Hey folks, Chicago Manual of Style 17th edition is live. Holy shit! I just got it yesterday, and so have not fully explored all that is new and excited about our favorite orange (then blue, and now orange and blue) book.
I have grand plans of skimming the book cover to cover because I have forgotten many things over the years, and I’m afraid I also rely on old knowledge. However, today’s post is brought to you by a targeted strike.
I have always thought (snobbily) that “classical” should be reserved for music or Greeks. So when today’s author said, “blah blah blah classical tea-cozy weaving,” I said, not so fast. Then I remembered my resolution to be more in touch with my inner Chicago 17 and said, OK, OK, I’ll look it up.
Is the drama killing you yet? Is it a tragedy of epic proportions (also a mixed metaphor I am sure)? Have you gone on to other blogs because you don’t give a fuck about style and usage?
I thought not. It turns out you use classic to mean a seminal or authoritative work, and classical to mean something traditional in a field of art or literature.
For example, “Patricia Briggs’ novels are a classic example of urban fantasy, or what my spouse calls Vampire Lesbians in the Mist.” But “Let’s go back to the classical methods of forging iron rather than buying cheap molded iron from China.”
Any other questions?