Photo by cottonbro studio on Pexels
You may have an image of writers as free spirits dipping their ink pens into the dark and swirling whirl of creativity. The ink flows from their fountain pens in a beautiful flowing script onto a crisp white page. When they’re done, it’s ready for the copyeditors, red pen in hand. And you may think of copyeditors, if you give any thought to them at all, as stick-in-the-mud rule-followers who will tame those flows into proper English, often breaking creativity’s spirit in the process.
OK, that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but for whatever reason those stereotypes of unbound creatives and stodgy editors persist. You can find a an in-depth look into the fascinating push/pull relationship between an author, Robert Caro, and his editor, Robert Gottlieb in this New Yorker article. I also wrote about a particularly annoying stereotype about copyeditors in my post about the movie, “Never Been Kissed.”
I certainly spend a fair amount of my time learning and reading about grammar and writing, but I’m not always reading about rules. As for being a stick in the mud, I’m pretty open to learning new things, new ways of working. I’m always open to teaching myself about things that I don’t know about, including the origins of the phrase, “stick in the mud.” For some reason I was picturing an actual stick in the mud when I started typing that phrase. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary site, the phrase refers to being stuck in abject conditions and being unwilling to move, like someone stuck in the mud. It emerged into common use in the 1850s, though there are references to it in court records as early as the 1700s.
So, stick in the mud is certainly not a good descriptor for me, any of the editors that I know, or any of the entertaining editors that I follow online and on social media. The following is a list of engaging editors that manage to teach you new things in the exciting world of grammar, including topics that touch on the ever-changing nature of language.
Mignon Fogerty. Mignon Fogerty was my entry into the world of entertaining writers about grammar. She created the Grammar Girl website, which has morphed into a collection of sites, called Quick and Dirty Tips, that aim to offer “actionable advice from friendly, informed experts.” With her original grammar site, Mignon made learning about grammar fun and exciting. Want to know about the differences between parentheses (), brackets [], and braces {}, she’s got a post for you. How about whether “funnest” is a word? What actually served as the impetus for my blog post today was the recent guest blog post by Syelle Graves about whether the phrase “very unique” is wrong. It’s a perfect post outlining the constantly evolving nature of language, and I highly recommend reading it if you’re tempted to chide someone about using the phrase.
Benjamin Dreyer. I follow Benjamin Dreyer on Twitter. He leans toward sharply political posts, but his book, Dreyer's English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style is absolutely essential reading for any copyeditor (and writer). His tweets about grammar tend to focus on pushing you away from punishing writers because of your own personal grammar pet peeves, mixed in with a healthy admiration for old-glamor hollywood stars and movies.
Syn and Syntax: How to Craft Wicked Prose. Although Constance Hale wrote this book in 2013, I still remember it to this day. It’s a wickedly funny book about polishing your writing without being imprisoned by grammar rules. She writes about understanding grammar but posits that a mere understanding of grammar rules isn’t going to make your writing sparkle. It was the first time I remember reading a grammar book that kept me wanting to read it from beginning to end.
Merriam-Webster twitter account. A Twitter account, in this day and age when the platform is flooded with misinformation? Hear me out. This is one bluecheck account that actually provides useful language information along with a side of saucy current events commentary. It does so by posting about apropos words at just the right moment using its #WordOfTheDay series. You can read all about the account’s famously well-timed subtweets in this Vogue article. Just today, I learned that the word “texting” was first used in print in 1999. Of course, I use their online dictionary and thesaurus site on a daily basis for my work.
Chicago Manual of Style Online. This is an indispensable resource for me when I’m editing and when I’m writing. Whether you’re editing or writing a book, we all approach the dreaded footnotes/endnotes/bibliography sections of our books with fear and trepidation. The Quick Citation guide that Chicago provides is worth the $43/per year subscription alone. The site’s search function is wonderful, and I have no trouble easily finding the answer to any tricky style or grammar question I may have. Of course, I’d always take Chicago’s side in the ongoing AP Style vs. Chicago gang war, but let’s not tell AP that, shall we?
I could actually keep going with this list; there are a variety of Twitter copyeditors that I follow who all actually happen to be entertaining social media presences (John McIntyre, Colleen Barry, Mighty Red Pen, and Jonathon Owen); I find that because they love the intricacies of our English language, they have quite a way of writing that is engaging to follow; all far from stick-in-the-mud rule-followers.
Who are your favorite copyeditors and grammar writers? Share them in the comments below.
Comments