4 ms·

The article makes some good points that are obscured by the ridiculous conceit of overusing the em dash. This is like arguing that since running 100 miles in a

The article makes some good points that are obscured by the ridiculous conceit of overusing the em dash. This is like arguing that since running 100 miles in a day will hurt your feet, running is a bad idea. Even the title is a misuse of the em dash. An excursion to plead for patience on the part of the reader should only come when the beginning of the sentence is likely to irritate people. The words "The Case" aren't going to annoy readers, so pleading for people to please hear the author out is annoying. THAT is the problem with the title. Not the presence of an excursion or parenthetical remark, but the presence of an annoying and meaningless excursion manufactured to make the author seem witty. And so it is with the rest of the post, the excursions are all so blatantly manufactured and artificial, it is impossible to hold them up as examples of why the em dash is a bad idea. To me, the article demonstrates why conceits are a bad idea. Trying to be too clever obscures your message rather than reinforces it.

pasbesoin 15y ago
I couldn't bring myself to read it. I think you summarize my instinctive/intuitive/gut-level reaction. (Literally gut level, which is why I stopped.) This reminds me so much of what I hate about much of the pedagogy of "writing". Formulaic writing is just that, formulaic. It may work well in the artifice of a classroom; not so much in the real world. Strictures can be useful, e.g. in technical documentation. But even there, it takes some creativity to communicate clearly and effectively. "No more than two em dashes per paragraph" simply doesn't cut it. Oh, and to the author of the Slate article: Allow me to introduce you to the en dash –. Buwahaha...
- chalst 15y ago
  "gut-level" - Let's say this is the stylistic equivalent of a fart joke. I think it worked well enough Rather firm limits on the density of em dashes are fair, because there's a typographical issue of avoiding "horizontal rivers": the distracting effect of dashes varies nonlinearly with their number. An upper limit of two, per Chicago, or three, is a good usage stricture; there is practically never a strong reason to violate it. "en dash" - Fair enough, but she's following AP style, which uses em dashes.
  - pasbesoin 15y ago
    I didn't actually use the en dash in an appropriate context, such as "1 – 7". I don't use em dashes profusely. However, I'm reminded of bumping into arbitrary rules that mandated rewriting something into a more awkward form in order to comply with the rules. There is a certain subset of instructors who confuse students with rules more than they aid them in learning to communicate clearly. As for the style guides. Well, I don't know how things are these days, but there was also a not insignificant portion of pedagogy devoted to blind adherence to one or another. All the more confusing when a young student is not really working in a context that allows the student to see where, how, and why the rules make sense. Cart before the horse, I guess I might say.

pasbesoin 15y ago

I couldn't bring myself to read it. I think you summarize my instinctive/intuitive/gut-level reaction. (Literally gut level, which is why I stopped.) This reminds me so much of what I hate about much of the pedagogy of "writing". Formulaic writing is just that, formulaic. It may work well in the artifice of a classroom; not so much in the real world. Strictures can be useful, e.g. in technical documentation. But even there, it takes some creativity to communicate clearly and effectively. "No more than two em dashes per paragraph" simply doesn't cut it. Oh, and to the author of the Slate article: Allow me to introduce you to the en dash –. Buwahaha...

chalst 15y ago
"gut-level" - Let's say this is the stylistic equivalent of a fart joke. I think it worked well enough Rather firm limits on the density of em dashes are fair, because there's a typographical issue of avoiding "horizontal rivers": the distracting effect of dashes varies nonlinearly with their number. An upper limit of two, per Chicago, or three, is a good usage stricture; there is practically never a strong reason to violate it. "en dash" - Fair enough, but she's following AP style, which uses em dashes.
- pasbesoin 15y ago
  I didn't actually use the en dash in an appropriate context, such as "1 – 7". I don't use em dashes profusely. However, I'm reminded of bumping into arbitrary rules that mandated rewriting something into a more awkward form in order to comply with the rules. There is a certain subset of instructors who confuse students with rules more than they aid them in learning to communicate clearly. As for the style guides. Well, I don't know how things are these days, but there was also a not insignificant portion of pedagogy devoted to blind adherence to one or another. All the more confusing when a young student is not really working in a context that allows the student to see where, how, and why the rules make sense. Cart before the horse, I guess I might say.