Your Style Guide Starter Kit

Welcome to this week's Conservation Makers newsletter. I'm so glad you're here. (If you missed last week's email, check it out here.)

Honestly, from the moment I began to consider writing a newsletter for this community, this was the topic I wanted to write about. Within our niche, it elicits a strong response. Like an "I'm going to CC your boss into this" kind of response.

Yes, I'm talking about the plural form of the word "pronghorn." 

As promised, I'm unpacking this juicy debate with the help of an expert: copyediting legend Donna Ng.

As copy chief and master of the house style guide at Field & Stream for more than 18 years—we overlapped there from 2008 to 2015—Donna shaped every single story published in the print magazine during that time.

In my early years at TRCP, when I was creating a house style guide, I adopted Donna's official ruling on "pronghorns" vs "pronghorn." (I also made the serial comma standard, drunk on my own power.)

Originally, my main justification—other than having gotten this straight from the QUEEN—was that "pronghorns" follows the rule for other modifiers we use as nicknames for fish and wildlife. For example, multiple largemouth bass are "largemouths," multiple whitetail deer are "whitetails," and so, by this reasoning, multiple pronghorn antelope are "pronghorns."

But HOLD UP. Apparently, wildlife biologists are out there practically BEGGING people to stop calling these animals antelope. (If this is you, I'd seriously love to interview you next.)

I only found this out years later. Up until that point, the strongest argument I'd heard against adding the 's' is that "pronghorn" is what you hear spoken aloud in the Western U.S. by Westerners. This is why, in most cases, if a writer had a real problem with "pronghorns" and their name was on the story, I'd yield and allow "pronghorn."

But I can't pretend it didn't irk me. 😝

And this is where I began my recent conversation with Donna Ng. Below, we nerd out on house style guides and the magazine publishing industry of yore. Enjoy!

_{(Do you know someone who would like to be a part of this? Would you be so kind as to forward this email?)}

KRISTYN BRADY: First, I just wanted to say that I learned so much from you at Field & Stream, and I feel very honored to have you weigh in on this, ah, heated debate.

How do you justify or confirm proper use of terminology like this when you're copyediting?

DONNA NG: Well, you start with your style guide. When I was hired at F&S in 1999, I inherited a house style guide, and then I obviously made a lot of changes and additions over the years. You use some of your own preferences, incorporate the editor-in-chief's preferences, and then things come up story by story that you just have to decide. Maybe it's binocs vs binos or widgeon vs wigeon. You search for authoritative voices and try to find some consensus. National Geographic also uses "pronghorns." Merriam-Webster says either "pronghorn" or "pronghorns" is correct for the plural form.

KB: So, you choose. And maybe you get heat for it, in my case, haha.

DN: If people have a strong preference, like when you're interviewing someone and the story is about them, I'd probably go with their preference. But the reason copyeditors are so important is for maintaining consistency. You wouldn't want to offend someone deeply, but sometimes you do have to say, "This is our style, it is established, and this is how we do things."

KB: Exactly. I think part of the job is squaring what is comfortable in your ear with what it looks like on paper or on the screen.

DN: Sure. The dictionary might not tell you whether treestand is one word or two. That's where your style guide comes in.

KB: How would you build out a style guide, for organizations that don't currently have one?

DN: You can choose to rely on Chicago style or AP style, and the AP Stylebook is something you can just subscribe to and search for terms. That's probably the easiest thing for a small communications team. You have to decide if you're going to use the Oxford comma, as in the serial comma, or not. But, especially if you're in an enthusiast area, there's always going to be jargon where spelling and usage need to be consistent, and your style guide should lay that out. 

KB: And that's where you have some agency, right? You make choices based on the culture of the organization and the words you already use a lot.

DN: Yeah, definitely. You need to serve your audience. So you choose what is going to help your audience understand what they're reading, quickly and easily. That's what copyeditors are aiming to do, ultimately. You can't go wrong if reader service is at the root of what you're making.

KB: I felt like reader service was embraced as one of the top values at Field & Stream. As copy chief, you were shaping every story—what was the workload like and how did that change over time?

DN: When I first started, we were publishing issues that were probably 125 pages long with 100 pages of editorial. And then, over the years, with budget cuts and print advertising slowing down, the size of the magazine kept shrinking. The page count went from 100 to between 60 and 80 pages at the end of my time there. But I read everything three or four times in manuscript, where it's just the copy, and then probably three times in layout, where you're seeing the designed version with photos or illustrations that will actually be published. And each story would change a lot over the course of that process. Particularly the tip pieces that gave detailed instructions. Those would sometimes need heavy rewrites to make sense.

KB: And this is a pretty invisible role. I mean, you're on the masthead, but your name is not at the top of the story after all that.

DN: Sometimes it maybe should have been, haha.

KB: I bet it would be surprising for a lot of people, particularly given how underrepresented women and non-white people were and still are in hunting and fishing, just how influential you were in touching every little piece of content.

DN: It kept me busy. And, of course, things are always coming in last-minute, too, so you have to turn those around fast. But, as the magazine got skinnier, I actually had some time on my hands to do a little writing. So I got my byline in there.

KB: Did you ever struggle with leaving a piece at good enough, rather than perfect, because a deadline was looming?

DN: Not at Field & Stream, but sometimes in other jobs. If you only have so much time and you're doing 10 stories daily, it's basic math. There's only so much you can do.

KB: What's your biggest editing pet peeve?

DN: Just writing that doesn't sound natural. Like using "as" instead of "because." Do you actually talk like that? I think some people try to have an authoritative “writer's voice,” but it just comes off as stilted and weird. If you actually read your work aloud, you'll notice what doesn't belong.

KB: Like do you feel the need to adopt a snooty British accent to read it? Then maybe it's not quite authentic.

DN: Right!

KB: What were you doing before you came to Field & Stream and how did that compare to magazine publishing?

DN: My first jobs were in book publishing, and I loved that, too. But I didn't love the fact that book editors were constantly bringing work home with them and on vacation with them. Because the job is to find the books you want to publish and you can't just sit around the office reading—you're doing paperwork and emailing authors and having calls. So all that reading is kind of done on your own time.

And when I first started in magazines, I really loved the form. I think it's sad that it's suffering so much. After Field & Stream, I didn't think I'd get another job in print magazines, but I was hired by a knitting enthusiast title and I thought, Oh my god, this is perfect. We got so much free yarn!

KB: I probably came in long after the heyday of publishing was over, but I do remember the freebies really flowing. That was sort of the main perk left.

DN: I still have things I got at F&S. Jackets, binoculars.

KB: Same. During the pandemic, I donated three sets of waders to Casting for Recovery, because one woman cannot use that many waders.

DN: You should see my yarn stash, haha!

KB: Well, Donna, this has been super fun. Thanks for sharing some of your journey and wisdom.

DN: My pleasure.

All hail the queen of copyediting. If you're looking for extra firepower in this area, Donna offers freelance editing services and is open to new opportunities. Contact her at [email protected].

That's all for this edition. Thanks so much for reading. And, whether you are Team Pronghorn or Team Pronghorns, I am grateful for your passionate defense of your side. It just underscores the fact that every word matters, and you won't find many people who believe that as much as I do.

I will leave you with this, however: The plural of "horn" is "horns," and that doesn't seem to be up for debate. 🤨

Have a great week,
KB

P.S. How are you? How did you like the newsletter? Should I print "It's Pronghorns" stickers? Send an email to let me know. I'd love to hear how you're doing!

If this email was forwarded to you, please subscribe!