3 ms·
I think the sin is removing words from the quotation. Adding editorial clarifications is sometimes unnecessary and often annoying, but can be read around. Howev
by aimor 6y ago
I think the sin is removing words from the quotation. Adding editorial clarifications is sometimes unnecessary and often annoying, but can be read around. However substituting or outright omitting words without noting the removal is indeed "wrong" and "rude".
- mattowen_uk 6y agoAgreed. Imho, the only valid use of brackets in a quote is where the original quoter left out some words due to a colloquial dialect, or just spoke badly, and the editor/author had to add a word or two so that the reader has a more clear understanding of what was said: "house on fire!", Billy-Jo Bob shouted. vs. "[My] house [is] on fire!", Billy-Jo Bob shouted. The use of the quotes makes it clear to the reader, that Billy-Jo didn't actually say the words 'my' and 'is', but they were added for clarification. Any other usage (inside quoted text) is simply wrong.
- valarauko 6y agoI agree with you. Editing a direct quote should be a last resort, with a light touch, and only to provide clarity. Editing quotes for grammatical correctness is going too far, especially if the meaning is self evident to most readers. For the given example, it probably doesn't require editing. If rather Billy-Jo Bob was shouting to his neighbor Joanne about her house being on fire, then yes, adding that context is helpful, and wouldn't be apparent from the quote itself.