Q. Here is something that I would ask you to consider for your style manual. Italic fonts in some word processors lean so far
over that it seems as if the italicized word and the next unitalicized word run together to make one word. If a second space
were placed after the italic word, it would be clearer. I realize that some spell checkers delete an added space at that point,
but that could be changed. Do you think my suggested solution is appropriate?
A. This is indeed a pesky problem (but less so now than just a few years ago, as fonts and the monitors and printers used to
read them have continued to improve). But since CMOS is geared toward the preparation of manuscripts for publication, which usually means that the manuscript will go to a typesetter
in the form of an electronic file, we cannot advise adding the extra space, which might show up in the published document
as (guess what?) an extra space. But thanks for writing. We’re always happy to consider the ideas of
our readers.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’m currently editing a manuscript for a children’s fiction book that has been
written in present tense. A few months back, when Americanizing another manuscript, I changed it from present tense to past
tense. Although I have no citable rule to back up my decision, I feel as if these books should be written in past tense. Present
tense just sounds odd for children’s fiction. Is this a paradigm that I should be willing to ignore,
or is there an arguable reason that I have this tendency? I would appreciate any rationale you have to offer.
A. The choice of tense is so personal, and so critical to a fiction writer’s purpose, that it would seem
rash to restrict an entire genre like children’s books to a single tense. Many excellent children’s
books have been written in the present tense. If you feel that the past tense would improve the book, however, rewrite a paragraph
or two and send it to the author for discussion.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. What are the margins used for book reviews in Turabian or Chicago style and where do I put my name?
A. Turabian recommends margins of one inch on all sides. If you have a title page, you can put your name under the title of
the review. If you do not have a separate page for the title, you can put your name in the upper right-hand corner of the
first page, above the title. If you are writing a review for publication in a journal, specifications might be available from
the editors of the journal. If you are writing a book report for school, your teacher may have rules for how the report should
be arranged. It’s a good idea to ask.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When the original author of a book has died and the original book is being revised by others, what is the best way to handle
this on the title page? Should the original author be mentioned at all?
A. Horrors! When writers die, others don’t get to grab their stuff and claim it belongs to them. The original
writer is the only one whose name is required on the title page; the revisers’ names are optional. If they want to be
on a title page, tell them to write their own stuff.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My group is reissuing a title that went out of print. In addition to all of the contents from the original edition, we are
adding a new foreword from an expert in the field, as well as a new piece by our president (who is not the author). Her 2011
reflections will be published in addition to her original piece that opened the 1995 book. Can a book contain three forewords?
What else can we call these opening pieces?
A. A book can contain three forewords, or you can get creative with other labels if you’re so inspired:
“A Note from the President, 1995,” for instance, and similarly for the 2011 note.
If the book doesn’t already have an introduction, the expert’s foreword could
be given that title. Any piece not written by the author of the book should have either a byline at the beginning or a signature
at the end.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Hi—I am editing an engineering book where the author has used figures in footnotes. I have gone through
your suggestion on numbering figures appearing in a preface to a book as figure P.1. Can we number figures in footnotes as
figure FN1.1 (for chapter 1)? The same question arises for figures in problems (P1.1 for the first figure in problems in chapter
1).
A. Unless you have several figures in a footnote, it would be simplest to leave the figure unnumbered and refer instead to the
note number (chap. 1, n. 3). If you have more than one figure in a note, you could label them A, B, etc. (chap. 1, n. 3, fig.
B), starting over at A for each note. If your problems set is a separate section at the end of the chapter, there is no need
for special numbering; just continue with that chapter’s numbering. If the problems are interspersed
and set off from the text somehow (with frames or shading), their figures can remain unnumbered or be labeled A, B, and so
forth, and references can be to the problem number (chap. 1, prob. 3, fig. A).
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I am using the double-numeration system recommended for heavily illustrated books (e.g., 4.1 for chapter 4, illustration
1). My problem is that there are two figures in the book’s preface, which comes before an introduction
without illustrations. Numbering such as P.1 or 0.1 could look awkward. How might I number those illustrations?
A. Both of your suggestions are commonly used. Neither is very pretty, but they are practical.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. In CMOS 2.54 you recommend Webster’s Third New International Dictionary and call the Collegiate its “abridgment.” However, they sometimes disagree, which one wouldn’t expect from a true abridgment. (An example is “fire fighter” and “firefighter.”) Does the Third New International always trump the Collegiate when both contain the same word but with different spellings?
A. In fact, the Collegiate is more up-to-date than the Third. But the free dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com is more up-to-date than the Collegiate (on which it was originally based). And Merriam-Webster Unabridged (online only) is more up to date than the Third (which it succeeds). In some cases, this matters. But in vetting an issue like the spelling of a compound, where the goal is consistency rather than “correctness,” the right dictionary to use can simply be the one that’s close at hand.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I have to convert author-date references into notes and bibliography style for a publisher. The author has included a list
of references at the end of each chapter, which I intend to retain. My problem is that every time I insert an endnote (in
place of a text citation), I end up typing the details after the list of references, which looks kind of odd. Is that okay? Will the typesetter take care of it later? Please let me know.
A. The typesetters will do as they’re told. Ask your assigning editor whether you are responsible for
making it clear or whether she will do that herself.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I’ve always indented all paragraphs of my work. But some people in my writers’
group take away the first indention at the beginning of a story or chapter. Which is the correct way in formatting a manuscript?
A. Either way is fine. Your friends are doing the designer’s and typesetter’s work
in anticipation of typesetting, since most printed texts feature a flush first paragraph. But this is a design decision, and
a writer needn’t assume that the decision has already been made.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]