"[sic]" -- classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

[sic] = the little bracketed interjection authors use when something they're quoting includes a spelling error, an error in fact, or (sometimes) anything the author perceives as being beyond the bounds of acceptable statement for his/her chosen mode (academic, literary, whatever).

There is a certain fear evident in the usage of this. Like, "oh no! what if the reader thinks I made a typo!" (of course in my head--being an editor--this wd reflect more on the publisher than the author but most readers prob. wouldn't perceive it that way).

Sometimes authors go overboard with this. I'm reading a book now which has a quote from Béla Balázs:

Facing an isolated face takes us out of space, our consciousness of space is cut out and we find ourselves in another dimension: that of physiognomy. . . . The facial expression on a face [sic] is complete and comprehensible in itself and therefore we need not think of it as existing in space and time.

Now the only thing wrong with "face" (that I can perceive) is that Balázs uses the word once too often; it's bad writing. But using "[sic]" to cover for slight abuse of the language (especially in a translation, which I suspect this is since I believe Balász wrote in Hungarian) seems a bit much.

Finally, I've read a few books (sorry specific titles don't come to mind at the moment) which sort of politicize the use and nonuse of "[sic]." For example one book which contained some quotes from the slave narratives collected by the WPA, steadfastly refused to use this interjection, saying it would be patronizing to suggest that the color of the language in the narratives was wrong instead of just, different. I even read an essay which dealt with Ed Wood, the filmmaker, and they noted a refusal to use "[sic]" for a similar reason: the supposed "errors" in his writing were inextricable from his writing as a whole and in fact provided some of the most expressive (consciously or no) moments therein. This inevitably gets us into discussion about academic/intellectual attitudes toward the discourse of other groups. Is it condescending to presume that their "mistakes" aren't truly mistakes (obv. in some cases they obv. aren't, before anyone starts flaming away).

So, thoughts on "[sic]"? When is its use justified? When is it not?

I'd like to hear other examples of its politicization.

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 13 June 2003 04:46 (twenty-two years ago)

the tool of a weak mind in a flamewar

― jess (dubplatestyle), Friday, 13 June 2003 05:02 (twenty-two years ago)

that's like a 21st-century call to arms

― s1utsky (slutsky), Friday, 13 June 2003 05:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Before anybody else jumps the gun, I'm just gonna say that the band luv [sic] is totally classic.

― Chris P (Chris P), Friday, 13 June 2003 05:23 (twenty-two years ago)

when i say im in love you best believe im in love l-u-v [sic]

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 13 June 2003 05:28 (twenty-two years ago)

(obv. in some cases they obv. [sic] aren't, before anyone starts flaming away).

― gazuga (gazuga), Friday, 13 June 2003 06:38 (twenty-two years ago)

it may also be disappearing for as functionalist reason viz that in the English language we are exiting (have exited) the Great Age of Orthography (17xx?-198x?)

i. proof-reading etc is a dead skill (it's no good saying "sic" at yr spellcheck programme)
ii. txt/haXoR
iii. learning to read has been not just privatised but consumer-atomised (spelling variations determine the limits of market niches)
iv. you tell me i got something wrong writing-wise = you are wearing the trucker hat of cultural oppression?
v. the ethics of the exact quote has taken a byzantine turn (to tidy up or select = to tabloid-distort?)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 13 June 2003 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Mark is "[sic]" as common or uncommon a figure in English books as in American ones?

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 13 June 2003 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

i don't know, i never thought about it let alone kept count

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 13 June 2003 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

The "[sic]" in your example doesn't have to be snarky and might be useful, because your example is a translation. If "facial expression on a face" is an accurate translation of a Hungarian phrase which sounds pretty weird in Hungarian as well, the translator would want the "[sic]" there; without it, you'd be more likely to think the translator is simply sloppy with the language into which he's translating, as many translators are; with it, you are given the opportunity to think Balázs an idiot, or to wonder if he actually does mean to imply that facial expressions can exist outside of faces. That is, the translator uses "[sic]" to mean "you be the judge [of Balázs]".

On the other hand, the phrase "facial expression on a face" might simply be an overly literal translation of a not-at-all-unusual Hungarian phrase that can be properly understood as meaning "facial expression"; if the author of the piece quoting Balázs comes across the awkward-seeming translation with no "[sic]" and is unable to read Hungarian, he may want to insert the "[sic]" to mean "you be the judge [of the translator]".

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 13 June 2003 13:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I am laughing myself [sic].

― Paul Eater (eater), Friday, 13 June 2003 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it's fine to make clear that the quote is as it is shown; I despise it when it is a way of sneering at the original writer*. I often correct typos when quoting, especially on ILX, rather than have to use sic.

* I suspect I may have used it this way in the past, but I hope not often or recently.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I often correct typos when quoting, especially on ILX

I do this, too. I wonder why, though. I'm assuming that most people cut-and-paste when they quote, so if there's a typo in the quote, it can't be my fault, since I haven't typed anything. Plus, you need only look upthread to see the quote in its original context.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I always thought the use of "[sic]" was just a combined way to not take blame for a typo, and show off your proofreading skills in relation to just typos.

Although, we are far overdue for the use of "[sic]" in everyday snarkiness.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I know that "[sic]" means "note: I noticed that mistake, but left it in", but I've always wondered exactly what the letters "sic" stand for. Does it have anything to do with Standard Industrial Classification?

― Scaredy Cat, Friday, 13 June 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, when you're quoting something, the bad sentence structure within is obviously not going to be your fault. A typo, however, might be blamed on you.. hence. People who use "[sic]" for the former are [pric]s.

― donut bitch (donut), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think sic stands for anything, isn't it probably Latin?

― NA. (Nick A.), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

it is from the Latin "sic" meaning "so..." or "thus..." Obv it doesn't retain that meaning.

Jessica Mitford in The American Way of Death: "I do not like repeated use of sic... The reader who is fastidious about usage will hereafter have to supply his own sics."

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:54 (twenty-two years ago)

thus/even thus.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Its a snotty way of making someone apear stupid. Its the interviewers Q.E.D.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Thus, as in "that's the way I found it."

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:58 (twenty-two years ago)

it's a printer's mark, really, like "stet": an instruction to a printer or a proof reader not to correct the error they see

they took to leaving it in so as to point out that yes they notice the mistake but were told to leave it

"sic" means "thus" means "leave it thus"
"stet" means "let it stand" (but you only see stet in proofing, not sic any more)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 13 June 2003 17:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Taking Sides: [sic] vs. [italics mine]

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 13 June 2003 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

[italics mine] vs. [author's italics] vs. [italics not in original]

― amateurist (amateurist), Friday, 13 June 2003 18:08 (twenty-two years ago)

I use stet at work. I don't like it because it means I thought I caught some big mistake but then realized it was supposed to be there.

― NA. (Nick A.), Friday, 13 June 2003 18:39 (twenty-two years ago)

[sic] is not [ed.] though.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Friday, 13 June 2003 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

vs [italics not in italics]

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 13 June 2003 23:10 (twenty-two years ago)

it may also be disappearing for as functionalist reason viz that in the English language we are exiting (have exited) the Great Age of Orthography (17xx?-198x?)

So reviewers who note misspellings and use these to infer sloppy writing or editing are fighting a rearguard battle?

For example one book which contained some quotes from the slave narratives collected by the WPA, steadfastly refused to use this interjection, saying it would be patronizing to suggest that the color of the language in the narratives was wrong instead of just, different.

Where in the book did the editor state this? Standard academic English has correct spellings because to misspell a word turns it either into another word or into gibberish, and if a misspelled word disrupts the reading flow, that's commonly considered to reflect poorly on the author, the editor, or both. If the editor put this policy statement in a foreword, a reader who went straight to Ch. 3 will probably stumble over the text, and possibly dismiss the whole book as more trouble than it's worth.

― j.lu (j.lu), Friday, 13 June 2003 23:33 (twenty-two years ago)

When I was little I used to get confused between [sic] and [hic].

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 13 June 2003 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Gripe water is of little use for the former, I've found.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 14 June 2003 10:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Some smart aleck should make a comic strip featuring an inebriated editor, using "[sic]" for "[hic]".

― s1utsky (slutsky), Saturday, 14 June 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.