Updates and Brilliance in Editing: Real-Life Example of Breaking a Rule · 6:54pm Aug 15th, 2014
Just a quick little update as well as something that I noticed this morning on editing while reading.
So, the update: There are two more DG side stories coming. I'll probably get the editing for the first of them done this Saturday, and then posted sometime after that at the current schedule, the other might go up after I come back from another fall shrimp fishing trip (because with the current state of my finances, I'll need it). I do need to get covers for both done, however (anyone interested, btw?).
Colony continues to move forward, if I'm lucky I'll have it done and out this fall. We'll see, it's quite long—probably the length of "Rise" or longer, and is definitely going to have more action than any of my stories so far. There will be a heavier editing process with this one, as it will require some cleanup. IMO, I'm not as good at writing sci-fi as I am fantasy, but that's all right. And after that, I think that along with continued word on "Beyond the Borderlands" I'll start work in earnest on Empire, which has had a few breakthroughs for me as of late and is shaping up to be a pretty awesome standalone fantasy novel. If you want any more on what Empire is going to be like, well, the only teaser I'll offer at this point is that the original premise came from me imagining a fantasy-epic western fight scene set to this song.
Alright, that should be it for updates. I've been pretty busy but I think I've covered everything.
Okay, so this editing thing I mentioned. I was reading a newish Timothy Zahn book this morning and came across this bit of text (be aware the formatting isn't what it is on the book page):
But Eanjer was right. They knew plenty of people who were.
And with 163 million credits on the line . . .
"I need to make a call," he said, lowering his mug and pulling out his comlink.
The setting and premise here isn't important. What caught my eye was the numbers. 163 million. Because normally, and indeed for the other mentions of the money in the book, 163 is written out in full as "one hundred and sixty-three million" rather than the number. Which, in a novel, is the correct method.
So why in this one line was this done differently? I came up with two possibilities:
The first is that it was just an honest mistake on the editor's part. Not so uncommon, even for a big-ticket NYT Bestseller author like Zahn. A lot of errors, typos and other issues slip by editors in books simply because editing is hard, mind numbing work. It's just that most of the time we as readers ignore them or assume that it wasn't an error because, hey, we paid for this (or someone did, in any case).
But this is a pretty obvious one, so despite that fact (common occurrence of errors in published work), it didn't seem as likely. This was an immediately visible "error."
Unless it wasn't. And that was when I saw the second, much more likely option: it had been deliberately left that way as not to break the flow of the page.
We don't see it here because I'm quoting, but what we have is a short line (two sentences), a longer line (163 million) and then a line that takes two lines. Visually, on the page, it's very appealing to look at. The middle line, with it's extended ellipsis, draws the eye to linger on it, increasing the allure and focus on the number for the reader and allowing it to weigh on the reader's mind the way it does for the character.
It's brilliant. Extending the line with the proper words would break the effect and the formatting, making the line longer than the one following it, and losing that subtle effect.
My money is that Zahn's editor knew this, as did Zahn, which is why the line stayed the way it did. Is it incorrect? Yes. Did they break the rules? Yes. But in doing so, they made a single, somewhat innocuous line work far better than it would have otherwise.
I've mentioned knowing the rules to break them, and this is a solid evidence. While there's a chance it was in error, it's far more likely that this was deliberate, and it just goes to show that when writing a story in play, the rules are there as guidelines, not as laser-fencing.
Unfortunately, a lot of wannabe editors on the internet aren't aware of this fact, which is one reason I wanted to point this out today.
Have a great weekend everyone!
Neat little trick, and certainly so for seeing an example in action.
"Whoa! Now I is learned and can use numbers to write easy cause it make look good! Thank!"
:T
In all seriousness, this is a neat-o piece of information I hadn't considered previously. Good work, sir. I pray it does not fall onto ears as exampled above.
Very interesting. But does that mean that when you (or if not you, some authors at least) are writing and/or editing, you have the story formatted to look like it will when it's printed?
I know you wrote this to be about the advice, but I only really saw one thing in here:
Did...did you read my mind or something? Like, I have wanted to see high fantasy mixed with western for a while now. The idea of juxtaposing a lot of the core tropes and ideas of two of my fave genres...oh man. Gives me goosebumps.
Your wider point stands, but keep in mind also that "write out large numbers" isn't a rule of grammar, it's a rule of the publisher's internal style guide, and the style guide may have exceptions (or be agnostic!) to the rule in question. These exceptions can lead to the byzantine. For example, the Associated Press guide (used by newspapers) says, if memory serves, that one spells out numbers under 10, and uses numerals for numbers 10 or over, unless the number starts a sentence, in which case you spell it out no matter how long it is, unless it's currency, in which case you use numerals prefixed by the currency symbol (unless it's a currency symbol that attaches to the end of the number), unless it's … gods I don't even remember what the rule is for something like "$136 million".
Meanwhile, the average reader isn't going to pay one single bit of attention to it, as long as nothing is misspelled.
That reinforces your main point, I think — know what the rule is, and know what the purpose of the rule is, and then if applying the rule does not serve that purpose, or breaks something more important in the process, throw it out. In this case, the style guide is in place to provide consistency. If breaking it is able to make a line more effective by lending visual emphasis, at the cost of it being a little different from other numbers in the work, then breaking it is the right thing to do.
2372889
No, not usually. What likely happened is that when the formatting for the book was being done, they noticed how odd the line looked and then changed it.
2373026
Well, it'll be a bit before I can start work on it yet, but it's going to be sweet.
2373084
As I pointed out, the rest of the book uses the long format. This moment is an exception.
And as far as publishing standards go, the example you've pointed out is a journalism standard, which carries two primary focus points: as much information as possible in as little space as possible.
A typical book publisher will not follow journalism standards, as journalism writing and purpose is very different from writing for fiction (unless you're writing a news article inside a fiction work). In fiction, even among various styles, typically most numbers such as funds will be written out long style (this is one reason some grammar nuts on this site really bug me, they go by journalism spelling and grammar rules, not other English schools).
But even if they are not for one style or another, internal consistency is usually the rule (like you said). The less consistent you are, the more jarring it is for the reader. The use of "Guard" in TDG instead of "guard" to denote a member of the Royal, Night, or Dusk Guard, for instance, is a choice based on the work, and though technically incorrect, is consistent within the entirety of the work. This use violated both consistency, pre-established standard, and general editing guidelines of the work, but to serve a higher purpose than even that.
Well, when I edit, I'll continue to point out each and every 'mistake'... and if it's on purpose and has good effects to compensate for breaking the rules... the author can decide that.
But it's good to still point it out, just to be sure it wasn't a mistake.
2374399
It's all well and fine until the editor refuses to relent on that fact. That's when the problems inevitably arise.
The fact that you would listen to the author's case and say "oh, well that makes sense" already puts you above a good number of internet editors.
2373589
I think at this point we're vehemently agreeing, so I'll thank you for pointing out a useful tip and get back to my writeoff story.