But Can I Start a Sentence with "But"?: Advice from the Chicago Style Q&A

by University of Chicago Press, Carol Fisher Saller (Foreword)

“A wonderful blend of substance and snark—both a useful reference and a fun (yes, fun) read.”—Mignon Fogarty, New York Times-bestselling author of Grammar Girl’s Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing  Q. Is it happy medium or happy median?  A. The idiom is happy medium, but I like the image of commuters taking refuge from road rage on the happy median.   Every month, tens of thousands of self-declared word nerds converge upon a single The Chicago Manual of Style Online's Q&A. There the Manuals editors open the mailbag and tackle readers’ questions on topics ranging from abbreviation to word division to how to reform that coworker who still insists on two spaces between sentences.   Champions of common sense, the editors offer smart, direct, and occasionally tongue-in-cheek responses that have guided writers and settled arguments for more than fifteen years. But Can I Start a Sentence with But? brings together the best of the Chicago Style Q&A. Curated from years of entries, it features some of the most popular and hotly debated rulings, and also recovers old favorites long buried in the archives.   In addition, a foreword by Carol Fisher Saller, the Q&A’s longtime editor, takes readers through the history of the Q&A and addresses its reputation for mischief. Taken together, the questions and answers offer insights into some of the most common issues that face anyone who works with words—touching on editorial style—capitalization, punctuation, alphabetizing, special characters—as well as grammar, usage, and beyond. It’s a comforting reminder that even the best writer or editor needs a little help (and humor) sometimes.

Genres: Nonfiction, Writing, Reference, Language, Crafts, Books About Books

128 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 22, 2016

Reviews

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a long-time subscriber to the Q&A and a fan of The Subversive Copyeditor, I was eager to read this book as soon as I heard about it, appropriately enough, in one of the Q&A e-mails. I was also lucky enough to obtain a copy of it at a book-themed meeting in Chicago, which feels like the most suitable of circumstances. As all this lead-in might indicate, I was not disappointed, and even though I had read some of these queries before, the organization of them by topic makes this a useful reference and an engrossing read. It was apparent that the staff members who compiled these took much time and care selecting a useful array of issues, sprinkled with a few of the pithier responses that make the monthly column such an enjoyable read. (My all-time favorite was omitted, but the book did not suffer for this.) You could read this straight through for a quick refresher on your CMoS, as I did, but you should also plan to keep it on your shelf as a reference, as I will.

[Nancy · Rating 5 out of 5]

I rarely give five stars, but this book is in my editorial wheelhouse and is both helpful and funny. Might be one I need to purchase for my personal library . . . just because.

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can a grammar/usage/style book be "cute"? Usually not, but this one manages - well, at least if you’re into grammar/usage/style books.

This book is a short compilation of some questions and answers taken from the website of The Chicago Manual of Style. Basically, most of the answers tend towards advice along the lines of “follow common sense,” “do what makes the text most readable,” and “convention often outweighs logic.” But many of the answers are quite humorous, such as in this exchange:


Q. Is it “happy medium” or “happy median”? My author writes: “We would all be much better served as stewards of finite public funds if we could find that happy median where trust reigns supreme.” Thanks!

A. The idiom is “happy medium,” but I like the image of commuters taking refuge from road rage on the happy median.


Or this one:


Q. How do you spell out the sound of a scream? I’ve seen everything from “aaagh!” to “aahhh!” Please tell me there’s a limit to the number of times one can repeat letters!

A. There is a limit to the number of times one can repeat letters! Unfortunately, the limit is different in almost every case.


There is plenty of “actual” advice of course, such as guidance for citing URLs, illustrations, album names, abbreviations, and so on.

Evaluation: To be honest, unless you write, edit, or publish, you probably would not find this book all that essential for your happiness. Being kind of nerdy, however, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Rating: 3.5/5

[Kathy · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a gem! The editorial staff at the University of Chicago Press are not only bright, but wonderfully tongue-in-cheek! (Now I'm wondering if that should have been hyphenated...)

[Caroline · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fun selections from the Chicago Q&A. If you don't have time to scour the Q&A archives to see what's there, first, sign up for the monthly newsletter. Then read this book. It answers some of the most commonly asked questions the Q&A staff receive, many of which I was curious about but never got around to asking. The University of Chicago staff maintains their common-sense-above-all approach to editing and writing, and this book shows that many times over. And it does so with wit—I found myself giggling aloud on several occasions. This was one of my favorite questions and answers:

Q: Contracts often employ defined terms in quotes and parentheses, e.g., ABC Corp. (the "Seller") shall sell ten widgets to XYZ Corp. (the "Buyer"). When drafting such a contract, I always put a period after the close parenthesis if it is the end of the sentence, such as in the above example. But it's like listening to nails on a chalkboard to me to have a period essentially (ignoring the parenthetical) follow the period employed in an abbreviation. What do you recommend?
A: Yoga?

Another gem follows immediately after:

Q: How do you recover from a real proofreading blooper—the kind that has everyone in gales and is terribly embarrassing?
A: Naturally, we have very little experience with this. Is there absolutely no way to blame it on someone else? If not, you probably should keep a low profile until it blows over. Lucky for you, proofreaders automatically have a fairly low profile.

I also loved the snark in the "You Could Look It Up" section of chapter 7. I promise this book is actually helpful, too—not just jokes!

[Alice Wardle · Rating 5 out of 5]

'But Can I Start a Sentence With "But"?' by Carol Saller is an incredibly useful (and humorous) guide to editing styles and complex grammar conundrums. It is more so a book of humour than one of information, but I must say that it is faultless.

Some of the best advice from the book include:
- The Chicago Manual of Style is a set of respected guidelines, not hard and fast rules.
- Break a rule (as a last resort) if it makes the sentence easier to read and understand.
- Don't overthink commas
- Write for your audience and not copy editors who might scrutinise your writing

When I write, I concern myself with whether I am putting a comma in the exact, right place and whether or not I should use a dash or a semi colon; however, (to some degree) these are stylistic elements that are somewhat flexible. Go with the flow, fellow writers. Go with the flow.

[David Partikian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heavy on the snark and completely enjoyable. More fun than actually reading or referring to the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS). Who would have thought that style points could be so funny? Lynne Truss without Diazepam. Write the editors at the CMOS at your own risk. Spoiler alert: If you begin a letter touting your PhD in English and then confuse grammar terms, you will get the answer you deserve.

Exchanges like this are laugh-out-loud funny:

Q. Is there an acceptable way to form the possessive of words such as Macy’s and Sotheby's? Sometimes rewording to avoid the possessive results in less felicitous writing.
A. Less felicitous than Sotheby's's? I don't think so.

[Sirah · Rating 4 out of 5]

When the Chicago Manual of Style is unclear, writers can write in at the website, but sometimes the questions or answers are just a little unusual. I admit I was hoping this would be funnier, but I found a few that made me chuckle and a few that answered questions I'd been wondering about. I even confirmed a few things that I didn't realize had been bothering me. This is a quality resource if you're looking for answers to obscure questions, and it's also a fun thing to read over a few weeks' time.

[Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read several grammar books per year, but my favorite are ones like this: preaching pragmatism, cautioning against panic, not taking itself too seriously, guiding the writer to trust their instincts, and snark, lots and lots of snark. This one is overloaded with the latter, and therefore the funnest, and perhaps the most enjoyable, of them all.

[Mary Beth · Rating 4 out of 5]

But Can I is probably most useful to Chicago Manual of Style novices, but the point that flexibility in copyediting is surprisingly important—that rule-following should never be allowed to impede clarity—is well and wittily made here.

2017 Popsugar Reading Challenge (unbound to year)
20. A book with career advice.

[Dan Barr · Rating 4 out of 5]

More of an amusing look at the hazards of writing "correctly" than an actual guide or book of advice, it's still incredibly amusing and actually solved a couple of editing arguments I've had with my team.

[Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

So many writing guides are dull it just dry in tone. This one is witty in addition to being helpful.

[Suzanne Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's hard to imagine how a book on punctuation and style could be entertaining, but this is a hoot. Great for any editorial type with a snarky sense of humor.

[Correy Baldwin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this book expecting it to be a handy guide (and supplement to my much-used Chicago Manual of Style), but ended up reading it from cover to cover.

[Jessica · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recommend this delightful little book for CMOS editors who like their style guidelines with a side of snark.

[Anjela Bugher · Rating 4 out of 5]

A charming, quick read, probably of most interest to people who are deeply picky about grammar and style. (Ahem.)

[michaelben · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cheeky. Fun. Marginally useful.

[Sara Goldenberg · Rating 2 out of 5]

Informative in a fun way!

[Graphicskat · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was quite helpful but also really funny. I enjoyed reading the editors' snarky responses to some of the many questions that were included in the book. I learned a few things, too!

[Synthia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I now know that the Chicago Manual of Style has a Q&A section on their website and you can subscribe to alerts, for when new questions are posted.

[María · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brillante, pura actitud y sentido común.

[Tom · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a short collection of popular Q&As submitted to The Chicago Manual of Style's website, a fun and educational tutorial.

[Andrea (mrsaubergine) · Rating 5 out of 5]

Full of snark and handy advice. I'm sure CMoS could fill several volumes of these.

[Caleb Shenk · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fun read, full of wit and utility.

[Patty Gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fun book. I had to read it, I'm a freelance editor and I use Chicago style all the time.

[Jessi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was really surprised when I saw the page count of this book. On my ereader with the size of font I've chose, it was only 89 pages. Most books about editing and style are... well, super long. It was interesting to me. And I really liked that the author(s) talked about the fact that grammar is more fluid and based on personal choices than many of us would prefer to admit. I also really enjoyed the humor in this book (e.g. if only two people are ever likely to read a paper, maybe it's okay for them to agree on a specific abbreviation because, well, who will know?)
The Q&A format got a little tiring after a while but an amusing book in general.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very enjoyable. This is not an extensive grammar or usage guide—see the CMOS itself for that, as well as great references like Garner's Modern English Usage—but it's a good selection of thoughtful responses to some vexing questions. It's written for those who already have a strong grasp of the rules and want to explore a bit. I greatly appreciated that the editors viewed clarity and flow so highly, rating that above adherence to any strict rules one might construct. Plus they have a good sense of humor, as witnessed by their one-word response to the query "Can I use the first person?" I agreed with their prescriptions in every single case...

Except one!!! I am greatly distressed by their insistence that "symbols" are not repeated for numbers when there are spaces between the number and the "symbol." That is, Chicago style views "2 × 5 in" as correct and "2 in × 5 in" as incorrect. This is insane. As a physicist, I know every quantity with units must have them expressed, because if we carry out the math, 2 × 5 in = 10 in, whereas 2 in × 5 in = 10 square inches. The first is doubling a length, while the second is finding the area of a rectangle. I'm so distressed by this that I'm bolding, italicizing, and underlining the beginning of this paragraph, and using multiple terminal punctuation symbols in a row.

If Chicago style is allowed to be stupid on units, I'm allowed to do crazy things for emphasis.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

Giggles and good advice about grammar go hand-in-hand in this terrific sampler of the informative responses provided by the University of Chicago Press editorial staff to the flood of questions they receive from professionals and interested readers/writers. Great to dip into and to read out loud to long-suffering family and friends. I took away a number of useful examples to use in future...and headed off to the website to find out more.

[Chris]

If you are the type of person who thinks reading this will be fun, then yes, it will give you great joy. But also answer all your burning writing questions.

[Sachin K · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed it; it's a great reference book!