generalizations

I guess I'm confused about the word generalization in recent posts. If you cannot make generalizations of audiences, speakers, discourses, people, etc., how do you know you have different audiences?

Many generalizations are subjective, and therefore open to debate. Generalizations do not always need to be assumed absolute. At some level, generalizations are an efficient way to begin to take in a large amount of information. Start with the big picture (or basic concepts), and then refine your understanding, ideas and opinions with more knowledge, awareness and critical thought.

Are positive generalizations necessarily bad too? As George Beetham, Jr. pointed out, we all have a lot in common. I agree with him that celebrating our differences is a good thing. If there were absolutely no differences among people and we were exactly the same, life would be pretty boring.

This is in no way intended to justify what Imus said, or excuse hurtful racist or sexist words/actions.

After I’ve completely overused the word generalization in one post—and made a few of my own—I have a question for the journalism majors: how are generalizations approached in your classes?

I having

I found a sentence I don't understand. The sentence is from a recent Scientific American article, "Sweet and Soiled Science," and I've reproduced the first paragraph here.

What makes the sap run? Because he or she wants to serve in Congress. Well, that's the first answer that springs to mind this autumn day just after the November elections, and we'll get back to that subject later. But a better answer deals with a better interpretation of the question--regarding maple syrup. That subject was also on my mind, I having recently returned from a trip to the Proctor Maple Research Center in Underhill Center, Vt., while attending the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists in Burlington.


Is the phrase "I having" in the third sentence correct? Is it just not a common form? It just didn't sit well.

more dirty words

I was listening to NPR, and this story comes on about a controversial word written on the first page of a new children's book: scrotum. At first I thought this was a little over exaggerated because scrotum is the anatomically correct name for a male body part, but I am not the parent of a third grader. The book is this year's Newbery Medal winner The Higher Power of Lucky by Susan Patron (story link). The author explained that the word was crucial to the overall meaning of the rest of the story, and was not just used to push the envelope of what words are acceptable.

I imagine that the word scrotum was discussed by the author, copyeditors, and editors before publication since it is children’s literature. The story got me thinking, and it seems to relate to Sarah's Risky Business post from last week on the role of diction in writing. I think this is another good example of how changing just one word could have far reaching consequences, and not only in copyeditor—author correspondence. A single word can change the message or vitality of a work, or can upset and offend readers, and this word doesn’t even have to be a four letter word.

Parentheses vs. em-dashes and commas

The text describes the use of parentheses for including additional information or enclosing asides (p. 149). On p. 151 em-dashes within a sentence are shown to describe “an abrupt change of thought.” The second em-dash example: “Everyone in the class—students and teachers—appreciated the joke” suggests that commas could be used instead because the students and teachers phrase explained the previous statement. Isn’t this including additional information, so technically couldn’t parentheses also be used?

Is there a standard such as using em-dashes within dialogue sentences and using parentheses within text? Is the choice of using parentheses/em-dashes/commas dictated by the editor’s style guide or is one option more preferable? I guess I'm just a little unsure about how the choice of specific punctuation can change the meaning or emphasis of a sentence.

(Sorry if this was already discussed Friday!)

Copyediting world

Coming from the engineering and science world, this class has been refreshing. There is a common stereotype of engineers: they may be able to design gravity-defying structures, but to have them write a paper on what they are doing is somewhat of a challenge. I heard the phrase “we’re engineers, why should we have to go to some English class?” more than a few times in my undergraduate classes, which leads to interesting collaborations for group reports. Of course, many engineers write well, usually in a clear and straightforward manner. One thing that I thought was interesting is that I think there is really a common ground between copyeditors and engineers that I want to try out on you, so here goes.

I got really excited when several other people admitted enjoying such a taboo thing like grammar trees, because secretly, I like them too. I got to thinking, and I realized that the reason I like grammar trees comes from the same (obsessive?) mechanism in my brain that makes me want to find the optimal solution to a problem. Both copyediting and engineering are problem solving jobs, where paying close attention to detail is crucial. It seems funny that with as many hours as an engineer will spend in front of an Excel spreadsheet, how much he/she/e might not want to spend making sure their report is well written. I suppose it’s just the type of problems we like to tackle. I see a potential bridge here…

I found some additional incentives to be a copyeditor: “Top 10 Reasons Why Being a Copy Editor Is So Cool”