Is style dead?

If you're a professional editor (of words, not video or film), you fall into one of two categories. You believe the devil is in the details. Or you believe that's where God lies.

I fall so firmly in the latter category that I'd like to excommunicate any editor who's wishy-washy on the subject of serial commas. Not really. Actually, yes, really.

More and more, I meet editors who say they follow Chicago or AP "with certain exceptions," numbering from the handful to the too-many-to-fully-enumerate.

Unfortunately, here's what these loopholes communicate: "I am/my organization is too lazy to actually learn the rules. It's so much easier to pretend to know them! Then assert creative license! We spit in the general direction of your stringent rules. They are too narrow to hold us, for we are large in our ideas and our originality!"

The truth is, as Bob Dylan would remind you, you've gotta serve somebody. When you set yourself up as your own style boss, you risk looking sloppy, or ignorant, or both. And readers who know the rules will judge you accordingly. No organization can risk this kind of negative impression.

"But, Proof Cabinet," I hear you saying, "how many readers actually know style rules?"

Okay, most don't. Here's the thing, though: Readers sense inconsistency. Even if they can't point to examples of it, they feel uneasy in its presence. I've seen this over and over again. Even stylistically unsophisticated clients prefer rigorously edited copy over slapdash efforts. Good copyediting comforts like a tight swaddle; it helps all readers feel more secure, even when they don't know why.

If organizations have two or three special rules of their own—the president is always "the President," or a Chicago-based style uses AP style for numerals—that's not beyond the pale. My favorite number of deviations is zero, but a controlled few don't qualify as apostasy.

More than that, repent! You're endangering your editorial soul.