Having issues with colons

illiterwrite · Sep 16, 2008

I'm going through my copy edited ms and not sure I agree with some of the changes my copy editor has made to my sentences with colons & semi-colons.

1. Do you capitalize after a colon? I realize that it's accepted both ways, but to me it looks odd when you capitalize for a full sentence but use lower case for lists or sentence fragments, etc. And when it looks odd, it pulls me out of the story, and I don't think that's ever a good thing.

2. He's changing some of my semi-colons to colons. A recent example:

His windows are open: She is so close he can hear the soft squeak of her flat shoes on the pavement.

My original:

His windows are open; she's so close he can hear the soft squeak of her flat shoes on the pavement.

I've reworked it so that the colon/semi-colon isn't necessary, but is his version really correct?

blacbird · Sep 16, 2008

I disagree with the change to a colon. The semi-colon is properly used here, although it could be split into two sentences with a period equally well. But the colon version just seems wrong to me.

caw

illiterwrite · Sep 16, 2008

Thanks. I obviously disagree too, but there are many changes like this.

blacbird · Sep 16, 2008

For reasons unclear to me, the use of the semi-colon has become frowned on by many editors, to the point that some seem to consider it just plain incorrect. But in this instance, the colon seems incorrect to me. And I use semi-colons on occasion, and will defend their use when appropriate.

caw

FennelGiraffe · Sep 16, 2008

The capitalization could be a matter of house style and not worth fighting over.

As for the colon use in your second question. It isn't grammatically incorrect. A colon can be used that way when the following item is an elaboration of the preceding (technically, an appositive). But I don't see that really applying in this particular case.

I also find it interesting that the contraction was removed. Both changes strike me as rather formal and more typical of nonfiction, even academic, writing. It's just a hunch, but does this copy editor have much experience working with fiction?

Maryn · Sep 16, 2008

I agree that in that instance, the semicolon is both correct and preferred. However, I think the editor can make a case for his/her way, too, dang it.

Trotting out my favorite grammar book (The St. Martin's Handbook), it says colons are used to introduce a sentence that is an explanation, example, or appositive of what precedes it... Later, it adds that a colon should be used only at the end of an independent clause and [C]apitalization of a sentence following a colon is optional. Your example as 'corrected' by the editor meets all these criteria.

That said, though, I'm on your side. My grammar book also says Use semicolons to link independent clauses. You can join independent clauses in several ways: with a comma and a coordinating conjunction, with a colon, with a dash, or with a semicolon. Semicolons provide writers with subtle ways of signaling closely related clauses: the second clause often restates an idea expressed in the first. To me, that's exactly what your example does.

If the editor is an employee of a publisher that's paying you, then s/he's probably simply making your ms. conform to house style. So long as the check clears, let 'em. But if this is a private editor helping you get the ms. in its best possible shape, then I would stick with the semi-colon and lower case, which is not only your (and my) preference but is not incorrect, simply one of the valid options.

Maryn, capable of sounding all hoity-toity

rugcat · Sep 16, 2008

Maryn said:
I agree that in that instance, the semicolon is both correct and preferred. However, I think the editor can make a case for his/her way, too, dang it.

I agree. What's interesting to me is that the tone, the style of the two examples is subtly yet clearly different.

I rather like the use of a colon here, but that's entirely a matter of personal taste. I don't care much for a copy editor changing the tone of what I've written, myself.

Btw, I use semicolons all the time and have never had an editor change one.

longoverdue · Sep 16, 2008

Maryn said:
Trotting out my favorite grammar book (The St. Martin's Handbook), it says colons are used to introduce a sentence that is an explanation, example, or appositive of what precedes it...
But it wasn't and example, explanation or appositive of "his window was open." I disagree with the edit completely. Sounds like we're all on your side. But, that said, I do agree with Maryn about in-house: (and this is an explanation!) if they're giving you the check, let them change it.....

longoverdue · Sep 16, 2008

Hey, that's weird! It deleted the quote box around Maryn's quote. It left the blip above, indicating the quote...but no quote. For the record, that was a quote of Maryn's hard research there, ladies and gentlemen.

Julie Worth · Sep 16, 2008

The colon thing is stylistic. You should have it your way if this is a novel. If it's a magazine piece, you might have to defer to the house style.

illiterwrite · Sep 16, 2008

The copy editor in question used to work higher up in one of the big publishing houses here in Canada. He was largely in non-fiction, I believe, which could explain why he's removing all my contractions. And when I say ALL, I do mean all -- except when used in dialogue.

Thanks for all your input. I was starting to think I was crazy. I know I over-use semi-colons, but some of his changes really irk me.

I don't think the colon thing is a house style, since I didn't run into this with my last book.

Silver King · Sep 16, 2008

illiterwrite said:
...He was largely in non-fiction, I believe, which could explain why he's removing all my contractions. And when I say ALL, I do mean all -- except when used in dialogue.

I experienced something similar recently while working with a well known magazine. After agreeing to several changes I wasn't comfortable with, the editor then insisted I remove contractions in place of using periods. This would've upset the flow of the piece in dramatic fashion, which was intended to be fast-paced in certain places. I held my ground and refused to agree to those changes. Eventually the managing editor became involved.

Things went downhill from there, and I pulled the piece. Even if I don't sell the story to anyone else, it had already morphed into something entirely different than I had intended in the hands of that editor, so it's no great loss to me.

After a month or so, I received a call advising they were still interested in running the piece. I told them I'd agree if they removed my name as the author and instead used the editor's name in the byline. That didn't go over too well.

Hey, I don't write for a living, so I can afford to be a prima donna when it comes to my work.

cara k · Sep 17, 2008

I don't blame you, Silver King. And I think you were totally right, Illiterwrite. Imo, part of an editor's job is to make changes/suggestions while maintaining the author's voice.

Personally, I don't like to see a capital letter after a colon. But if I were editing something with an appropriate capital letter after it, I'd inform the author that either way is acceptable, as long as there is consistency. I wouldn't automatically change it without a valid reason. And I would definitely have gone with the semicolon.

Ms Hollands · Sep 17, 2008

I can only add my vote for you're right and he's wrong. Is he approachable? Could you ask him for his reasoning behind it without him getting defensive?

ideagirl · Sep 17, 2008

illiterwrite said:
1. Do you capitalize after a colon? I realize that it's accepted both ways, but to me it looks odd

Looks odd to me too. I don't capitalize after a colon, unless what follows is a quote (Here's what he said: "Yada yada yada."), or of course if there's some other reason to capitalize (e.g. if the first word after the colon is a proper noun). Here's a site that discusses--scroll down a little bit--when to capitalize after a colon: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/colon.htm
Note that the key is NOT consistency: the goal is not to either always or never capitalize after a colon. Sometimes it's appropriate, sometimes not.

illiterwrite said:
His windows are open: She is so close he can hear the soft squeak of her flat shoes on the pavement.

Ack, no, that's completely wrong. I can't imagine what justification he has for making that change. Your sentence is a classic example of where to use a semicolon: to separate two closely related independent clauses, where the second is related to, but NOT an example of, the first. Here's a sentence of that type: "My grandmother seldom goes to bed this early; she's afraid she'll miss out on something." I got that from a different page on the same website: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/marks/semicolon.htm
It explains, quite clearly I think, how this works: "The semicolon allows the writer to imply a relationship between nicely balanced ideas without actually stating that relationship. (Instead of saying because my grandmother is afraid she'll miss out on something, we have implied the because."

Think of it this way: the first clause (pre-colon or semicolon) is X, the second (post-colon or semicolon) is Y. Is Y an example of X? Use a colon. Is Y a quote introduced by X? Use a colon. Is X there only to focus the listener's/reader's attention on Y (as in, "Remember: We have to win this game!")? Use a colon. HOWEVER... is Y the reason for or the cause of X (e.g. the grandmother sentence above)? Semicolon. Is X the reason for or the cause of Y ("I got mugged last year; ever since, I've been scared to go outside alone.")? Semicolon. In your sentence, X (the open windows) is the reason (or one of the reasons) for Y (his ability to hear her shoes on the pavement). So, semicolon.

Who is this copyeditor, by the way? I mean, where'd you come by him?

ideagirl · Sep 17, 2008

longoverdue said:
Maryn said:

Trotting out my favorite grammar book (The St. Martin's Handbook), it says colons are used to introduce a sentence that is an explanation, example, or appositive of what precedes it...
But it wasn't and example, explanation or appositive of "his window was open."

Click to expand...

Exactly.

And while capitalizing after a colon is probably not big enough to bother about, as for the other change, even if this is the in-house copyeditor at some publisher, I wouldn't necessarily let it go. Here's why: even assuming it's correct to use a colon there (which is debatable), between two choices, both of which are grammatically correct, THE AUTHOR WINS. That's how it should work, anyway, for the simple reason that there are often subtle tonal differences or even pacing differences between the two correct options, and choosing what tone to take or what pacing to use is the author's job, not the frigging copyeditor's job. (And hell, for that same reason, sometimes a grammatically incorrect sentence should stay in there--it may be more suited to the narratorial voice than the correct version would be.)

I say "frigging" copyeditor because I was monumentally annoyed once when a short-short of mine got published with different line breaks than the ones in the original. Both versions were technically correct, but the line breaks in the original created a different feel--they underscored the main character's slightly stunned, traumatized feelings--whereas the published version made everything just run together like mush.

ideagirl · Sep 17, 2008

illiterwrite said:
The copy editor in question used to work higher up in one of the big publishing houses here in Canada. He was largely in non-fiction, I believe, which could explain why he's removing all my contractions. And when I say ALL, I do mean all -- except when used in dialogue.

Oh christ. What a jackass. I'm sorry, but if he's trying to turn a novel into a nonfiction book (voice-wise, anyway), he's a jackass. Or, to avoid swearwords and communicate with greater precision, let me say this: he's utterly tone-deaf when it comes to the music of language.

That's a big problem, in an editor. If you hired him, either fire him or make him do it your way.

illiterwrite · Sep 17, 2008

Well, I don't think he's a jackass. Most of his suggestions so far have been helpful and have tightened up the book, and for that I'm grateful. I WAS starting to doubt myself though, so thank you all for reassuring me. I do have final say in whatever changes are made. I'll find a way to question him about the changes I find more confusing (either directly in the ms or by email).

ErylRavenwell · Sep 18, 2008

ideagirl said:
Oh christ. What a jackass. I'm sorry, but if he's trying to turn a novel into a nonfiction book (voice-wise, anyway), he's a jackass. Or, to avoid swearwords and communicate with greater precision, let me say this: he's utterly tone-deaf when it comes to the music of language.

That's a big problem, in an editor. If you hired him, either fire him or make him do it your way.

Who hires editor anyway? From my POV, they are pretty useless. I prefer to retain full control of my work. The editor attached to the publishing house is another story, of course.

Back to the topic in question. Avoid colons and especially semi-colons in fiction. They are unnecessary distractions to readers. All you need to write good fiction are the humble comma and period, and the dash—sparingly—for emphasis. However, you need to learn about all punctuation marks to understand their individual weaknesses and strengths.

And the editor is clearly wrong on this one. To know whether you should use the colon or the semi-colon, you must first determine the relationship between the two clauses.
If the second second clause only adds to a thought previously expressed in the first clause, then you use the semi-colon. If the second clause answer a question hinted in the first, then you use the colon.

Tom is sick: He has the flu.

Tom is sick; his mother is administering him antibiotics.

Carmy · Sep 18, 2008

Colon-use problems AND no contractions at all?

I'd be contacting his boss to let him know what the editor is doing. It sounds as if he's still in non-fiction mode and shouldn't be working on fiction.

ideagirl · Sep 18, 2008

ErylRavenwell said:
If the second second clause only adds to a thought previously expressed in the first clause, then you use the semi-colon. If the second clause answer a question hinted in the first, then you use the colon.

Tom is sick: He has the flu.

Tom is sick; his mother is administering him antibiotics.

I would use semicolons in both those sentences; there is no rule under which a semicolon in the first sentence would be "wrong," and it flows better. Where either would be technically correct, I decide like this: colons stop the reader a microsecond longer than semicolons do, and they thereby draw attention to what follows ("Remember: We have to win this game!"). If that's an effect I want, I'll use a colon. But if I want the sentence to flow together more, I'll use a semicolon.

In the above example, there's nothing so special about "he has the flu" that it needs to have attention drawn to it. In fact, it looks odd to me to have a colon there: where you're just giving more detail about what you already said in the first clause ("Tom is sick"), a semicolon is generally the way to go. If the second clause were an example of what you just said in the first, though, as opposed to an explanation of it, a colon would work well: "Tom is constantly getting sick: he's had the flu, a cold, bronchitis, and laryngitis just in the last year alone." But as you can tell by this thread, the differences are subtle and people don't always agree. "Tom is sick: he has the flu" is probably technically correct, but not preferable because a semicolon there is also correct and, as I said, there's nothing so special about having the flu that it merits the extra stop and extra attention. If you were saying "Tom is sick: he has cancer," it might be another story...

illiterwrite · Sep 18, 2008

There are some contractions allowed, but most of them have been changed. In some cases, I think it reads well; in others, it interrupts the rhythm and flow of the sentence.

How about em dashes vs. ellipsis? I use em dashes to signify interrupted speech, which he has replaced with ellipses. Is this also a matter of personal preference?

Dawnstorm · Sep 18, 2008

KTC said:
I use the dashes for interrupted speech too. I use ellipses if the speaker changes flow, or loses track of what they are saying.

Seconded.

ErylRavenwell · Sep 18, 2008

ideagirl said:
I would use semicolons in both those sentences; there is no rule under which a semicolon in the first sentence would be "wrong," and it flows better. Where either would be technically correct, I decide like this: colons stop the reader a microsecond longer than semicolons do, and they thereby draw attention to what follows ("Remember: We have to win this game!"). If that's an effect I want, I'll use a colon. But if I want the sentence to flow together more, I'll use a semicolon.

In the above example, there's nothing so special about "he has the flu" that it needs to have attention drawn to it. In fact, it looks odd to me to have a colon there: where you're just giving more detail about what you already said in the first clause ("Tom is sick"), a semicolon is generally the way to go. If the second clause were an example of what you just said in the first, though, as opposed to an explanation of it, a colon would work well: "Tom is constantly getting sick: he's had the flu, a cold, bronchitis, and laryngitis just in the last year alone." But as you can tell by this thread, the differences are subtle and people don't always agree. "Tom is sick: he has the flu" is probably technically correct, but not preferable because a semicolon there is also correct and, as I said, there's nothing so special about having the flu that it merits the extra stop and extra attention. If you were saying "Tom is sick: he has cancer," it might be another story...

"Tom is sick: He has the flu" does answer a question about the nature of Tom's sickness. What sickness? He has the flu. It can only be a colon. What comes after the colon is also fairly predictable. He has a disease. Pretty obvious if the exact nature of the disease is omitted. This is how I know for sure you should use a colon.

"Tom is sick; Sarah is tending to him" is radically different. The second clause is simply addressing a thought previously expressed in the initial clause. "Sarah is tending to him" is almost impossible to predict.

ideagirl · Sep 19, 2008

ErylRavenwell said:
"Tom is sick: He has the flu" does answer a question about the nature of Tom's sickness. What sickness? He has the flu. It can only be a colon.

Your argument is based on an incorrect premise: "Where the second clause explains the first, it must be separated from the first by a colon." That premise is simply not true, as several previous examples on this thread--some of them with cites to websites on grammar and punctuation--have demonstrated.

Having issues with colons

illiterwrite

blacbird

illiterwrite

blacbird

FennelGiraffe

It's green they say

Maryn

I Tried

rugcat

Lost in the Fog

longoverdue

longoverdue

Julie Worth

What? I have a title?

illiterwrite

Silver King

Megalops Erectus

cara k

Ms Hollands

Cow lover

ideagirl

ideagirl

ideagirl

illiterwrite

ErylRavenwell

Carmy

ideagirl

illiterwrite

Dawnstorm

punny user title, here

ErylRavenwell

ideagirl