How much is it OK to tweak quotes?
June 9, 2013 5:54 AM Subscribe
When I type up a line or a short passage from a novel to post online, I often "clean it up" a little, and I'm wondering how much of this is OK.
For example, I might replace character names with pronouns, to make it more accessible to someone who hasn't read the book. Or take out an elliptical aside or extra descriptive sentence to make it more compact.
I know the proper way to do this is with [brackets] and ellipsis points, but I usually don't use them. I think they're ugly and they break up the flow for the reader, and if the redacted/altered version flows naturally without them, I don't really feel they're necessary. I would feel different if it were an academic paper, but posting something on a blog or social network doesn't seem to call for that level of rigor. And I'm never changing the meaning of the quoted text. (I realize this is a bit subjective but not very.)
Is it wrong to do this? If you were the writer being quoted, would you prefer it to the brackets and ellipses? Would you prefer it to not being quoted at all? And as a reader, would you feel deceived if you went to the original and saw what I had done?
For example, I might replace character names with pronouns, to make it more accessible to someone who hasn't read the book. Or take out an elliptical aside or extra descriptive sentence to make it more compact.
I know the proper way to do this is with [brackets] and ellipsis points, but I usually don't use them. I think they're ugly and they break up the flow for the reader, and if the redacted/altered version flows naturally without them, I don't really feel they're necessary. I would feel different if it were an academic paper, but posting something on a blog or social network doesn't seem to call for that level of rigor. And I'm never changing the meaning of the quoted text. (I realize this is a bit subjective but not very.)
Is it wrong to do this? If you were the writer being quoted, would you prefer it to the brackets and ellipses? Would you prefer it to not being quoted at all? And as a reader, would you feel deceived if you went to the original and saw what I had done?
Best answer: Yes, it's wrong. Yes, if I were the reader, I'd feel deceived. Obviously, you "can" do whatever you want, but according to just about every rule of writers and journalists I've ever heard, ever, you cannot do this, and it is not a close call.
You have to use brackets and ellipses. The fact that you think it flows better the way you've rewritten the author's words isn't relevant. In particular, the idea that you'd omit things to make it "more compact," basically making a judgment call about what's necessary and what's not while implying that it was the decision made by the author, is emphatically a no-no. Quotation marks indicate "this is what the author wrote, except where I've indicated otherwise." The changes you talk about are unfair to both the original source and the reader.
You quote verbatim, or you are transparent about what you've cut. There are gray areas when it comes to transcribing interviews (do you have to represent every stammer and "um," for instance), but when it comes to passages from novels, this is not a gray area.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 6:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [26 favorites]
You have to use brackets and ellipses. The fact that you think it flows better the way you've rewritten the author's words isn't relevant. In particular, the idea that you'd omit things to make it "more compact," basically making a judgment call about what's necessary and what's not while implying that it was the decision made by the author, is emphatically a no-no. Quotation marks indicate "this is what the author wrote, except where I've indicated otherwise." The changes you talk about are unfair to both the original source and the reader.
You quote verbatim, or you are transparent about what you've cut. There are gray areas when it comes to transcribing interviews (do you have to represent every stammer and "um," for instance), but when it comes to passages from novels, this is not a gray area.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 6:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [26 favorites]
Response by poster: I promise not to threadsit but just want to clarify my reasoning:
If I were the writer being quoted, I'd want you to use the ellipses/brackets every time if you didn't want to quote verbatim. Because I fought hard for those exact words.
Yes, you fought hard for those exact words in the context of the rest of the novel. Suppose you've written a brilliant 100-word descriptive passage in which there's a single passing reference to a previous event in the narrative, one that would make no sense to someone just seeing this passage. I could argue that by taking out those few words I'm presenting your work more directly to the reader, not less.
Names seem like an even easier call. The author's use of proper names vs. pronouns in any given sentence is 95% context, not a significant part of their style.
posted by pete_22 at 6:08 AM on June 9, 2013
If I were the writer being quoted, I'd want you to use the ellipses/brackets every time if you didn't want to quote verbatim. Because I fought hard for those exact words.
Yes, you fought hard for those exact words in the context of the rest of the novel. Suppose you've written a brilliant 100-word descriptive passage in which there's a single passing reference to a previous event in the narrative, one that would make no sense to someone just seeing this passage. I could argue that by taking out those few words I'm presenting your work more directly to the reader, not less.
Names seem like an even easier call. The author's use of proper names vs. pronouns in any given sentence is 95% context, not a significant part of their style.
posted by pete_22 at 6:08 AM on June 9, 2013
a brilliant 100-word descriptive passage in which there's a single passing reference to a previous event in the narrative, one that would make no sense to someone just seeing this passage. I could argue that by taking out those few words I'm presenting your work more directly to the reader, not less.
Ellipsis. Or say you're paraphrasing.
posted by DestinationUnknown at 6:11 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ellipsis. Or say you're paraphrasing.
posted by DestinationUnknown at 6:11 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
This is a simple question of "Is it okay to misquote people" and the answer is always going to be "no." Your rationales are strange, and I do not think most readers would be anything but annoyed with the duplicity. There are good reasons for the standard practice here with ellipsis points and brackets and the like. What you are doing benefits nobody, and I think you can be confident that people reading excerpts are not so stupid as to not be capable of extrapolating when faced with the name of an unknown character.
posted by kmennie at 6:14 AM on June 9, 2013 [30 favorites]
posted by kmennie at 6:14 AM on June 9, 2013 [30 favorites]
Yes, you fought hard for those exact words in the context of the rest of the novel. Suppose you've written a brilliant 100-word descriptive passage in which there's a single passing reference to a previous event in the narrative, one that would make no sense to someone just seeing this passage. I could argue that by taking out those few words I'm presenting your work more directly to the reader, not less.
And as the writer I could argue that you're not trusting other readers enough to figure that out on their own, and that you're changing the context by taking things "out of context", and I'd rather you didn't quote me anyway so nyah.
That is why the ellipses and the brackets convention came up - as a compromise, so you could quote the things that were germane to what your own context was, but were also letting people know that "the actual literal words are not exactly this" so my work would be respected.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:15 AM on June 9, 2013
And as the writer I could argue that you're not trusting other readers enough to figure that out on their own, and that you're changing the context by taking things "out of context", and I'd rather you didn't quote me anyway so nyah.
That is why the ellipses and the brackets convention came up - as a compromise, so you could quote the things that were germane to what your own context was, but were also letting people know that "the actual literal words are not exactly this" so my work would be respected.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:15 AM on June 9, 2013
Best answer: Also, youre doing a disservice to the reader who may want to search for the quote. If they try to search for your edited quote, they won't be able to find it.
posted by rikschell at 6:16 AM on June 9, 2013 [16 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 6:16 AM on June 9, 2013 [16 favorites]
You are making significant alterations without indicating that you are doing so. You are no longer quoting you are paraphrasing and should say so. That would allow someone who was interested in reading the exact words in context to look it up. Even better would be if you provided a link. Then your reader could make their own judgement about whether you altered the meaning while you "cleaned up".
posted by agatha_magatha at 6:17 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by agatha_magatha at 6:17 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Also if the passage you faux-quote is good, some people will be inspired to go read that novel, and then they'll see that you've either essentially lied for no reason at all or gotten a simple thing wrong. And they will not think very highly of you.
posted by DestinationUnknown at 6:18 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by DestinationUnknown at 6:18 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I agree that you should either go verbatim or use ellipses and brackets. Otherwise, you're seeding a pseudoquote in the internets. And the next person will misquote your pseudoquote (still attributing it to the original author), and the next person "cleans" that up (to suit their own purposes), and so on and so forth until you have some pabulum that's barely got a family resemblance to the original passage making the rounds as some "deep" quote by the original author. Or, on preview, what rikschell said.
posted by bricoleur at 6:18 AM on June 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
posted by bricoleur at 6:18 AM on June 9, 2013 [6 favorites]
Nobody uses ellipses and brackets because they're beautiful and graceful, and everyone tries to write around them in copy so that they're used as little as possible. But what you are describing is not honest. Your arguments go to your preferences -- you like it, it's prettier, it's easier -- but those things do not affect the fact that it's not honest. This is a habit I strongly encourage you to break immediately.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 6:20 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by Linda_Holmes at 6:20 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
You answered your own question:
I know the proper way to do this is with [brackets] and ellipsis points.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:21 AM on June 9, 2013
I know the proper way to do this is with [brackets] and ellipsis points.
posted by Room 641-A at 6:21 AM on June 9, 2013
I know the proper way to do this is with [brackets] and ellipsis points, but I usually don't use them. I think they're ugly and they break up the flow for the reader
It's disrespectful both to the author and your readers to do this. They may be ugly but give your readers some credit. Nobody who is functionally literate would lose the flow because you follow accepted practice.
It is your choice to use others' words to make your points - if you don't want to do it properly come up with your own words and don't (pseudo)quote.
posted by koahiatamadl at 6:25 AM on June 9, 2013
It's disrespectful both to the author and your readers to do this. They may be ugly but give your readers some credit. Nobody who is functionally literate would lose the flow because you follow accepted practice.
It is your choice to use others' words to make your points - if you don't want to do it properly come up with your own words and don't (pseudo)quote.
posted by koahiatamadl at 6:25 AM on June 9, 2013
Best answer: Doing this is not okay. Utilizing ellipses and brackets is not only honest and respectful to the original writer and the eventual reader, but is actively helpful to imply further depth when context is added, encouraging readers to investigate if it is particularly gripping or erudite. The thing is, you may perceive them as ugly and flow-breaking, but to a voracious reader they are indications of further treasure to be found. If I were to read the same quote misquoted the way you describe, and then with brackets and ellipses, I would vastly prefer the properly quoted one. I would think it flows better, and is more attractive, because I would know that the quoter (you) is engaging with me honestly.
posted by Mizu at 6:25 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by Mizu at 6:25 AM on June 9, 2013
Not to pile on, but if you are doing academic or professional writing, this practice may be considered unethical.
posted by box at 6:27 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by box at 6:27 AM on June 9, 2013
You're using aesthetic arguments to justify a breach of ethics. Ethics doesn't work like that.
posted by jon1270 at 6:28 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by jon1270 at 6:28 AM on June 9, 2013
Best answer: What may look to you like an innocent cleaning-up of a quote may look to the writer like a subtle but undeniable betrayal of what they actually meant to say. I've had it happen to me; it's disconcerting to have words put in my mouth that I don't believe and that I didn't write. Even if it's as tiny as switching out a character name vs. a pronoun -- sometimes it alters the rhythm of the sentence so much that I think, "Argh, I did not write this clumsy sentence!"
posted by Jeanne at 6:33 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Jeanne at 6:33 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: OK, I'm convinced, I'll use the brackets and ellipses from now on.
I'm still not persuaded that it's as much of a bright-line ethical issue as some of you are portraying it. But I take the point about "give your readers more credit."
Honestly it would not bother me as a writer to be quoted this way, and it wouldn't bother me as a reader to encounter it. But that's why I asked -- it sounds like I'm in the minority on both counts.
posted by pete_22 at 6:53 AM on June 9, 2013
I'm still not persuaded that it's as much of a bright-line ethical issue as some of you are portraying it. But I take the point about "give your readers more credit."
Honestly it would not bother me as a writer to be quoted this way, and it wouldn't bother me as a reader to encounter it. But that's why I asked -- it sounds like I'm in the minority on both counts.
posted by pete_22 at 6:53 AM on June 9, 2013
I think you might possibly be confusing two different bits of journalistic practice. It is ok (and pretty much universal) to edit what people have said in recorded interview for print; this happens all the time. No one wants to see all their ums and errs and side tracks in print so it's very rare for the interviewee to complain about it (although that does sometimes happen).
On the other hand, it is generally regarded as being *not* ok to edit what someone has written elsewhere without making it clear one has done so. *They* have already edited those words for clarity and meaning, doing so a second time (without making it clear that you have done so) just isn't done.
(All this is 'as I understand things' of course.)
posted by pharm at 7:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
On the other hand, it is generally regarded as being *not* ok to edit what someone has written elsewhere without making it clear one has done so. *They* have already edited those words for clarity and meaning, doing so a second time (without making it clear that you have done so) just isn't done.
(All this is 'as I understand things' of course.)
posted by pharm at 7:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Honestly it would not bother me as a writer to be quoted this way,
You're not quoting, you're misquoting. On purpose. 100% wrong. They're not your words to change.
posted by headnsouth at 7:03 AM on June 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
You're not quoting, you're misquoting. On purpose. 100% wrong. They're not your words to change.
posted by headnsouth at 7:03 AM on June 9, 2013 [8 favorites]
Like everybody else is saying, it's wrong. I feel so strongly about this that in the course of my work as a copyeditor I routinely check quotes and correct them when they have been "cleaned up" in the way you describe, even though that's not what they're paying me for. Seriously, do not do this.
posted by languagehat at 7:09 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 7:09 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I agree with the other posters, but if you really feel the need to do this for some reason, you could use a disclaimer like "I am paraphrasing." Or say "the gist of the quote is..." This would put you squarely on the safe side.
posted by treehorn+bunny at 7:09 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by treehorn+bunny at 7:09 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
What? No. Just no. If its in quotes it needs to be accurate. That's what the quotation marks mean. If you're paraphrasing, just say so.
posted by SLC Mom at 7:15 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by SLC Mom at 7:15 AM on June 9, 2013
I'm still not persuaded that it's as much of a bright-line ethical issue as some of you are portraying it
It is unethical.
By changing a quote, you are reporting a lie. You may think that your changes are minor or stylistic, but what if you've left off context or simply misinterpreted? I've had both things happen to my writing, and then had to explain that no, I did not say that. Yet there I am, "quoted" in a newspaper.
To repeat, this is a breach of trust between subject and reporter. A journalist who does this with us gets no further cooperation.
posted by bonehead at 7:16 AM on June 9, 2013
It is unethical.
By changing a quote, you are reporting a lie. You may think that your changes are minor or stylistic, but what if you've left off context or simply misinterpreted? I've had both things happen to my writing, and then had to explain that no, I did not say that. Yet there I am, "quoted" in a newspaper.
To repeat, this is a breach of trust between subject and reporter. A journalist who does this with us gets no further cooperation.
posted by bonehead at 7:16 AM on June 9, 2013
Response by poster: You're not quoting, you're misquoting. On purpose. 100% wrong. They're not your words to change.
By changing a quote, you are reporting a lie.
As I said, I'm already convinced, but this level of condemnation is just silly to me. I am NOT a journalist or an academic, and surely it's at least somewhat context-dependent, as the first responder said. Lawrence Durrell is not going to turn over in his grave because someone changes "Justine" to "she" to fit a quote into a tweet. We can disagree about whether it's appropriate to do that without getting so sanctimonious about it.
posted by pete_22 at 7:20 AM on June 9, 2013
By changing a quote, you are reporting a lie.
As I said, I'm already convinced, but this level of condemnation is just silly to me. I am NOT a journalist or an academic, and surely it's at least somewhat context-dependent, as the first responder said. Lawrence Durrell is not going to turn over in his grave because someone changes "Justine" to "she" to fit a quote into a tweet. We can disagree about whether it's appropriate to do that without getting so sanctimonious about it.
posted by pete_22 at 7:20 AM on June 9, 2013
Even best practices for modifying a retweet is to indicate a "MT" - modified tweet - to show that the original words have been altered. To me, an original quote is sacred ground, and while there have been times that I ran out of space to correctly quote from an article on Twitter, it's always with a direct link to the article so that readers could easily find the source, and I don't use quotation marks (to indicate it's a paraphrase). An incorrect quote taken out of context is crossing an ethical line that many of us do hold sacred, which might explain the passion of the some of the responses you're getting.
posted by Ms. Toad at 7:31 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Ms. Toad at 7:31 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
I understand what you're saying, but the fact is, when you quote someone, you are telling the reader that the words you are presenting to them are the EXACT words that the author used. I don't necessarily think that clarifying a phrase is a bad thing to do, but when you do that, you are no longer quoting them. So, if you feel you need to clean up what they said, than you have to make it clear that you aren't quoting them.
I don't see it any differently than a piece of artwork. If you took a portion of a painting, and edited out someone's face in the background because that person had bad hair, you wouldn't then present this as someone's untouched painting, you would want to clarify that it had been edited. The edit may make it better or worse, but at that point it is no longer the sole art of the painter, it is a collaboration (wanted or not) between the two of you.
posted by markblasco at 7:37 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I don't see it any differently than a piece of artwork. If you took a portion of a painting, and edited out someone's face in the background because that person had bad hair, you wouldn't then present this as someone's untouched painting, you would want to clarify that it had been edited. The edit may make it better or worse, but at that point it is no longer the sole art of the painter, it is a collaboration (wanted or not) between the two of you.
posted by markblasco at 7:37 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
You came here and said, "How much is it OK?" You asked an ethical question.
You got a pretty much unanimous response of, "It is not OK, at all."
Telling you something is unethical when it's pretty much universally regarded as unethical by everybody who is in charge of the ethics of this kind of thing isn't "sanctimonious." It's exactly the question you asked, and if the force of the response strikes you as rather pronounced, that's because what you're doing is on the wrong side of what is, whether you agree with it or not, widely regarded as a bright line. You came here for people to give you a sense of how this practice is perceived; you now have that sense.
You keep saying you're not convinced, and that's fine. But you came here for other people to sign off on your understanding of strict adherence to quotes outside of academic settings as an unnecessarily formality that doesn't implicate ethical questions, and that's not what happened. What you've been told is that this is not what other readers and writers expect, even outside academia. What you do with the information that you asked for and got is, as always, up to you.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 7:42 AM on June 9, 2013 [14 favorites]
You got a pretty much unanimous response of, "It is not OK, at all."
Telling you something is unethical when it's pretty much universally regarded as unethical by everybody who is in charge of the ethics of this kind of thing isn't "sanctimonious." It's exactly the question you asked, and if the force of the response strikes you as rather pronounced, that's because what you're doing is on the wrong side of what is, whether you agree with it or not, widely regarded as a bright line. You came here for people to give you a sense of how this practice is perceived; you now have that sense.
You keep saying you're not convinced, and that's fine. But you came here for other people to sign off on your understanding of strict adherence to quotes outside of academic settings as an unnecessarily formality that doesn't implicate ethical questions, and that's not what happened. What you've been told is that this is not what other readers and writers expect, even outside academia. What you do with the information that you asked for and got is, as always, up to you.
posted by Linda_Holmes at 7:42 AM on June 9, 2013 [14 favorites]
Mod note: Reminder everybody, AskMe is not the place for a debate or back-and-forth; it is ok to just give answers and leave it at that. OP, you have the ability to choose which advice is most useful to you. I understand this is a subject people feel strongly about but let's keep it cool in here. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 7:48 AM on June 9, 2013
Here's one way to look at it: if you paraphrase, and it's clear you are paraphrasing, you take on the onus for your text. If you quote, you put that back on the original author. That's why it's a deception, and why people react so strongly.
No one will disagree that you may have an interpretation of what they said, but few will be ok with a misrepresentation of their own words.
posted by bonehead at 7:48 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
No one will disagree that you may have an interpretation of what they said, but few will be ok with a misrepresentation of their own words.
posted by bonehead at 7:48 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
Yeah, well, no need to feel "condemned" just because people are passionate about what they're saying. It's ok.
The problem with ethics and quoting is that making decisions about this issue is not context-sensitive, and also there is no lower threshold from which one would do otherwise. As soon as anyone says that anyone else said, or wrote this and that, it needs to be repeated verbatim, or the omissions and edits need to be made visible.
This may be the most important thing to carry away from this discussion, in addition to the "right answer."
posted by Namlit at 7:52 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
The problem with ethics and quoting is that making decisions about this issue is not context-sensitive, and also there is no lower threshold from which one would do otherwise. As soon as anyone says that anyone else said, or wrote this and that, it needs to be repeated verbatim, or the omissions and edits need to be made visible.
This may be the most important thing to carry away from this discussion, in addition to the "right answer."
posted by Namlit at 7:52 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Ah, I'll go against the pile. I'll tell you that it's ethically okay in certain contexts, in my opinion.
Sure, in an academic context, accuracy is vital to the maintaining of credibility, so there is a legalistic fealty to the purity of the text. But I don't really love the use of the word 'sacred' here.
In other casual contexts, like mefi comments for example, I don't think that it's a big deal. I use the qualifier 'paraphrase' or 'paraphrase from memory', and sometimes I'm referring to personal anecdotes, which we understand to be bits of data which do not have the same value or force that academic citations or legal depositions have.
If you look at an old historian like Plutrarch or Herodotus, there's lots of paraphrase and rather loosely verified anecdotes thrown in, usually with qualifiers. Herodotus has been criticized by other historians for this, but I think it's part of what makes him interesting. Even a respected historian like Thucydides often relied on paraphrase from memory for speeches which were not clearly recorded at the time.
And then there's the question of translation...
posted by ovvl at 7:58 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Sure, in an academic context, accuracy is vital to the maintaining of credibility, so there is a legalistic fealty to the purity of the text. But I don't really love the use of the word 'sacred' here.
In other casual contexts, like mefi comments for example, I don't think that it's a big deal. I use the qualifier 'paraphrase' or 'paraphrase from memory', and sometimes I'm referring to personal anecdotes, which we understand to be bits of data which do not have the same value or force that academic citations or legal depositions have.
If you look at an old historian like Plutrarch or Herodotus, there's lots of paraphrase and rather loosely verified anecdotes thrown in, usually with qualifiers. Herodotus has been criticized by other historians for this, but I think it's part of what makes him interesting. Even a respected historian like Thucydides often relied on paraphrase from memory for speeches which were not clearly recorded at the time.
And then there's the question of translation...
posted by ovvl at 7:58 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Why change a name to a pronoun? How does that help anyone?
Brackets would seem silly in this case, not because they "break up the flow for the reader," but because they out you as someone who changed something for no reason.
I'd get what you were saying if you wanted to fit a quote into a tweet, but in the question you talk about making the quote "more accessible."
posted by 4bulafia at 8:48 AM on June 9, 2013
Brackets would seem silly in this case, not because they "break up the flow for the reader," but because they out you as someone who changed something for no reason.
I'd get what you were saying if you wanted to fit a quote into a tweet, but in the question you talk about making the quote "more accessible."
posted by 4bulafia at 8:48 AM on June 9, 2013
Paraphrasing and quoting are both legitimate things to do. What's not OK is claiming a paraphrase is a quote, essentially lying to your readers.
posted by zamboni at 8:53 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by zamboni at 8:53 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
Reading between the lines of your question, if you need to shorten "Justine" for the purposes of a tweet, how about "[J]"?
posted by 4bulafia at 8:56 AM on June 9, 2013
posted by 4bulafia at 8:56 AM on June 9, 2013
I'm a copy editor, and part of the fun and challenge of my job is rewriting to get around constraints, like not starting a sentence with a numeral or making a possessive out of a proper name that itself contains a possessive. It's a little puzzle to do this artfully. So that's the way I would approach this -- look at it as a task and a challenge and part of your role as blogger.
You are doubtless using a quote as part of some larger purpose, so work around the quote in the context of your writing. Instead of
"Several small punts and skiffs were lying about in the water and on the edge of the wharf. [Holmes and Watson] took [the dog] round to each in turn, but though he sniffed earnestly he made no sign."
you could simply write,
"Several small punts and skiffs were lying about in the water and on the edge of the wharf." Holmes and Watson brought the dog "to each in turn, but though he sniffed earnestly he made no sign."
I mean, that's a terrible example, but it is possible to write around a quote without overusing brackets and ellipses.
posted by payoto at 9:02 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
You are doubtless using a quote as part of some larger purpose, so work around the quote in the context of your writing. Instead of
"Several small punts and skiffs were lying about in the water and on the edge of the wharf. [Holmes and Watson] took [the dog] round to each in turn, but though he sniffed earnestly he made no sign."
you could simply write,
"Several small punts and skiffs were lying about in the water and on the edge of the wharf." Holmes and Watson brought the dog "to each in turn, but though he sniffed earnestly he made no sign."
I mean, that's a terrible example, but it is possible to write around a quote without overusing brackets and ellipses.
posted by payoto at 9:02 AM on June 9, 2013 [2 favorites]
I am NOT a journalist or an academic....
It's not about you; it's about the work you're representing in a different way than its originator intended. The standards exist to protect the work. They don't change based on your identity.
posted by carmicha at 10:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's not about you; it's about the work you're representing in a different way than its originator intended. The standards exist to protect the work. They don't change based on your identity.
posted by carmicha at 10:01 AM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
I know you're already convinced. On a separate note, it's worth considering that doing this by the book (so to speak) affects your credibility forever. As does not doing it by the book.
posted by AnOrigamiLife at 11:37 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by AnOrigamiLife at 11:37 AM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
If this helps with the 'ethical' angle in any way:
Let's say an author wrote "Toddlers," Ethel said, "are just God's way of destroying the universe in 6 days."
If you posted that as "Toddlers are just God's way of destroying the universe in 6 days" -- author
then you are attributing to the author an aphorism which they might not believe in any way - maybe Ethel is an idiot, or a jerk, and that speech is meant as an indicator that the author actually believes the opposite.
The fact that the author put those words together in that order which almost made for a pithy quote - and chose not to keep it in that form - but instead made it harder to quote - is generally a pretty good indication NOT that you are cleaning up their work and making it more accessible, but the opposite: that they did not want those words becoming the literary equivalent of a fridge magnet.
Good writers want to be immortal through their words. The ones who want those words to be quoted as epigrams are pretty much always careful enough to put them down ready for quoting as is.
posted by Mchelly at 12:48 PM on June 9, 2013
Let's say an author wrote "Toddlers," Ethel said, "are just God's way of destroying the universe in 6 days."
If you posted that as "Toddlers are just God's way of destroying the universe in 6 days" -- author
then you are attributing to the author an aphorism which they might not believe in any way - maybe Ethel is an idiot, or a jerk, and that speech is meant as an indicator that the author actually believes the opposite.
The fact that the author put those words together in that order which almost made for a pithy quote - and chose not to keep it in that form - but instead made it harder to quote - is generally a pretty good indication NOT that you are cleaning up their work and making it more accessible, but the opposite: that they did not want those words becoming the literary equivalent of a fridge magnet.
Good writers want to be immortal through their words. The ones who want those words to be quoted as epigrams are pretty much always careful enough to put them down ready for quoting as is.
posted by Mchelly at 12:48 PM on June 9, 2013
Best answer: I think people are overreacting. Yes the proper thing to do is use ellipses and brackets but if I caught this sort of minor misquote on a blog post it would not "affect your credibility forever" in my book. It's a blog post, not a thesis.
posted by selfmedicating at 12:59 PM on June 9, 2013
posted by selfmedicating at 12:59 PM on June 9, 2013
Best answer: Free quotation (quotation ad sensum) was perfectly normal in an age before print, when writers were frequently quoting from memory. Nowadays we make a fetish of precise textual accuracy, but that's only because we have the means to do so: we have easy access to books, we can cut-and-paste effortlessly, and we no longer need to memorize large chunks of text.
We also live at a moment of transition, as print gives way to digital. From print culture we have inherited a strong sense of the text as the property of its author (aka 'copyright'), but from digital culture we have grown accustomed to treating texts as freely available and infinitely reproducible (aka 'anti-copyright'). This creates a sense of anxiety over the ownership of the text which manifests itself in a hyper-sensitivity over the ethics of quotation.
posted by verstegan at 4:48 PM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
We also live at a moment of transition, as print gives way to digital. From print culture we have inherited a strong sense of the text as the property of its author (aka 'copyright'), but from digital culture we have grown accustomed to treating texts as freely available and infinitely reproducible (aka 'anti-copyright'). This creates a sense of anxiety over the ownership of the text which manifests itself in a hyper-sensitivity over the ethics of quotation.
posted by verstegan at 4:48 PM on June 9, 2013 [3 favorites]
Beyond the obvious ethical boundaries, and beyond the stylistic conventions, whenever a writer chooses to paraphrase instead of quote direct, the effect is to make me wonder WHY -
WHY he/she felt it necessary to chop or change-
WHY the words that the writer him/herself chose to quote were somehow objectionable -
Why does that writer WANT me to think?
Why is he/she altering the content of these words? What is the purpose behind that? Is the context being shifted?
In short - WHY the editorial slant?
And I will read everything else that writer writes with a critical eye, and be less inclined to read more of it, because changing words, however innocuous, is changing meaning.
Slopes are slippery.
Historically speaking, people who do this have often been aiming in the direction of genuinely shifting the meaning of the work away from what the author intended.
I'm not saying you're guilty of any of this, but be aware that just as there is a GENUINE ethical dilemma here, there is also a lot of historical precedent that WILL color your actions.
posted by tabubilgirl at 6:22 PM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
WHY he/she felt it necessary to chop or change-
WHY the words that the writer him/herself chose to quote were somehow objectionable -
Why does that writer WANT me to think?
Why is he/she altering the content of these words? What is the purpose behind that? Is the context being shifted?
In short - WHY the editorial slant?
And I will read everything else that writer writes with a critical eye, and be less inclined to read more of it, because changing words, however innocuous, is changing meaning.
Slopes are slippery.
Historically speaking, people who do this have often been aiming in the direction of genuinely shifting the meaning of the work away from what the author intended.
I'm not saying you're guilty of any of this, but be aware that just as there is a GENUINE ethical dilemma here, there is also a lot of historical precedent that WILL color your actions.
posted by tabubilgirl at 6:22 PM on June 9, 2013 [1 favorite]
if I caught this sort of minor misquote on a blog post it would not "affect your credibility forever" in my book.
Since you've marked this as a best answer and the mods have not deleted it, I take it this sort of data point is considered relevant to the question. So, another data point: Unless the rest of your post was blazing with the sort of genius that hasn't been seen in centuries, were I to encounter this sort of clueless bowdlerization in a blog or anywhere else, I would probably write the author off completely, as it demonstrates an unforgivable lack of respect for the writer who is quoted and for the intelligence of the reader.
posted by bricoleur at 9:32 PM on June 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Since you've marked this as a best answer and the mods have not deleted it, I take it this sort of data point is considered relevant to the question. So, another data point: Unless the rest of your post was blazing with the sort of genius that hasn't been seen in centuries, were I to encounter this sort of clueless bowdlerization in a blog or anywhere else, I would probably write the author off completely, as it demonstrates an unforgivable lack of respect for the writer who is quoted and for the intelligence of the reader.
posted by bricoleur at 9:32 PM on June 12, 2013 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: Unless the rest of your post was blazing with the sort of genius that hasn't been seen in centuries, were I to encounter this sort of clueless bowdlerization in a blog or anywhere else, I would probably write the author off completely, as it demonstrates an unforgivable lack of respect for the writer who is quoted and for the intelligence of the reader.
You know, it strikes me that I should have given more examples, because people seem to be imagining far worse edits than what I was actually talking about. If my question was unnecessarily baiting in that way, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.
On the other hand, if this is in response to the one hypothetical example I did give, that of changing "Justine" to "she" to quote a line from Durrell's Alexandria Quartet in a Tweet ...if that is the sort of "clueless bowdlerization" than "demonstrates an unforgivable lack of respect" etc ... then I think we're just operating in different realities. Do you really think there's a writer alive who hasn't committed knowing transgressions on at least that order? Maybe not with quotations, but surely with some other rule in your Code of Honor?
In any case, thanks for all the more reasonable responses. Linda_Holmes was right, I got the advice I asked for, and I'll take it.
posted by pete_22 at 12:49 AM on June 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
You know, it strikes me that I should have given more examples, because people seem to be imagining far worse edits than what I was actually talking about. If my question was unnecessarily baiting in that way, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.
On the other hand, if this is in response to the one hypothetical example I did give, that of changing "Justine" to "she" to quote a line from Durrell's Alexandria Quartet in a Tweet ...if that is the sort of "clueless bowdlerization" than "demonstrates an unforgivable lack of respect" etc ... then I think we're just operating in different realities. Do you really think there's a writer alive who hasn't committed knowing transgressions on at least that order? Maybe not with quotations, but surely with some other rule in your Code of Honor?
In any case, thanks for all the more reasonable responses. Linda_Holmes was right, I got the advice I asked for, and I'll take it.
posted by pete_22 at 12:49 AM on June 13, 2013 [1 favorite]
people seem to be imagining far worse edits than what I was actually talking about
It's something of a Pandora's box, and that's why the universally accepted practices are there to begin with. You are "only" changing a proper name to a pronoun, and to you, that's reasonable and not much of an edit. On its face I agree. But that small change is enough to bring what had been a decided issue* (i.e., quotation marks and attribution means that's what the person said, and with the exception of eliminating verbal tics and pauses, deviations are marked by ellipses and brackets) into the subjective realm. And once you do that, all bets are off. So someone else might make "far worse changes" as you define them, and if you don't agree with the generally accepted standards of attribution, then their changes are only worse in degree, but not in fact.
Brackets are universally recognized for changes such as the one in your example. There's no reason not to use them besides "I don't want to."
posted by headnsouth at 8:33 AM on June 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
It's something of a Pandora's box, and that's why the universally accepted practices are there to begin with. You are "only" changing a proper name to a pronoun, and to you, that's reasonable and not much of an edit. On its face I agree. But that small change is enough to bring what had been a decided issue* (i.e., quotation marks and attribution means that's what the person said, and with the exception of eliminating verbal tics and pauses, deviations are marked by ellipses and brackets) into the subjective realm. And once you do that, all bets are off. So someone else might make "far worse changes" as you define them, and if you don't agree with the generally accepted standards of attribution, then their changes are only worse in degree, but not in fact.
Brackets are universally recognized for changes such as the one in your example. There's no reason not to use them besides "I don't want to."
posted by headnsouth at 8:33 AM on June 13, 2013 [3 favorites]
I'm still not persuaded that it's as much of a bright-line ethical issue as some of you are portraying it. But I take the point about "give your readers more credit."
Just to pile on, when you put words between quotation marks, the usage is exclusively one of conveying to the reader that these are the words that the other author used. By using different words, you are violating the reader's trust. This reflects badly on you. This makes you look dishonest.
I don't think anybody here is saying that you shouldn't do it because it's annoying to us (although it is to some people). I think we're saying you shouldn't do it because it's bad for you and your career as a writer.
You know, you can do whatever you want, but be aware that you are violating, under your own name, an important ethical norm that other people take seriously, and that it's a small world.
posted by gauche at 8:18 AM on June 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
Just to pile on, when you put words between quotation marks, the usage is exclusively one of conveying to the reader that these are the words that the other author used. By using different words, you are violating the reader's trust. This reflects badly on you. This makes you look dishonest.
I don't think anybody here is saying that you shouldn't do it because it's annoying to us (although it is to some people). I think we're saying you shouldn't do it because it's bad for you and your career as a writer.
You know, you can do whatever you want, but be aware that you are violating, under your own name, an important ethical norm that other people take seriously, and that it's a small world.
posted by gauche at 8:18 AM on June 15, 2013 [3 favorites]
And to your point about twitter: I sometimes wrestle with putting brackets in when I'm quoting something because of space constraints.
But you know what takes up just as much space as brackets? Quotation marks.
posted by gauche at 8:21 AM on June 15, 2013
But you know what takes up just as much space as brackets? Quotation marks.
posted by gauche at 8:21 AM on June 15, 2013
« Older What best practices do the pros use to maintain... | Please share your papermaking tips and hacks. Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
If I were the writer being quoted, I'd want you to use the ellipses/brackets every time if you didn't want to quote verbatim. Because I fought hard for those exact words.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 5:58 AM on June 9, 2013 [4 favorites]