By Ariella Brown
I've never cared for the way commas are used in headlines set for AP style. Written text should correspond to the language we speak as much as possible.
Substituting a comma for the word "and" in this instance actually slows the readers down as they have to consider that, though the standard formulation of a comma between two adjectives makes one assume they both apply to the same noun, that can't be the intent of the headline.
Really, why write "How younger, older B2B marketers differ" instead of "How younger and older B2B marketers differ"?
The latter is both clearer and flows better than the former. Saving those three keystrokes is an insignificant gain for a loss of clarity and rhythm. IMHO. Does that make it wrong? I decided to investigate.
As a grammar geek, I got very excited to discover that I am not alone in feeling these headlines mangle English. That very point is the subject of Stack Exchange discussion from a few years ago. The gist of the investigation amounts to these points:
1. The substitution of a comma for "and" is assumed to be motivated by a desire to save space or to sound punchier, though it's not something mandated by AP style. In other words, it's not incorrect to include the "and" in the title.
2. The suspicion that this practice is related to digital publications is not supported by evidence. There are examples of such headlines in print going back at least to 1990.
3. It's also not a practice peculiar to American outlets, a theory that may have arisen from those with some bias against American writing.
Now to return to the very first point here, I stick with my objection. For this particular formulation, the effect of dropping the "and" is not punchier, definitely not clearer, and seems to be an affectation of the writer or journalist who seems to believe that an"and" never belongs in a headline.
Whoever is responsible for blindly following this unfortunate trend has forgotten the one golden rule of writing that George Orwell proclaimed in his famous essay: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
Really, why write "How younger, older B2B marketers differ" instead of "How younger and older B2B marketers differ"?
The latter is both clearer and flows better than the former. Saving those three keystrokes is an insignificant gain for a loss of clarity and rhythm. IMHO. Does that make it wrong? I decided to investigate.
As a grammar geek, I got very excited to discover that I am not alone in feeling these headlines mangle English. That very point is the subject of Stack Exchange discussion from a few years ago. The gist of the investigation amounts to these points:
1. The substitution of a comma for "and" is assumed to be motivated by a desire to save space or to sound punchier, though it's not something mandated by AP style. In other words, it's not incorrect to include the "and" in the title.
2. The suspicion that this practice is related to digital publications is not supported by evidence. There are examples of such headlines in print going back at least to 1990.
3. It's also not a practice peculiar to American outlets, a theory that may have arisen from those with some bias against American writing.
Now to return to the very first point here, I stick with my objection. For this particular formulation, the effect of dropping the "and" is not punchier, definitely not clearer, and seems to be an affectation of the writer or journalist who seems to believe that an"and" never belongs in a headline.
Whoever is responsible for blindly following this unfortunate trend has forgotten the one golden rule of writing that George Orwell proclaimed in his famous essay: “Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
Related
Follow Write Way Pro on LinkedIn and on Facebook.
You can also follow Ariella Brown.
Posts
