DISCLAIMER: I grew up with the Oxford comma, i.e. the comma before "and." I am still a firm believer in the Oxford comma, as it differentiates items in a list of three or more. But nowadays, some venues have killed the Oxford comma. Not sure why/when it became unfashionable or antiquated, but you won't see me changing my stance on this one anytime soon. Guess I'm old-fashioned that way...
And, yes, I also grew up with the notion that punctuation belongs INSIDE quotations. My struggle of late has been that, by placing a period or comma (or any other punctuation for that matter) within quotes implies that your "source" material also included it. As I consider that, however, I've come to believe that punctuation within quotes can change context or change the meaning of the original quote altogether.
For example: let's say you're working on a journalistic piece about Hollywood and contracts. Needless to say, contracts are dry, emotionless documents; every sentence ends with a period. But if you're quoting a contractual stipulation about "net profits" in your story, these two quotes can read QUITE differently:
"Writer agrees to 5% of net profits."!
"Writer agrees to 5% of net profits!"
If you are a consumer of printed material, you'll recall the use of bracketed information to "clarify" the meaning of a partial quote - e.g. Writer stated he "...never agreed to 5% of [net] profits..." The ellipsis, of course, indicate that the quote is from some larger work, whether a lengthy article or interview. But this can be a very slippery slope... That word in brackets can make all the difference in the subject's intention; yes, it can clarify meaning. But worse, it can confuse or (inadvertently) CHANGE the meaning of the subject's actual words BASED ON THE REPORTER'S OWN INTERPRETATION. In Hollywood - where the profit paradox has been widely established - a reporter's "innocent" interpretation in this one line could make a HUGE difference. Was the writer really talking about "net profits" in this comment? Or could s/he have been speaking of "gross profits" i.e. ALL profits when he was speaking? Context - or lack thereof - is often benign. But interpretations like this can potentially be detrimental in a court of law (or even the court of public opinion). We could probably recall a dozen or more different instances where conflict arose out of words taken out of context...
Think about it.
"Think about it."
"Think about it!"
P.S. While you chew on this, forgive my glossing over the obvious... Yes, it's been about 4 months since my last post. But let me assure you, there are some very INTERESTING cells that have been added onto my life's spreadsheet in that time. I promise to share very soon!! ;-)
