Punctuate Deliberately

By way of rhetorical question in her recent Word column in the Boston Globe, Jan Freeman tells us why she thinks today’s male writers hold disdain for the semicolon. They are insecure about a loss of masculinity in their profession, she says. We can’t fault Freeman for sexing the semicolon, but she goes too far when she gives women the mandate to choose the use of the mark in their prose because it is, as the fair sex, nuanced and complex. As if today’s male writers that eschew the mark are void of nuance and complexity?

To get to this point, Freeman reports on characterizations of the semicolon by Trevor Butterworth in 2005—the mark’s nuanced and complex. And she references semicolon-hater Vonnegut and punchy Hemingway to illustrate a semi-point by Ben McIntyre in the London Times: “Real men, goes the unwritten rule of American punctuation, don’t use semi-colons.”

If either gender uses the semicolon because of its complexity or because it’s been sexed, think of your readers. Would they benefit more from splitting up those independent clauses and giving each its due measure of detail? Or would they benefit more from slurring the clauses together with a middle-of-the-road mark? If the prose doesn’t benefit from more detail or a coordinating conjunction, it’s possible that the author is playing punctuation polemics instead of writing with intent, let alone nuance.

Though joining two independent clauses with the mark can be effective, that doesn’t mean it is. And to justify its use simply as a matter of taste, as Freeman concludes, brings us into a world of punctuation relativism. Subjectivity shouldn’t govern the mark’s use. That is, it shouldn’t be used for what it is, but for what it does case-by-case. As the semicolon can clarify—splitting elements in a list that contains internal punctuation—so can it perplex. The mark’s best used deliberately.

As always, excellent semicolon usage welcome in comments.

Busy Blogger Schraepfer parties, writes, deadline gripes

Though proof-reading on-site here has kept me busy, I still get to party (at a Mediabistro event with blogger colleague the Urban Muse, left) and write about jazz artists for Earshot Jazz in Seattle.

Time’s been the discussion at work recently. Two weeks ago I warned a super. that I’d be working overtime. I initiated the conversation to avoid that freelancer’s faux pas.

I’ve made noise about deadline and overtime for two reasons:
1. I’m asked to do more than what I’m compensated for
2. If they don’t want me to work overtime, we’ve got to permanently re-figure those deadlines

I was in danger of doing the same last week. Instead I asked for help adjusting deadlines, and then I went to Maine on Friday at noon.

Before I left for the weekend, I presented my own time-per-job-type targets and breached the subject with the copy chief that I’d been working beyond the scope of the job description. (Understand that one proofreader has been asked to review nearly 170 promotions per month by about a dozen copywriters, distributed by some dozen-or-so promotions managers, all with no prior enforcement of the company’s house style.) Now I’m to present a new job description, which might lead to a raise or a lighter work load or no change.

In the new job description, I’ll distinguish between proofreading and copyediting, two distinct jobs albeit with some overlapping responsibilities.

The aim of all this is to reach a sustainable pattern at work. With some rhythm, the place can turn away from recklessness in a little more than a year, and maybe I can turn away from hanging on to the hourly wage.

The end of full-time freelancing? As yet, not likely. I’m guarding my doubts and positioning for the next opportunity.