Five basic typesetting fixes for self-publishing

I’m currently reading The Cruel Sea, a 1951 novel about the Battle of the Atlantic by Nicholas Monsarrat. A few days ago on Substack I shared a few pictures of the interior of the book, simply but beautifully designed and set in Janson, a readable typeface still in wide use today.

In my note I called this kind of mid-century design “typographical comfort food.” A number of people agreed, noting the “visual delight” of the look of the page and that good typesetting makes it feel “like I can breathe through my eyes” reading it. Another, very much to the point, described the reassurance that comes with good type design: “You know you’re in good hands.”

This last comment is particularly important because at least two others remarked on self-published books in this context. One, an author of sci-fi, said he took this aspect of books for granted until he started publishing his own work, at which point he realized “it really does make a difference!” Another, slightly more dourly, wrote of the need to undo the damage done by desktop publishing.

I don’t know so much about widespread damage, but self-published books very often look bad at the page level. I’ve certainly put books back on the shelf after looking at an unreadable interior. But I’ve been doing desktop publishing of one kind or another as an amateur for thirty years, and—through a lot of trial and error and, crucially, just looking at a lot of books—have learned a lot about what makes the interior of a book look like a book. I’m no expert, but what I hope to offer here are a handful of specific things people designing their own books can do to make sure readers focus on the writing and not on shoddy typography.

Paragraph spacing

A lot of the problems I see with self-published books come from designing the interior of the book in a program like Word. This by itself is not a problem—I’ve laid out all of my books in Word. The problem is leaving Word’s often moronic default settings in place.

Among the worst of these is Word’s automatic insertion of a space between paragraphs. No professionally published book does this, and to a potential reader, even one who doesn’t know much about design or publishing, it won’t look right. Something will feel off.

This setting can be corrected in the paragraph formatting menu. Under the “Spacing” section, you’ll want to make sure that both “spacing before” and “spacing after” are set to zero.

Level up: Word’s default indentation is set to half an inch (.5”). Finished books don’t indent paragraphs this much. Reset it to .2” or .25”.

Line spacing

Manuscripts may be double-spaced, but a finished book should be single-spaced. You may occasionally see a professionally published book fiddle with the line spacing a bit—1.1 or 1.2 between lines, for instance—but the lines will always be closer to single-spaced than otherwise and precisely how this looks on the page will depend somewhat on the typeface or font (about which more below). Again, too much space between the lines won’t look right.

Like paragraph spacing, this is adjustable in the paragraph formatting menu.

Faith through justification

“Alignment” is how the text in a manuscript lines up with the margins. Word’s default is the entirely sensible “left aligned,” meaning the text will be flush with the left margin but not the right. Professionally published books are “justified,” meaning the text reaches all the way to the right margin on every line (except for the last sentence of a paragraph). This used to be a painstaking task for old-fashioned printers, who had a variety of ways to scootch and squish the text to fit the length of a line, but computers adjust the text to fit the margins automatically. Simply highlight the text and, out of the four alignment buttons, click “justify.”

Caveat: publishers do occasionally get artsy and toy with unjustified text with “ragged” edged paragraphs (my CSB Reader’s Bible has unjustified text), but I’ve never met anyone who actually likes this when they see it. Err on the side of traditional standards.

Level up: Be aware that, once you’ve justified the text of your manuscript, you’ll probably want to go through it looking for places where justification has opened huge gaps between the words on a line. You can manually control hyphenation or letter spacing to fine-tune this.

Stay out of the gutter

Even competently designed self-published books sometimes misstep when it comes to setting up the margins of the page. This is not typically a make-or-break aspect of page design but can be off-putting to readers.

Pick up a dozen or so books at random and flip through, looking at the margins, and you’ll see a wide variety of designs and widths. What you won’t see, however, are margins so narrow that they allow the text to stretch all the way across the page, or margins that allow the text dip into the gutter, the middle of the book where the pages join. If the line is too long, it can tiring to the eye and difficult to see into the gutter, and you want your book design to eliminate as many physical obstacles to the act of reading as possible.

This is slightly more relative than some of the other tips I’m giving here, but in a normally sized paperback book (say 5x8”) the outer margin should be about half an inch. This can be the narrowest margin. The top of the page should be a bit wider, the bottom wider still (to accommodate a page number in the footer, for instance), but the inner margin by the gutter should be around half again as wide as the outer.

I’m still unsatisfied with the margins I laid out in my first published novel. My most recent book and the one I’m most pleased with in regard to margins, has an outer and bottom margins of .7”, a top margin of .6”, and an inner “gutter” margin of .9”. When setting this up in the margins menu in Word, be sure to select “mirror margins” to get the facing-page format of a published book.

Appropriate typefaces

Word’s default typeface or “font” all the way through my school and college years was 12-point Times New Roman (single-spaced, I’ll add). At some point when I was in graduate school someone somewhere at Microsoft decided to goof all of this up. They added that automatic line after a paragraph and reset the default font to 11-point Calibri.

The other defaults in this post are mostly basic manuscript format things you’ll need to adjust to make your book look like a book, but these default font settings are mindbogglingly stupid.

The best size for your text is going to depend on a few factors like the length of the book and how that affects the cost of manufacture. Like margins, what looks best is going to be partly a matter of judgment.

What is and is not an appropriate typeface for the text of a book is not. The problem with Word’s Calibri is that it’s sans-serif. (Here’s a quick primer on serifs.) Professionally published books may use a sans-serif typeface for chapter headings or other design elements, but the actual text itself should always be in a serif font for readability.

Fortunately, there are many, many of these available. A few of my personal favorites, what I like about them, and where you might sample them:

• Bembo—a classic old-style typeface with a slightly old-fashioned look and elegant italics. You may see it in older Penguin Classics, religious books from Ignatius Press, or many John Grisham paperbacks.

• Sabon—a modern typeface with well-balanced letters; it is also highly readable at all sizes, even down to footnote sizes like 6 points. Very widely used both for fiction and non-fiction now.

• Dante—nicely balances old-style design with readability. You may see it in the Walt Longmire mysteries, Penguin Modern Classics fiction, or a variety of non-fiction books.

• Minion—a relatively recent but widely used font that is highly readable but, in my opinion, a little bland. Frequently used for non-fiction but you will sometimes see it used for novels—like the Tor Essentials reprint of The Prestige that I read this fall.

• Caslon—a nicely weighted typeface with elegant italics that suggests the old-fashioned printing press (it is often used for books on the American Revolution, and there are some varieties that look artificially weathered, like 300-year old pamphlets).

• Baskerville—another classic, widely used by university presses and fiction publishers a few decades ago. Like Bembo and Caslon, it has as suggestion of class and history about it. You can see it in Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell.

There are plenty of other good typefaces commonly used for professional typesetting, but any one of these will look better than Calibri, Times New Roman, or whatever Word’s default is tomorrow. If these don’t come pre-packaged with your edition of Word, they’re available online in either licensed or free generic versions.

Avoid:

• Sans-serif fonts

• Typewriter fonts like Courier

• Slab-serif fonts, thick, heavy typefaces that are better used for titles or headings than the main body of text

• Fonts designed to look like calligraphy or other handwriting

• Whimsical fonts, of which there are many available

If what you’re after is professionalism and readability, you should pick something unobtrusive and clear.

Level up: With those strictures in mind, experiment with typefaces a bit. A choice of font doesn’t have to be strictly functional, it can suggest tone, add texture, or, like Caslon for those American Revolution books, suggest a time and place.

Conclusion

One of the challenges—or, if you enjoy this stuff like I do, one of the fun things—about self-publishing is that there are always things to fine-tune and improve. Again, the above is a list of basics that, even if they won’t give your self-published book perfect interior and type design, they’ll at least eliminate some of the most obvious mistakes or problems. As that one Substack commenter put it, you want potential readers to feel that they’re “in goods hands” just by looking inside. I hope y’all find it helpful.

On proportionality bias

This week The Rest is History dropped an excellent five-part series on Jack the Ripper. I managed to listen to all of it in two days. I strongly recommend it if you have any interest in that case, Victorian England, or the history of crime investigation, but also because Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook several times mention—albeit not by name—a useful concept for thinking about how we look for causes in past events: proportionality bias.

I’ve written about this briefly before, in a review of Rob Brotherton’s Suspicious Minds, on the cognitive aspects of conspiracism. Briefly, proportionality bias is our built-in tendency, when trying to explain something important, to look for something equally important as the cause. A cause that is, subjectively, incommensurate with the results is unsatisfying and tempts us toward identifying something else—usually something we are already suspicious of. Again, this is a built-in tendency, not a pathology, but while proportionality bias may be a helpful heuristic on the personal level, it does not scale to world events.

The go-to example is the JFK assassination. Many still can’t accept that the president of one of the most powerful states in history—a man involved in international intrigues at the highest levels including espionage, covert assassination programs, proxy wars, and near nuclear war—was killed by an unsympathetic loser who happened to have temporary work in a building his limousine happened to drive past. It happens to be true but is narratively unsatisfying. The conclusion that it must have been something or someone else comes first, and not necessarily consciously; arguments against Oswald are only meant to confirm it.

Something similar has been happening among certain types with regard to Charlie Kirk. It can’t have been a terminally online loser who killed him out of some half-formed, privately nursed political grievance; it must have been (insert fantasy villain of your choice, though one, the subject of a million crank fixations, keeps coming up).

In the case of Jack the Ripper, this is how we get theories of vast royal machinations or secret Masonic rituals—or some combination of the two—as the force behind the Whitechapel murders. That it was likely a still-unidentified local pervert who was skilled with a knife would, to many, prove disappointing. The imagination would prefer a dark cabal of willing actors, or at least a colorful weirdo, to the anonymous forces of poverty, deviance, and insanity.

Again, Holland and Sandbrook do a good job explaining this, even tying it back to their JFK series. The one point I would add to the above is the role that subjectivity of proportionality bias.

When I reviewed Brotherton’s book, I mentioned the assassinations of JFK and Archduke Franz Ferdinand in June 1914. The former is still the subject of fevered speculation and conspiracy theory; the latter, though part of a flourishing conspiratorial worldview in the 1920s, not so much. Why? Because JFK’s murder still feels important to people in way Franz Ferdinand’s, having become something we learn about in middle school rather than discuss casually, does not.

By the same token, Jack the Ripper is important—to us, for reasons Holland and Sandbrook explain well. In the same way that protesters will show up to vandalize the statues of high-profile targets like Robert E Lee or Christopher Columbus but not for Magellan or Raphael Semmes, or that ancient aliens enthusiasts will fixate on famous landmarks like the Pyramids but not much more complicated ancient construction projects like Roman aqueducts, preexisting cultural cachet matters perhaps more than the arguments themselves. This should, by itself, raise our suspicions.

Spurious, horrible, the worst kind

Earlier today I started reading Payment Deferred, a 1926 crime novel from the early career of CS Forester of Horatio Hornblower fame. A curious passage of description from the first chapter, when a long-lost relative arrives at an uncle’s London home and looks around:

For a moment the conversation flagged, and the boy, still a little shy, had leisure to look about him. These were the only relatives he had on earth, and he would like to make the most of them, although, he confessed to himself, he was not greatly attracted at first sight. The room was frankly hideous. The flowered wallpaper was covered with photographs and with the worst kind of engravings. The spurious marble mantelpiece was littered with horrible vases. Of the two armchairs one was covered with plush, the other with a chintz that blended unhappily with the wallpaper. The other chairs were plain bentwood ones. On a table in the window were dusty aspidistras in vast green china pots. In the armchair opposite him sat his uncle, in a shabby blue suit flagrantly spotted here and there. He was a small man, with sparse reddish hair and a bristling moustache of the same colour.

It continues from there at some length, but two things struck me about this passage:

The first is just how vague it is. The room is “hideous.” In what way? When Forester elaborates, we learn that the decor includes “the worst kind of engravings” and “horrible vases” set on a “spurious” mantel. The latter I take to mean that the marble is fake, but why are the vases “horrible”? Are they cheap? Broken? Out of fashion? Badly made? And just what are “the worst kind of engravings?” The 1920s equivalent of Thomas Kinkade? Cuttings from Victorian newspapers? Bookplates from Fanny Hill?

Forester clearly wants to impart the nephew’s impression of cheap, run-down living, but we get a better sense of his emotional response to the room than of what it actually looks like. Hideous, horrible, the worst kind—these could mean almost anything.

And yet—the second thing that struck me—it works. This should be bad writing, but isn’t. I think this is down to two things:

First, the description strengthens as the paragraph goes on, and it does so by becoming more particular and concrete. Compare the “horrible vases” with the “plain bentwood” chairs, the “dusty aspidistras in vast green china pots,” and the uncle himself. Shabbiness, inelegance, and neglect create a powerful but subtle sense not only of the place but the character of the people who live there. This is much better.

Second, even in the vague early parts of the description the verbs are strong. In fact, I think they do most of the work in the first several sentences, which is asking a lot of the repeatedly used to be, which I’ve written about before. But even in passive voice, “was covered with” and especially “was littered with” convey strong visual information of clutter, disorganization, and, again, neglect and further cues about the uncle and his family.

Every writer has his strengths and weaknesses. I’ve read only one other Forester novel, the excellent The Good Shepherd. This was published almost thirty years after Payment Deferred, but the two books share a strong interiority, not so much bringing us into as forcing us, claustrophobically, into the minds of the characters from page one. I remember no defects whatsoever in The Good Shepherd, so my suspicion is that passages like the above are the mark of his early career. He was only 27 when Payment Deferred was published, and it would be another eleven years before the first Hornblower book appeared.

At any rate, I’m already enjoying it, and seeing evidence of future greatness in early imperfection is always instructive.

The UFO Experience

In the late 1940s, the US Air Force approached Professor J Allen Hynek with a request for his services as a consultant. The original wave of flying saucer sightings was at its height, and the Air Force, in its defense role, was investigating this strange new phenomenon. How many reports of strange flying objects were simply misidentifications of planets and stars? They hoped Hynek, a respected astronomer, could help rule such cases out.

Over twenty years and three Air Force projects later, flying saucer flaps had evolved into UFO mania, the reports had evolved from sightings to encounters to abductions, and Hynek had been there for all of it. The Air Force, however, having determined early on that, whatever UFOs really were, they weren’t Russian and apparently weren’t a threat, had lost interest. But public fascination with UFOs, thousands of sightings and rumored sightings, and the multiple competing mythologies growing up around the phenomenon only intensified. Due to Hynek’s high public profile thanks to the Air Force (he is the man who gave us “swamp gas” as a feature of UFO investigation), the curious often asked Hynek to recommend “a good book” on UFOs. The UFO Experience, published in 1972, was Hynek’s attempt to provide it.

This is an interesting book for two major reasons. The first is Hynek’s perspective, which is genuinely openminded and scientific. Hynek approached the problem of UFOs as a field researcher, requiring solid, extensive data and basing interpretations on the data rather than forcing data into preconceived explanations. This would prove one of his ultimate frustrations with the Air Force, a topic we’ll come back to.

But data by itself isn’t of much use—it must be organized before it can be interpreted. And so approximately the first half of The UFO Experience is a taxonomy of UFO sightings with ample reference to cases Hynek (mostly) personally investigated. This is certainly the most famous part of the book. Even if you haven’t heard of Hynek, you’ve almost certainly heard the phrase “close encounter.”

Hynek’s taxonomy falls into two major categories with three subcategories apiece. The first are mere sightings: of nighttime lights; of “daylight discs,” the iconic 1950s flying saucer; and strange objects picked up on radar, possibly offering a hard empirical record of something seen by human witnesses. The second category, the close encounters, sightings of UFOs within 500 feet, a distance theoretically precluding misidentification of stars or aircraft, are of the first kind (sighting of an object in the air), the second kind (sighting of an object on the ground or otherwise physically affecting the environment), and the third kind (sighting of an object with the additional presence of some kind of living occupant).

Not only is this the most famous part of the book, it also has the best stories—the Levelland, Texas UFOs, the Lonnie Zamora sighting, and more. It also illustrates the other crucial scientific aspect of Hynek’s approach, which is his rigorously applied standards of evidence.

Hynek excluded from his study single-witness reports as too easily faked (or at least impossible to corroborate) as well as the testimonials of “contactee” types, flying saucer cultists who claimed to receive regular visits from extraterrestrials who offered touchy-feely advice on disarmament, among other things. In addition to prioritizing up-close sightings with multiple witnesses—preferably independent witnesses of good character or reputation—he factored in the subjective strangeness of reported sightings, an often overlooked data point. Contactee stories, with their feelgood peace-and-love vibes, were too obviously wishful thinking; more compelling were stories of inexplicable close encounters by honest people in professions requiring steadiness and sobriety—cops, doctors, farmers, engineers, military and commercial pilots, radar technicians, air traffic controllers. That many witnesses had been previously uninterested in UFOs was another important factor.

And Hynek, interestingly, found a lot of these, enough to convince him that, having eliminated out huge numbers of hoaxes and misidentifications, something strange was still going on. But understanding or explaining it would require a systematic approach through observation and testing and conclusions that did not exceed the possibilities suggested by the evidence. Hynek is, for example, notably skeptical of the Betty and Barney Hill abduction story, repeating but by no means endorsing their “recovered memories” of boarding the UFOs and enduring medical exams, and never endorses the extraterrestrial hypothesis.

Hynek’s primary concern is always to discover what we can say, scientifically and certainly, about what people have seen, and no more. But this careful, judicious approach was not apparently to the taste of the military, the public, or fellow scientists. He would be repeatedly disappointed.

That leads into the second half of the book, in which Hynek reflects on his twenty years doing the Air Force’s shoe leather work and examines some of the ways UFO investigations had gone wrong. I picked up The UFO Experience specifically to read about Hynek’s methodology, standards of evidence, and taxonomy—with all the good stories, being a non-believing, mostly aesthetic appreciator of the UFO phenomenon—but was surprised to find this half as interesting as the first. That’s because Hynek, though a thoughtful, judicious man, had scores to settle.

The first and most extensive is with the US Air Force. UFO lore of the Roswell coverup and Men in Black ilk posits Project Blue Book and its agents as omnipresent suppressors of information. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hynek criticizes Projects Sign, Grudge, and Blue Book as underfunded, understaffed, and headed by junior officers more keen to get promoted out of the position than to gather and assess evidence. Apathy was the rule, information-gathering was slapdash at best, and conclusions, in those instances when they were actually provided, were flippant and unconvincing. This only worsened once the projects had fulfilled their original purpose of determining whether the Russians were behind the UFOs.

Hynek also had harsh words for the scientific establishment, which refused to question its own paradigms in light of new evidence—the opposite of true science—and resorted to ridicule, blackballing, and naked appeals to its own authority to answer criticism and shut down public questions. They were also too eager to lump the curious in with the kooks. Hynek, in a prescient passage, predicts that these attitudes and browbeating the public with what one might now call, say, “settled science” will undermine science itself.

Hynek ends the book with a call for genuine curiosity, a willingness to investigate and incorporate knew knowledge, and a continued commitment to scientific rigor. I suspect he’d be still be disappointed.

This brings me to the second major reason I found The UFO Experience interesting, the purely historical—its place in the history of this phenomenon. Hynek wrote and published his “good book” on UFOs after they had become a secure feature of the American imagination but before some of the aspects we most commonly associate with it today had become mainstream. Abduction stories like the Hills’ were a relatively recent addition to the legendarium. The Pascagoula incident the year after Hynek published this book, the Travis Walton story two years after that, and Whitley Strieber’s Communion in the mid 80s—which also popularized the almond-eyed greys so often read back into the previous history—made abduction the central pillar of UFO myth and inextricably associated them with aliens.

Hynek also published The UFO Experience just four years after Chariots of the Gods, the original “ancient astronauts” book. Hynek, for whom many of the close encounters of the third kind he relates are, by his own standards, suspiciously “woo-woo,” makes absolutely no mention of this variety of UFO enthusiasm, which was genuinely fringe. It would require decades to grow and metastasize. But alongside the Roswell incident, which was resurrected and backfilled with UFO lore after Hynek’s time, ancient astronauts theories seemingly provide historical validation beyond the sudden appearance of flying saucers in 1947 and are responsible for much popular enthusiasm for UFOs now, from the History Channel (so-called) to Joe Rogan.

This book, then, arrived at a historical sweet spot, a moment of huge potential poised between how the original UFO legend began, how Hynek, newly free of the burden of government apathy, hoped it could develop, and what it would actually become. And that was certainly not more scientific.

The UFO Experience is a fascinating attempt by a principled, hard-working, thoughtful man to wrest some degree of scientific sense out of a phenomenon already buried under speculation, lunacy, and mockery. His standards of evidence and organized, taxonomical mind make for a fascinating presentation of the subject, and the cases he recaps and examines prove all the more compelling as a result. Not only has Hynek’s example shown me, personally, a way out of pure contempt for the believers, it’s a reminder of how rigorous, systematic thought and high standards could still salvage something useful out of a field that has only grown more bizarre since Hynek first applied his mind to understanding it.

Betraying that they’ve never had a friend

Everyone once in a while the benighted YouTube algorithm serves up a winner. Here’s an excellent short video essay that was recommended to me this afternoon. I watched it based on the thumbnail alone. The subject: the deep friendships of great literary characters being interpreted as sexual relationships, a terminal cultural cancer that never fails to annoy me.

The host, of the channel Geeky Stoics, a channel I’ve never previously come across, invokes several examples of this internet-fueled trend* but mostly focuses on two: Frog and Toad,** heroes of Arnold Lobel’s warm, gentle, very funny children’s stories, and Frodo Baggins and Sam Gamgee of Lord of the Rings. These are apposite choices, since both are great favorites in the Poss household and both have been subjected to this perverted eisegesis for some time now.

From there he advances to latter-day male loneliness and the generally sorry state of friendship in the modern West, topics I care deeply about and that he treats with extraordinary concision and care. It’s a solidly presented, thought-provoking little video, and I strongly recommend it.

But what made this video especially good was the use of CS Lewis’s book The Four Loves to frame the discussion. Just last week on Substack I made the case for The Four Loves as an underrated Lewis book, a late work brimming with his mature thought on the different aspects of love—its forms, objects, and enactments as affection, friendship, eros, and the theological virtue of charity. The video essay begins with a line from the chapter on friendship that I’ve thought about many, many, many times, especially when some smug terminally online type starts not so much insinuating as narrating the imaginary deviance of characters like Frodo and Sam:

“Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend.”

— CS Lewis

As I said, I have plenty of occasions to remember this line, but never as a gotcha—what it reveals is too sad for that.

The one point where I think the video misses a potentially fruitful nuance relates to class: while Frog and Toad are quite obviously peers, similarly situated in life, Frodo and Sam are a master and servant—Tolkien explicitly compared them to a British officer of the First World War and his batman. This does not preclude deep genuine friendship, something moderns struggle to understand and that the Peter Jackson movies mostly obscure. Just as we moderns have lost much with our condemnation of exclusivity or discrimination in relationships, so our suspicion of rank, hierarchy, or any other form of “inequality” has closed off whole dimensions of human experience to us.

But that’s a relatively minor point. There’s much more to the video, including more of Lewis’s discussion of the distinctions between friendship—a side-by-sideness oriented toward a common interest or mission—and other forms of love. Check out both Geeky Stoics’ video and The Four Loves, which is even available in a shorter, earlier version narrated by Lewis himself.

* Related: See this recent long video by Hilary Layne on the widespread deleterious effects of fanfic, not the least of which is the “shipping” of often inappropriate combinations of characters. Layne has a companion piece on Substack here.

** Often described by people on social media with the strangely specific phrase “canonically gay.” There is no mention of Frog and Toad being anything other than friends in the stories, the first collection of which is called Frog and Toad are Friends, making me wonder what these illiterates think the adverb canonically means.

Two dangers of colloquialism

Failure to communicate. Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke.

This has been a mad month, and on top of everything else keeping me busy I injured my right hand last week, so all the book reviews and other writing I had hoped to do over Thanksgiving Break came to nothing. For now. I’m glad to say I can type again, at least.

But if I had some enforced inactivity on the writing front over Thanksgiving, that at least gave me time to think. One topic I returned to several times was the danger of idiom, colloquialism, or unpredictable connotation in language. Two incidents—one-sided conversations overheard, really—separated by several years awakened me to two related aspects of the danger and drove home the need for clear and unmistakable meaning to me.

The more recent of the two came from a YouTube true crime channel that provides commentary on recorded police interviews. In one featured interview with a murder suspect, two detectives, a man and a woman, take turns applying pressure. It’s not exactly the good cop/bad cop routine, but the female cannily uses persuasion and emotional leverage while the male presses aggressively and confrontationally. Several times he uses the expression “come to Jesus” in the colloquial sense of a reckoning coming due, i.e. “It’s time to fess up.”

The YouTube narrator, apparently unaware of this common and (to me) obvious idiom, pauses to express outrage that the male detective is introducing religion to his interrogation and suggests his obsession with Jesus is undermining the female detective’s technique. Commenters also showed their ignorance—and, this being the internet, their violent irreligion—in predictable terms. Only one that I saw after scrolling through hundreds pointed out the narrator’s basic misunderstanding.

That’s one danger—in using an idiom or colloquialism, your meaning may be utterly lost, especially to observers or third parties. Take the image at the top of this post, for example. Some of y’all will be able to hear this image in your head. Some will have no idea what it means. It would be a mistake, then, to tie the meaning of this post to repeating a phrase like “Failure to communicate.”

The second, which I witnessed long ago on Facebook, is related but not identical. During an unexpected snowstorm back home in Georgia, a storm that occurred during a school day and threatened to trap students at school, Governor Nathan Deal took to social media to reassure the public that their kids would be taken care during the emergency, that Georgia public school teachers “are adequate to handle this situation.”*

Georgia’s state of preparedness for winter weather became a hot political topic for a few minutes afterward, but that’s not what greatly exercised an old acquaintance on Facebook. No, a guy I went to school with—after the manner of “guys I went to school with” the world over—posted a tantrum about Deal’s description of public school teachers as “adequate.” The problem? The word adequate itself, which this guy took as a negative of the “meets expectations” variety, anything not exceptional being perceived as bad. “We are more than just adequate!” etc etc.

The second, related danger—despite using precise, accurate language (Georgia’s teachers did, in fact, prove adequate to take care of students during the emergency), your audience may supply their own meaning based on purely informal connotation, what a word or expression means to them.

The problem in both cases is informality, a “you know what I mean” attitude toward language. In the first, informal expression from the communicator leads to misunderstanding on the part of a receiver ignorant of that informal expression. In the second, a precise, neutral message from the communicator leads to misunderstanding on the part of a mind that understands the words but, accustomed to informal use of a perfectly acceptable word, imputes false meaning to them.**

Speak colloquially and be misunderstood, or speak precisely and be misunderstood. This is just the nature of communication in a limited, fallen world, I suppose, but it’s frustrating, especially in the second case. You can’t, after all, predict every way your meaning can be misconstrued by someone.

The only solutions to this kind of misunderstanding that I can conceive of are erring on the side of precision (and you can be precise even when using idioms and dialect, sometimes even more precise than standard English allows); a commitment by everyone to learn more about English expression and even words and not jump to conclusions (easily the most optimistic idea I’ve ever floated on this blog); and—whether failing or in addition to those two—good faith and charity.

* I’ve tried and failed to find the exact wording of both Governor Deal’s message and the Facebook status referenced here, but the one word that matters most I remember clearly.

** It’s telling that both responded with outrage and an apparent unwillingness to discern whether they had misunderstood, but that’s a topic for another time.

The two basic ways history is going wrong

Last year, when Joel Miller asked me to introduce the subject of historiography over on his Substack, I noted the existence of modern schools of history that “deny even the possibility of Herodotus’s work.” Against this was a countervailing anxiety about “revisionism,” which undermines the discipline of historical understanding.

Last night I finished reading Robert Tracy McKenzie’s book The First Thanksgiving. McKenzie explains the historiography of that event and the broader context of the Pilgrims and post-Reformation Europe excellently, and it got me thinking about those two opposed errors in the approach to history again.

It seems to me there are two basic ways history goes wrong in the present:

The first, which I’ve railed against plenty of times here on the blog, stems from the hermeneutic of suspicion. This could be an ideological postmodernism that regards all historical sources as equally fictional “text,” feminist or postcolonialist or other intersectional assumptions about power and oppression, or—most commonly among the half-educated—a reflexive suspicion based on a cliche like “History is written by the winners.” In its elite form, with cultural cachet including glowing writeups in legacy print and endcap displays at Barnes & Noble, this is The 1619 Project; in its vulgar form, this is the TikTolk explainer that slices and dices to reveal to the viewer the dark forces behind great moments in history or, yet simpler, the Henry Ford or Napoleon attitude: history is “bunk,” history is “lies agreed upon.”

The second basic error is often a reaction to the first, and that’s resistance to any form of “revisionism.” Where the first error stemming from suspicion, whether in New York Times or neckbeard Redditor form, is leftist-coded, this is very much a conservative phenomenon. (It is also much more proportionally popular or vulgar, conservatives and their ilk having less purchase in elite taste-making institutions.) This error seeks to preserve the past in aspic, a complete, uncomplicated display piece. Questioning or correcting even the small details of an historical event as popularly understood—pointing out, for example, that the Pilgrims probably did not eat turkey and certainly did not have bread at the first Thanksgiving—is received as a profanation. That’s because, as with the first error, understanding the past isn’t actually the point for those making the error.

Though seemingly opposites—and you’ll certainly see the people doing this sneering at the others, especially imaginary others—both approach history more as a symbolic extension of themselves, both have a simplifying instinct (“Well, we know what’s actually going on here is…” vs “Just teach the facts!”), and both need a usable past, an instrumental version of history oriented toward achieving some goal. That is, they’re presentists.

McKenzie’s Thanksgiving book is excellent. I hope to review it in full here soon, but as I haven’t finished anything I’ve started writing for over a week, don’t hold your breath—and definitely give thanks for me if I do.

Dorothy Sayers, Steven Pressfield, and soldier slang

Alan Jacobs has an interesting post today on how Dorothy Sayers and WH Auden, at roughly the same time, approach the same problem: “How might one portray, for a 20th-century audience, the life (or part of the life) of Jesus Christ in a manner that is artistically and religiously serious?” Both, albeit in different ways, strove to make the story fresh and immediate through the use of contemporary language.

Read Jacobs’s whole post for more, but this chunk of Sayers’s apologia for her technique in The Man Born to Be King stuck out to me:

The technique is to keep the ancient setting, and to give the modern equivalent of the contemporary speech and manners. . . . We may make a Roman officer address his squad with modern military words of command, since some similar verbal technique must always and everywhere have been used to start and turn and stop bodies of soldiery, or to inspect their kit and parade-order. We may make a military policeman or a tax-collector lard his speech with scraps of American slang; for the local speech must have been full of catch-phrases picked up from the foreign soldiers and merchants who swarmed along the great trade-routes of the Empire; and for these bits and pieces of vulgar Latin, bastard Greek, and Syriac dialects the language of Hollywood is the modern equivalent. 

The military examples are well-chosen for the precise reasons Sayers lays out. The jargon and slang of soldiers’ speech offers riches to be mined in archaeological layers: antiquated vocabulary surviving in specialized senses, foreign technical terminology, foreign borrowings from campaigns that may have occurred before the current generation was born, myriad protean shortenings, acronyms, and euphemisms, and a huge stock of inventive, poetic, and almost always highly vulgar slang.

Mastering it is probably impossible if you’ve never served. Time intensifies the challenge. Marines now and Marines during World War II both swore a lot and used a lot of slang, but the precise words used and the way they were used, the posture of the language, so to speak, are going to be different. The further back in time—and the language—that you go, the bigger the problem.

I find that, as with regional dialect, suggestion, hinting at a system of slang or way of speaking, works much better than overwhelming the reader with every term one can dig up. My biggest experiment in this regard so far is The Snipers, in which, to a greater extent even than Dark Full of Enemies, I tried to give my young, unrefined, casual, but hard-bitten GIs a distinct, period-authentic linguistic posture that would both evoke the period while being instantly understandable through use and context. I tried to do this minimalistically, with specifically selected lingo. I gather from a handful of readers that it worked.

No credit to me, necessarily. Just like you train your ear for realistic contemporary dialogue by listening and talking, you can do something similar with historical sources. I have a WWII slang dictionary, which can be helpful, but the best method is simply to read lots of lots of contemporaneous writing by people who were there—the less formal the better. I listed three books I found helpful in the case of The Snipers at the time I published it; there are plenty of others.

But I also had the advantage that my characters, regardless of the changes wrought over eighty years, were still speaking modern English. What if, like Sayers and Auden, you’re trying to suggest the distinctive patter not only of a foreign language, but one from 2000 years ago?

Someone who does this exceptionally well is Steven Pressfield. His novels The Afghan Campaign, which tells the story of part of Alexander’s conquests from the perspective of a squad of grunts, and the incomparable Gates of Fire both excel in this regard. Perhaps its Pressfield’s varied experience in lots of fields, including serving as a Marine, but his ancient Greek and Macedonian characters have a distinctive, contemporary-feeling, lived in argot that sells itself as authentic immediately. Some of it accurately translates ancient Greek, some of it is contemporary military equivalents to ancient concepts, some of it is pure invention. But it works exceptionally well.

I’ve wrestled with this problem of capturing the tone or texture of a dead language plenty of times and am trying to figure out a looser, livelier approach for a project I’m outlining now. I’ll probably return to some of Pressfield’s work for inspiration.

Plot holes in reality

By far the most tedious complaint about any given movie today is that it has “plot holes.” Technically, a plot hole is a contradiction or discrepancy in the actual storytelling that makes some part of the story logically impossible. These are not necessarily insurmountable—plenty of good movies have plot holes. But, in the way that the democratic spread of a technical concept always makes it stupider, the popular understanding of plot holes is that 1) they totally ruin entire movies and 2) consist of any unexplained detail in the story, no matter how minor.

This last point is key. Modern movie audiences both need everything spelled out for them and don’t pay attention, so even leaving out characters traveling between two points is sometimes called out as a plot hole. I wish I were making this up.

It occurred to me this morning while reading comments on the latest episode of an Unsolved Mysteries-type podcast that the plot hole has a close cousin in popular conspiracism—the “anomaly.”

Basic dictionary definitions of anomaly emphasize deviation from norms or expectations. Statisticians and scientists routinely talk about anomalies in their data, i.e, results they didn’t expect or that contradict the findings of similar research. But, as with plot hole, anomaly has a broader, looser, darker popular meaning. Read discussions of any recent event that has a conspiratorial angle on it and “anomalies” will pop up not as outlier data or unexpected details, but as trace elements of coverup, alteration or fabrication by Them, and evidence of hidden truths. This usage of anomaly is not coincidentally well suited to insinuation.

Both plot holes and anomalies may be minor unexplained details. The difference is that plot holes exist within the limited worlds conjured by storytelling or filmmaking and, unless the author invents an explanation as a patch, are simply mistakes or information too unimportant to bother about in the first place. An anomaly—as understood by the internet type scrubbing through footage of, say, the Charlie Kirk assassination one frame at a time—admits of explanation because it occurred in reality, limitless and limitlessly complicated. One only has to do good-faith research.

But, in actual practice, calling something an anomaly usually just creates permission to discard valid evidence because it isn’t perfect, to speculate and point fingers, or to venture entirely into a theory the conspiracist has already settled on. X is unexplained or unexpected, therefore A, B, and C.

Just an observation—perhaps more later. The aforementioned podcast episode was disappointingly weak for a generally good show, so this will probably be on my mind for a while. More than usual, anyway.

Addendum: An anomaly in written accounts or eyewitness testimony will usually be called a discrepancy, with almost identical results.

Against director’s cuts

Here’s a very good Substack essay that dares to say something I’ve thought for a long, long time: the theatrical cuts of The Lord of the Rings are better than the extended editions.

The author, Ryan Kunz, offers several good arguments in support of this unpopular opinion, not the least of which are the pacing problems introduced with the extra footage but largely absent from the theatrical cuts. This is what initially disappointed me about the extended editions twenty-odd years ago. In The Fellowship of the Ring’s climactic battle against the Uruk-hai, Howard Shore’s excellent music is chopped and stretched to accommodate additional action and orc blood, leaving seams in the soundtrack that I was never able to ignore. I actually resented the changes for breaking up the music. Fellowship, which is still my favorite and, I think, the best-crafted of the three movies, does not benefit much simply from being longer.

Few movies do. The movies that have actually been improved by a director’s cut are few and far between. Das Boot and Kingdom of Heaven come to mind.

But these are rare exceptions. Most often a director’s cut is a sign of bloat, of creative restlessness, or a studio cash grab. Sometimes a director in the grip of an obsessive spirit of experimentation simply won’t leave a movie alone, as in the multiple competing cuts of Blade Runner and Oliver Stone’s Alexander. Much more commonly, a director’s cut simply offers more movie without actually integrating the extra footage well—quantity over quality, the whole problem with the extended editions of The Lord of the Rings. Apocalypse Now: Redux and the director’s cut of Gettysburg, which has many of the same pacing faults I complained about in Fellowship, also fit the bill. The cheap, vulgar version of this is the spate of unrated DVDs from the early 2000s—especially in the horror genre—which were excuses for a volume of gore and nudity that would have precluded theatrical release.

And yet that spirit is not entirely absent from the Lord of the Rings extended editions. I remember when each came out, year after year, the first two were announced with a breathless promise that they would be not only longer but R-rated. This suggested a prurient interest in gore for its own sake that bothered me at the time. (Remember Peter Jackson’s background.) One almost sensed the disappointment as each extended edition, year after year, was slapped with the same PG-13 as the theatrical cuts.

In addition to bloat and pacing problems, the footage included in director’s cuts often consists of already inferior material. Most of the additional footage in Gettysburg is clunky talk, as when Pickett’s Charge is stopped cold for a monologue from General Trimble, complete with awkwardly looped score. Kunz also notes the cringey, anachronistic humor in The Two Towers. Théoden’s line in the same film, improvised to Jackson’s delight by Bernard Hill, that “No parent should have to bury their child” is similarly cringeworthy. A parent burying their child, not a father burying his? And in what world before our own would this be a reasonable expectation? The filmmakers betray their sentimentalism here. This is a scene that undermines its own sense of the tragic and the tone of the movie.

The ready availability of the director’s cut or extended edition, especially when it becomes expected, can also be a crutch, as I noted regarding Ridley Scott’s Napoleon. This was a disaster of a movie that Scott—notice that he’s popped up three times now—was already asserting would be improved by a longer cut before it even hit theatres.

There is also a fanboy dimension to all of this. As Substacker and fantasy author Eric Falden noted in his restack of Kunz’s essay, there is a certain maximalist “mimetic” quality to some fans’ devotion to the extended editions that feels purely performative. The way this is communicated is usually the giveaway: “Watching The Lord of the Rings again—extended editions, of course.”

That’s off-putting and sets off my anti-joining reflexes, but the artistic considerations have always been most important to me. Jackson, like any good filmmaker, worked really, really hard to make Fellowship, the trial balloon, the best movie it could possibly be, taking the fullest possible advantage of the medium—tight structure, fast-pacing, telling exactly as much story as it needed to in a surprisingly light and economical three hours. Its runaway success led to perceptible slackness in The Two Towers and The Return of the King, a slackness that turned to bloat by piling on additional footage for the extended DVDs.

This may have proven good fanservice, but it is not good filmmaking—or, lest we forget, adaptation. The Lord of the Rings excels as a novel. The movies should excel as movies.

Food for thought. I’m not against director’s cuts per se, of course, and I don’t hate The Lord of the Rings extended editions, but I think director’s cuts have to do much more to justify their existence—and fans’ devotion to them—than simply be longer.