word or seen it in print until the woman mailed her message in. I do know, however, that "busses" is an acceptable form of the plural of "bus." I've known that for the past few decades, dating back to my school days.

4. I looked up the word "buss" because she asked me to in her written message.

5. I didn't call her an old lady. She signed her message "from an OLD proof reader" and I saw her name on the address sticker on the front of the envelope.

6. For what it's worth, the " OLD proof reader" apparently forgot that "proofreader" is one word. No, I won't point that out in my reply to her. That would be petty.

 

[Gomer]

The plural of bus is buses in every style guide in North America. What you thought you knew doesn't matter a lick. Swallow your pride and move on.

 

[txsportsscribe]

The plural of bus is buses in every style guide in North America. What you thought you knew doesn't matter a lick. Swallow your pride and move on.

exactly. you're only making yourself look worse by trying to justify your mistake. "buses" is something i taught in news reporting 1 in college and in intro to mass comm at the high school level.

 

[RickStain]

Sheesh. How many people have to tell this guy he is wrong before he accepts it?

Busses is an old-fashioned spelling of the word. In professional writing, you are expected to hold yourself to a higher standard, and that includes using the most common spellings on most words that have multiple spellings.

A spelling that is technically allowable can still be a poor choice, just as a sentence that is grammatically sound can still be poorly written.

 

[Ace]

Style is overrated by lazy people who think that memorizing a bunch of rules is a shortcut to quality writing.

But in this case, OP is sticking with a poor but not completely incorrect choice out of obstinance.

Style is good, but I prefer sass.

 

[deskslave]

I'll stick with busses, thank you, especially since her written message asked me to check with Webster and Webster agreed with both of us. Maybe AP should check with Webster as well. We'll just let it go as our paper's style.
And it was a written message, not a call.
Also, I'd never heard of "buss" being a kiss until today.
For what it's worth, I also checked with Merriam-Webster, which also gave "busses" as an acceptable version.
M-W also had several other definitions for buss — a rugged square-sailed boat; two for kiss; bush; and a version of busk, which is to prepare or make ready — while listing "bussy" as a sweetheart.
Accordingly, I could buss to buss my bussy's buss on my buss.
:-*

AP Stylebook is the bible. Your wrong in this case because the default style is AP in newspaper unless your paper makes an exception. AP stylebook is first reference. If there is no entry there, then you go to an American Dictionary. That's the rule. Your usage is incorrect in journalistic style. It's enough of an issue that AP made a style entry for it. So before you give yourself credit for sticking it to a reader, you should at least understand that your usage in a newspaper was incorrect.

Put it this way, if that appeared on the AP Copy Editing exam, and you used busses, it would have been a wrong answer.

I can think of something that would be more wrong.