Critique this passage from "The Chicago Manual of Style"

Cafe Society
1

While waiting for a SDMB search, I read bits of “The Chicago Manual of Style”. I found found the following section lacking. The spelling and grammar are fine. But it’s verbose, and . . . poor in a couple of other ways. I’d like conformation. Put yourself in the shoes of a high school English teacher or a professional editor, and say how this excerpt could be improved (It’s from the introduction on the chapter on quotations):

"Almost every serious study depends in part on words that have preceded it. Ideally, authors of works of original scholarship present their arguments in their own word, illustrating and amplifying the text with quotations judiciously chosen from the works of others. In selecting questions, authors should consider their readers. Is direct quotation desirable, or would a paraphrase be more effective? …

‘Quoting other writers and citing the places where their words are to be found are by no such common practices that it is pardonable to look upon the habit as natural, not to say instinctive.’"

(I have a preferred rewrite.)

2

Pardon, that’s supposed to be “…depends in part on works…” and “…in their own words…” I’m still not used to the idea that I need glasses to read things correctly…

3

“Almost every serious study depends in part on words that have preceded it. Ideally, authors of original scholarship present their arguements in their own words, illustrating their text with quotations judiciously chosen from, and credited to, the works of others. Authors should consider their readers when selecting quotations, and should ask themselves whether a direct quote or a paraphrase is more desirable.”

I have no idea what the last paragraph is trying to say.

4

Sigh. Sorry. I did try to stop the post and proof it when I realized there were mistakes. The last para is “… to be found are by now…”

5

I don’t think the last paragraph adds anything and I’d delete it.

6

Thank you, Scarlett67 and plnnr.

As a fairly well-trained writer, but a barely-trained editor, I had an inkling that writers emphasize factors which some kinds of editors do not consider their purview – or possibly, even of importance.

Good writing (in this writer’s view) uses no more or fewer words than needed to convey an idea. It uses appropriate words, not ones that are too abstract, nor ones meaning other than what the writer intends. Therein lies my issue. I see that the paragraphs are proper English, Scarlett67, but what I respond to is its verbosity. I agree with plnnr that the last paragraph is unnecessary, for instance.

Text analysis:

*Almost every serious study… *

So there are unserious studies that have different rules? What’s being said here?

…depends in part…

As opposed to being completely dependent? A study that’s word-for-word plagiarism?

…on works that have preceded it.

How could it depend on things that didn’t precede it? Here’s what the writer was trying to say:

“Professional works often acknowledge their dependencies.”

(6 words, instead of 13.)

Ideally, authors of works of original scholarship present their arguments in their own words…

There are authors of unoriginal scholarship? Who use different mechanics for quoting?

…illustrating and amplifying the text with quotations judiciously chosen from works of others.

Using illustrating and amplifying draws a pointless distinction. And people quote from their own works, as well as conversations, etc. So the statement is both too narrow, and over-specific. The writer may have been trying to say:

“Writers quote existing arguments along with their own.”

(8 words, instead of 27.)

In selecting quotations, authors should consider their readers.

As opposed the rest of the writing, where the reader shouldn’t be considered? Sentence is superfluous. Delete.

(0 words, instead of 8.)

Is direct quotation desirable, or would a paraphrase be more effective?

The writer’s comparison is mismatched: it isn’t a question of whether one thing is more desirable vs. whether something else is more effective. Presumably what the writer is trying to say is:

“Sometimes paraphrase is more effective than direct quotation.”

(8 words, instead of 11.)

The revised passage:

“Professional works often acknowledge their dependencies. Writers quote existing arguments along with their own – sometimes paraphrase is more effective than direct quotation.”

In total the (clearer) rewrite has 22 words instead of 59. If the rest of the book is like this, half “The Chicago Manual of Style” is weak writing and fill. How do they get away with it?

7

Given that the original posting was so full of typos as to render the passage unintelligible, I thought it useful to repost the passage with corrections:

The following is not an example of the C. M. of S.'s writing style at all. It is in quote marks in the original: the words are (as a footnote acknowledges) Jacques Barzun’s:

Anyway, the passage is perfectly clear, once it’s free of typos.

I can’t say that I think the rewrite at all good, since it loses virtually every important nuance of the original & often misrepresents it. “Dependencies” is particularly infelicitous & vague. You have also misunderstood the thrust of the original: in the 1st sentence of your paraphrase “often” should be “always”. To say “quote existing arguments” sounds rather strange & is misplaced in its specificity: as the original passage indicated, one of the principal purposes of quotation is to supply illustrative examples for one’s own argument rather than merely pinching someone else’s argument.

8

I’m no stylist but:

When an author chooses to illustrate or amplify his own argument by using references to the work of another, it’s important that he consider whether the reader’s understanding would be better served through direct quotation or a paraphrasing of the original.

9

perhaps I should have said "better served through direct quotation, or alternatively, a paraphrasing of the original. "

There is probably alls kind a grammarian problems in their.

10

I appreciate the comments, since I’m genuinely curious as to how writing like this gets published.

I agree that my final rewrite is slightly stilted. It’s just a concatenation of corrections to earlier sentences. For the sake of example, the piecemeal commentary alone would have made the points better.

I understand your opinion that the rewrite loses nuance. It’s something I’ve encountered before: which is a belief that words must have a purpose – that nobody would say something that is actually meaningless. However academics and bureaucrats frequently pad their sentences with meaningless qualifications.

I pointed out in a number of examples that the writer didn’t mean anything at all.

What I notice is that you did not address the specific issues where I thought the wording was at fault. For example limiting the passage to “serious study” implies that different rules are used for things that aren’t “serious studies.” Why distinguish “serious studies” from anything else, without ever mentioning what the “other” things are, or how the rules might be different? The term “serious study” is pure nonsense.

The phrase, and indeed most of the passage, is comprised of high-sounding phrases which impart little information. I realize this may be difficult to recognize without the context of the surrounding pages!

I understand your concern that the last sentence quoted is a quote within “The Chicago Manual of Style” of another work. Note that I thought (as did plnnr) that it was entirely unnecessary. My criticism is largely that it was included at all – it’s gratuitous and trivial, in the sense whether quoting is “instinctive” or “habitual” makes no difference as to how quoting rules are applied.

I prefer both my rewrite and KidCharlemagne’s to the original, and I particularly liked two things plnnr added to the original text.

I will say in closing that, having published hundreds of pages of technical articles, and edited a certain amount of other people’s writing, that it’s hard to change people’s opinion about word selection. I’ve been the one person who disagrees with the another three, and also, in many other situations, among the three who disagrees with the one.

I was seeking a “visceral” response – at whatever level. And I got it.

Next time I won’t rely on the spell checker to remove typos!

11

One last thing. I also think there should be a comma seperating “in part” from the rest of the sentence:

Almost every serious study depends, in part, on works that have preceded it.

I’m sure this is wrong based on the Grammar/Style canon but to me it’s a better representation of how the sentence would be spoken. Curious to know what others think.

12

whoops meant to quote that so:

“Almost every serious study depends, in part, on works that have preceded it.”