Paraphrasing vs. verbatim quotes

[kkersey_austin]

There seems to be some confusion (on my part only, perhaps) about a
couple of things: first, whether Random832 was proposing *allowing*
paraphrasing, or whether she was proposing *requiring* paraphrasing
(i.e. disallowing block quotes altogether); and second, whether
paraphrasing other list members' comments is an acceptable practice at
all.

In regards to the first, I read it as Random832 proposing a
not-entirely-serious remedy, in order to make a point - if quoting
format is going to be such a big issue let's just do away with block
quotes altogether.  Sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath
water. But then, I also read the "smart-ass" comment as being
self-directed, since it followed immediately after a quote attributed
to herself, and I got *that* one wrong. 

Now about paraphrasing in general: there is sometimes a fine line
between putting words in someone else's mouth (or keyboard, as it
were) and making a valid reference to or summary of someone else's
ideas or argument. Personally, I'd rather spend my time reading about
the *new* ideas rather than re-reading three paragraphs of quotage,
and because of that I tend to just skip over lengthy quotes out of
habit. In addition, I do think that Random832 has a good point, that
an inaccurate paraphrase can actually help point out a mis-reading,
and thus resolve a misunderstanding. (In fact, "What I hear you saying
is...", followed by a paraphrase, is a technique that is quite useful
when discussing emotionally charged subjects, in general.)

Perhaps it would be helpful to look at a post that does use
paraphrasing - hmmmm, how about this HPfGU classic, message #34911, in
which Elkins introduces SYCOPHANTS:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34911

It is a long post, so I will excerpt just part of it here and add some
comments below. But do go look at the original too.

Elkins, in message #34911, wrote:
> About Sirius' comment that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins
> who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters," I wrote:
> 
> > BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it?...Who, one
> > wonders, were the abstainers?
> 
> Eileen and Rebecca both felt that I had misinterpreted Sirius' 
> comment, and that the six people he mentions (Snape, Rosier, Wilkes, 
> Lestrange, Lestrange, and Avery) were in fact the entirety of the 
> gang.  While both of them agreed that they would very much *like* it 
> for there to have been abstainers, neither of them believed that 
> this was what the author had intended.  Rebecca wrote by way of 
> explanation:
> 
> > I thought "nearly all" meant all but possibly Snape -- Sirius 
> > isn't sure if Snape actually became a DE when he spoke this.
> 
> Interesting!  It never even *occurred* to me to read "nearly all" 
> that way.  I had just automatically assumed that there were one or 

Elisabet, now commenting:

I find Elkins' post absolutely clear and readable. Rather than
quote extensive passages from Eileen and Rebecca's posts she
summarizes - paraphrases - and then provides a brief snippet from one
post, in order to respond to a particular point. She could, I suppose,
have quoted passages verbatim from both Eileen and Rebecca's posts
instead of providing the summary/paraphrase, but I for one appreciate
that she chose to simply lay out what she thought was important for
the purposes of moving the discussion forward. Even four and a half
years later, it is easy to read this post even though it was midway
through a lengthy thread. 

Each quote is introduced with a bit of context ("About Sirius'
comment...I wrote"; "by way of explanation") and is clearly
attributed. Personally, I don't have a problem at all with that first
quote being introduced with an "I wrote",  because it is absolutely
clear who she is quoting *and* it is unlikely that anyone would
accidentally mis-attribute during a cut and paste, it being part of a
sentence and not stand-alone. But that perhaps is another issue...

There are more examples of paraphrasing and summarizing throughout the
post; I just grabbed one near the top. 

So, a question: does anyone feel that the kind of paraphrasing Elkins
used here should be either encouraged or discouraged? Keeping in mind
the concern expressed by Sean about the dangers of misinterpreting
other people's words. And keeping in mind that not everyone can write
like Elkins... 


Elisabet, who - just so we're all on the same page - is *not* asking
this as a rhetorical question!