{"id":1334,"date":"2003-10-06T13:58:26","date_gmt":"2003-10-06T17:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/nateptest\/2003\/10\/06\/consistency\/"},"modified":"2003-10-06T13:58:26","modified_gmt":"2003-10-06T17:58:26","slug":"consistency","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/2003\/10\/06\/consistency\/","title":{"rendered":"Consistency"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

Two quotes from Louis Menand’s New Yorker<\/span> review of the new edition (15th) of the Chicago Manual of Style<\/span>, which I have been coveting….<\/p>\n

“Some people will complain that the new ‘Chicago Manual’ is too
\nlong.  These people do not understand the nature of style. 
\nThere is, if not a right way, a best way to do every single thing, down
\nto the proverbial dotting of the ‘i.’  Relativism is fine for the
\nbig moral questions, where we can never know for sure; but in arbitrary
\nrealms like form and usage even small doses of relativism are
\nlethal.  The ‘Manual’ is not too long.  It is not long
\nenough.  It will never be long enough.  The perfect manual
\nof style would be like the perfect map of the world: exactly
\ncoterminous with its subject, containing a rule of every word of every
\nsentence.  We would need an extra universe to accommodate it. 
\nIt would be worth it.”<\/p>\n

“First of all, it is time to speak some truth to power in this country: Microsoft Word is a terrible program<\/span>. 
\nIts terribleness is of a piece with the terribleness of Windows
\ngenerally, a system so overloaded with icons, menus, buttons and
\nincomprehensible Help windows that performing almost any function means
\nentering a treacherous wilderness of  pop-ups posing alternatives
\nof terrifying starkness: Accept\/Decline\/Cancel; Logoff\/Shut
\nDown\/Restart; and the mysterious Do Not Show This Warning Again. 
\nYou often feel that you’re not ready to make a decision so unalterable;
\nbut when you try to make the window go away your machine emits an angey
\nbeep.  You double-click.  You triple-click.  Beep beep beep beep beep<\/span>.  You are being held for a fool by a chip.”<\/p>\n

He then goes on to discuss Word’s propensity to get in the way. 
\nEspecially funny are the bit about the paper clip (“Never, btw [which,
\nunlike “poststructuralism,” is a word in Word spellcheck] ask that
\nandrogenous paperclip anything.  S\/he is just a stooge for
\nmanagement, leading you down more rabbit holes of options….”) and the
\nblue underlining of URLs, which he notes, “There is undoubtedly a way
\nto reset this, but it is deep within the bowels of the machine, guarded
\nby dozens of angry pop-ups.  Microsoft wants <\/span>you to go on the Internet.”<\/p>\n

It’s amazing what a good piece of writing can do.  This is a
\nreview of the Chicago Manual, for heaven’s sake.  It’s a generally
\ndull book, but Menand writes some of the freshest prose I have ever
\nread about the dull mechanics of writing.<\/p>\n

My dad likes the paper clip.  In an e-mail to me, he once wrote,
\n“I am really quite amused by the little paperclip icon with the googly
\neyes. It looks all around the screen, blinks, dozes off, twists itself
\ninto different shapes, and seems a great deal like a small pet. Very
\ncute.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Two quotes from Louis Menand’s New Yorker review of the new edition (15th) of the Chicago Manual of Style, which I have been coveting…. “Some people will complain that the new ‘Chicago Manual’ is too long.  These people do not understand the nature of style.  There is, if not a right way, a best way […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":709,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[40],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1334","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-books"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5G3PH-lw","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1334","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/709"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1334"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1334\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1334"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1334"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/natep\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1334"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}