Q. Dear Sir or Madam: At paragraph 2.69 you say “To point out repetition.” And at paragraph 2.70 you talk about “inadvertent repetition.” I want to know what the repetition is like. In Japan, we don’t usually talk about repetition as a problem of publishing.
A. In English, repetition is sometimes useful for emphasis, but it can become a problem when a sentence or passage is repeated accidentally, when a point or argument is made more often than necessary, or when a word or phrase is used so often that it becomes distracting or tiresome. In these cases, we advise editing.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. My copyeditor has changed “as described below” to “as described following” and has changed “as noted above” to “as noted before.” Is my usage correct, or at least acceptable? I have never seen the usage the copyeditor has suggested. Is this usage becoming a trend, and what does CMOS think about it? Thank you.
A. Your usage is correct and acceptable; your editor’s changes are awkward and unidiomatic. Some overeager editors remove directions like above and below in the fear that once the text in question is typeset it might end up directly across on a facing page or at the top of a page overleaf, in which case the terms above and below will not be literally true. If your pointers refer to illustrations (whose positioning is beyond your control), such precautions are reasonable. Otherwise, it’s silly to think that readers don’t understand that above means “before” and below means “after.” One way to negotiate this might be to consider whether phrases like “as described below” or “as noted above” are truly needed. They suggest a writer who doesn’t trust his readers to keep reading or remember what they’ve read.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. This problem came up when copyediting a journal: on a page that is occupied by a broadside image and has a single footnote (to the caption of the image), should the footnote be oriented the same as the image and caption (i.e., 90 degrees from normal), or should it stay as regular?
A. It’s not usual to footnote a caption rather than simply run the note into the caption with “Note:” in front of it, so you won’t find a rule for this in CMOS. But to compound the oddity by having two strings of text at right angles to each other is probably not a good idea. It’s almost always best, if possible, to set all the type on a page in such a way that it can be read continuously without turning the book.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. When listing page reference numbers for image credits at the back of a book, should the vertical list of page numbers default to the left or to the right? E.g., if page number 9 appears above page number 16, would the 9 appear above the 1 or above the 6? If page number 85 appears above page number 123, would the 8 appear above the 1 or above the 2 of 123?
A. You will find this done every which way. Generally, the right-alignment of numbers in a vertical list is important only when the numbers are quantities that might be tallied, such as in a table column. If the numbers include a decimal point, they may be aligned on the point instead of on the rightmost digit. When the numbers are enumerators, alignment is an aesthetic issue that is usually decided by a graphic designer.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I publish memoirs. One of my authors wants to include selected blurbs and reviews as part of the front matter. I’ve seen this done in other books under the heading “Advance praise for this book” or a similar heading. My questions to CMOS are (1) is it appropriate to include blurbs and reviews as part of the front matter, and (2) if so, where should they be placed? Thanks.
A. Many publishers include such blurbs. As you say, you’ve seen them yourself. Academic/scholarly publishers rarely do this; hence CMOS is silent. At a bookstore or library you can look at the latest memoirs to learn what’s in fashion.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I work at a university press, and during a meeting of project editors we had a disagreement about the correct placement of the glossary. CMOS recommends that the glossary appear between the notes and bibliography. Although we’ll accept this as your final answer, our question is why? Thank you!
A. Like many of the rules in CMOS, this one was begotten lo those many years ago. In an early edition of the manual, the glossary was placed just so, and then that edition begat the next. The next edition begat the following one, and the following one begat the one after, and so on down unto these very days. Obviously, someone at the dawn of time thought it was a good idea, and no one in all the generations since has found reason to mess with it. And so that is why.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I wrote a novel, and in the story there’s a fictitious newspaper that I made up. The Gazette. Repeat, not a real newspaper. When a friend reviewed the novel, she said I should italicize it, like real newspapers. Should I?
A. Yes, the fake newspaper should be italic. The world you are creating in your novel is supposed to seem real. You don’t want to pull readers out of that world by labeling some items in it fake.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. I enjoy reading the monthly Q&A. The answers often seem to tell the questioners to use some common sense, that there isn’t one right answer necessarily for every situation, and that comprehensibility trumps consistency and being a stickler. Certainly, though, there are times when there is a right answer. Do you have a philosophy or recommendations for how to distinguish those situations from the rest?
A. We’re working on an app for that; meanwhile, you’ll have to trust your judgment.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. It has always been my understanding that in a table published in a book, the table source and footnotes should be in the same font and type size. Your table examples would seem to corroborate that, but I’m experiencing some push-back about this at work. Am I right, or is there more leeway than I thought?
A. Although in matters of design there are few unbreakable rules, a consistent style is probably the best choice for table notes and sources, since (1) they are the same kind of information and don’t benefit from being distinguished, and (2) normally they aren’t meant to be eye-catching or decorative. Varying their style would merely be design for the sake of design.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]
Q. Is it okay to use a quotation as a chapter title without enclosing the title in quotation marks or otherwise distinguishing it from other chapter titles that are not quotations? If so, must the quotation be explained, that is, associated with a source, in the text?
A. A quotation that has reached the status of cliché may go without quotation marks or attribution in a title: To Be or Not to Be; Practice Makes Perfect. Other quotations should be quoted. Although it’s standard practice not to attach source notes to display type like book or chapter titles, whenever readers would benefit from knowing the source of a quotation, the writer should explain either in the text or in a note.
[This answer relies on the 17th edition of CMOS (2017) unless otherwise noted.]