A standard rule of style in American writing is that punctuation goes within quotation marks. For example: "He was going to the park," said Fred. Although Fred's statement was a complete sentence in and of itself, it is part of the larger sentence in this instance.
But there's an instance where I don't agree with this rule, and that's where the thing being quoted is a title.
To start, I'll point out the article that sparked this little tempest: David Pogue's weekly e-mail column from The New York Times. In it, he offers the following...
But of all the feedback to my column, one person’s message carries more authority than anyone else’s. It comes from Jon Turteltaub -- the *director* of “National Treasure: Book of Secrets!”
Now, first of all, according to just about every style guide I've checked, movie titles, like novel titles, are supposed to be italicized rather than placed in quotes. But, because his e-mail may be going out as both HTML and as plain text, where italicizing isn't possible, it could be that this is the New York Times editorial style for plain text publications.
When I did a lot of writing of articles and essays for e-mail publication, I'd write them in HTML, using the <i> and </i> tags. For versions that would render in HTML, I'd leave them as they were. When converting to a plain-text format, I'd do a quick global search and replace, turning <i>The New York Times</i> into _The New York Times_. This is based on an old printers' convention of underlining items in draft versions of documents instead of italicizing them, so they're more distinct. Though you can't underline in plain text any more easily than you can italicize, the underscores work well for most people.
But I digress from the point, and that's David Pogue putting an exclamation point inside the quotation marks with the title. i.e. “National Treasure: Book of Secrets!” It bothers the heck out of me for one very simple reason: THE EXCLAMATION POINT ISN'T PART OF THE TITLE!!! You're using the quotation marks to set the title apart from the rest of the text. By putting the exclamation point inside the quotes, you're implying that it is part of the title. And given the fact that some titles do use punctuation in them (like Casual Sex?), it only causes further possible confusion when placing the punctuation inside the quotation marks.
A friend of mine published his argument with a copy editor about this topic. He claims that putting punctuation unrelated to the title inside the title's quotation marks is an American style, but placing it outside the quotation marks is British style. I've found little evidence to back up his contention that these are national stylistic idiosyncracies, but if he's right, more power to the Brits. Putting unrelated punctuation inside the quotes around a quoted title is stupid and defeats at least some of the purpose of putting quotes around it in the first place.
Of course, there will be sticklers for the rules, who would gladly follow any order, no matter how stupid, if handed down to them by a trusted authority: This is the way you program a computer. This is the way you write. This is the way you cut your steak.
Even if the rule causes confusion and logic dictates that there is a better way, some people will resist, because "this is how I was taught to do it." Yet some of us prefer to think about the rules we follow. Some of us look for better ways to do things or even make up new ways. Still, you have to be careful about how and when you break the rules. There's a fine line between being a rebel and a dumbass.
And to show the dumbass side of that line, I'll link to The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks, featuring many photos of quotation marks gone wild.
Entries (RSS)
I hate this rule for titles! As a matter of fact, I found your blog entry on the topic as I desperately searched for proof that I was correct in leaving the stupid punctuation outside the title of a T.V. show.
Maybe now I'll just claim to be British.