Last week I posted about the hyphenation table in CMOS 18. This week I want to talk about why it matters.
I recently finished reading a book I very much enjoyed, but one chapter halfway through took me out of the otherwise engrossing read. There was a certain term used throughout this chapter that wasn’t consistently written. The inconsistency even occurred in connecting paragraphs. One paragraph had the word written one way, and the following paragraph had the word written another. For the rest of the chapter (and the remainder of the book) I stopped dead in my tracks each time this word popped up, which was often because it was a central subject to this particular chapter. I found myself wishing whoever edited/proofread the book checked this word more carefully.
Returning to the subject of this post, CONSISTENCY is why following things such as the CMOS hyphenation table matters.
CMOS is an industry standard in the American publishing industry. It’s widely used, with many editors and proofreaders considering it their go-to reference. The hyphenation table helps them stay on the same page (heh).
Here’s an example. “Non” is a pretty common prefix that can be found in many different books. CMOS recommends closing up words with this prefix. “The protests were nonviolent.” “His terms were nonnegotiable.”
Let’s say you do a lot of reading and are an eagle eye like myself. Because so many in the publishing industry refer to CMOS, it’s probable that most books published these days are going to close up the majority of these “non” prefixes. But one day you, the eagle-eyed bookworm you are, are reading a book that often does close these “non” prefixes… but sometimes hyphenates the same ones. “His terms were nonnegotiable.” “His terms were non-negotiable.” When this happens you’re taken out of the book, on the prowl for other instances, finding yourself wondering which is right, left wanting more from the editing/proofreading… all because of the lack of consistency.
One of the first things I bring up when talking to potential clients is that I use CMOS to fall in line with industry standards and help ensure manuscripts are consistent. However, I also stress that I’m willing to forego certain CMOS guidelines in favor of what the author wants. After all, CMOS offers guidelines, not concrete rules. Again, the main idea is to ensure consistency across a manuscript. So if a client feels really strongly about their hyphen in “pseudo-technocrat,” it’s completely okay to leave it in there even though CMOS would leave it out. The key is to ensure this term (and other terms with the “pseudo” prefix) is consistently written with that hyphen everywhere it appears in the manuscript.
I’m Timothy, one of those eagle-eyed bookworms who obsessively checks pretty much every word I come across in a manuscript. I’m a fiction editor and proofreader always looking for new authors to work with. Feel free to reach out to me if you’re interested in working together (I provide free sample edits). My calendar is currently filled for the next few months, which is typical for me, so it’s best that we start chatting now in order to align our schedules.
Thanks for reading!
Timothy