In publishing, when it is appropriate to use the colon?
I’m the editor of a regional magazine in a “battle” with one of my writers. He loves to overuse the colon. He also happens to be my Food & Wine editor… so every review is peppered with colons.
Example: While this is common practice in lower-end restaurants, I was shocked that this happened in a place like Teikoku: So much thought and care went into the food itself, it seemed counterintuitive to eat the entrées with soiled silverware.
He does this 3-4 times (sometimes more) an article.
My teaching says that you should make it “palatable” for the reader, so seperating it into two sentences is my first instinct. But also, I have been taught to NOT capitalize the next phrase (as he does) because it’s confusing to the reader. (According to Chicago Style.)
Am I right? Or would you prefer his style?
The whit in the use of the word “palatable” was amusing
The colon is a mark of punctuation used to denote a particular construction first conceived in Rome and Ancient Greece known as a “cola” or “membra”. This is important because it can help us see when it is correct to use it today. Other constructions that were given punctuation are the Period or Periodic Sentence and the Comma.
Cola are phrases that deliver a distinct thought but rely heavily on the other phrases of a sentence and deliver the greatest force when used in threes (called a tricolon).
I tell my students to use a colon in the following ways
When one is about to show an example:
(Oh wait I just did)
In the title of a book or paper:
A Cycle of Revenge: The Influence of Lucius Seneca on Elizabethan Tragedy.
To denote a consequence of a previous clause:
The zoo keeper neglected to shower: the children wretched at the stench.
Introduces a list:
I want three things from each of you: your mind, your sword, and your undying loyalty.
Gives a more thorough description of something:
They were the skinniest people I had ever seen: the skin hung loosely from their bones.
Similarly, as an appositive clause (both phrases say the same general thing):
Augustus expanded his power: he divided and conquered his enemies.
(One would use a semicolon when the phrases are less closely related “Augustus was no friend to the Republic; he destroyed any semblance of democracy within the empire.”)
As part of dialogue:
Oberon: Flower of this purple dye, hit with Cupid’s archery.
In your colleague’s example, I would want to see two sentences very close in meaning:
I was shocked that this happened in a place like Teikoku: my face turned pale in disbelief.
I was shocked that this happened in a place like Teikoku: A restaurant frequented for its ambiance of elegance.
Your colleague’s sentence above has two clauses with dependent relative clauses tacked onto them (I am reading an implied “that” after the comma and before the “it”). The two parts on either side of the colon gain a very different meaning with their relative clauses. The length is also cumbersome, and I would want to see a full-stop after Teikoku instead.
The capitalization of clauses after a colon has gone both ways. I believe there can be a semantic reason for capitalization, or maybe an artistic one (e.e. cummings).
I think it is fine to bend some of the rules when it is clear that one knows the rules very well in the first place.
My instinct told me that after the word “Teikoku” the colon would signify as an appositive or description of the word because I did not know it. Instead I got a clause that only vaguely followed the ideas of the previous clauses.
New York Magazine: Inside ‘Food & Wine’s Best New Chef Gala
Tags: blog, cooking, food, food and wine magazine reviews, recipes, wine