Stop defacing quotes with brackets
slate.com
Stop defacing quotes with brackets
1–10 of 206 posts
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#2This does not address the primary way I (ab?)use these brackets: to fill in the subject explicitly when the original author refers to it only implicitly.
So quoting the last clause in the above paragraph, I might write
> when the author refers to [the subject] only implicitly.
The obvious alternative is to quote a longer passage. Maybe this is one of those cases where conciseness fights with authenticity.
Another solution might be to substitute in the subject and just not indicate it with brackets. That certainly reads easier, but risks hiding a common type of misunderstanding.
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#3Hard disagree, the shift in perspective from third-person to the first-person quote is jarring. You use the brackets to mold the quote into the grammatical context of the sentence that surrounds. Extra emphasis on the context of the grammar, as changing the overall context alters its message.
You can also use those brackets to cut out unnecessary/irrelevant/extraneous words. A necessity, sometimes, and one that is easy to misuse in a way that changes message or meaning.
> Then that someone would be a dolt who does not understand the basic rules of American English punctuation. Stop catering to such a person, who I hope is strictly imaginary!
Hey now, I am one of these people, and I most definitely exist!
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#4This does not address the primary way I (ab?)use these brackets: to fill in the subject explicitly when the original author refers to it only implicitly. So quoting the last clause in the above paragraph, I might write > when the author refers to [the subject] only implicitly. The obvious alternative is to quote a longer passage. Maybe this is one of those cases where conciseness fights with authenticity. Another sol…
Hopped on here to say exactly that! I've never seen it used the way the author describes, only the way you describe.
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#5Well, obviously don’t stop using them altogether; use them correctly.
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#6> I have been told that this bracketing fetish may come from academia, where formal rules of writing are a kind of hazing and where sounding faintly like a space alien could be mistaken for rigor. The academics are also wrong to do it. Presumably they believe it’s OK to vivisect quotations because the reader can always go to their footnotes and look up the original text to see what it actually says.
I disagree. The brackets are especially helpful if you quote partially and leave out parts of a paragraph and denote it with: [...]
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#7This does not address the primary way I (ab?)use these brackets: to fill in the subject explicitly when the original author refers to it only implicitly. So quoting the last clause in the above paragraph, I might write > when the author refers to [the subject] only implicitly. The obvious alternative is to quote a longer passage. Maybe this is one of those cases where conciseness fights with authenticity. Another sol…
Normally one should paraphrase. Quotes are reserved for special cases where that exact way something is said is essential for communicating the message. And the need to add []-blocks is evidence that it doesn't belong to that special class.
Edit: All you lazy copy-paste writers downvoting all the comments here that propose paraphrasing instead of quoting: I see you.
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#8Hard disagree, the shift in perspective from third-person to the first-person quote is jarring. You use the brackets to mold the quote into the grammatical context of the sentence that surrounds. Extra emphasis on the context of the grammar , as changing the overall context alters its message. You can also use those brackets to cut out unnecessary/irrelevant/extraneous words. A necessity, sometimes, and one that is e…
I'm sorry, but you are simply wrong. Quotes are, well, quotes, and if their grammar absolutely needs to be edited to fit your prose, then that means you shouldn't be using that quote.
Editing a quote should be done with grave solemnity -- you are changing someone else's words -- and only to clarify meaning that was disturbed when you extracted the quote from its natural context. Anything else can be handled in your prose.
(I don't consider snipping or eliding to be editing the quote, unless it is done deceptively to suggest something that was not present in the original. It's just a way to, essentially, make two quotations at once.)
If what you suggest was truly necessary, wouldn't most complex dialogue in fiction be incomprehensible? Yet it isn't... unless it gets mangled. As the article's Romeo and Juliet example clearly demonstrates.
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#9> I have been told that this bracketing fetish may come from academia, where formal rules of writing are a kind of hazing and where sounding faintly like a space alien could be mistaken for rigor. The academics are also wrong to do it. Presumably they believe it’s OK to vivisect quotations because the reader can always go to their footnotes and look up the original text to see what it actually says. I disagree. The b…
No No, I prefer the middle ramblings too. My reader should be thrown off track by irrelevant parts of what someone said. /s
Re: Stop defacing quotes with brackets
#10This does remind me that I really dislike when authors insert "sic" inside quotes.