Following conventions important, but breaking them invaluable

I have distinguished myself at UCLA by tirelessly playing by the
rules.

As a Daily Bruin copy editor, I have spent countless nights
correcting punctuation and hyphenation, ensuring Schwarzenegger
(two Gs) and Condoleezza (two Zs) were spelled correctly, and
always abiding by the AP Stylebook. After three years, I know the
rules. Following them has become blissfully effortless.

Any serious journalist would insist the rules are important, and
they indeed are for many reasons. They build the trust of readers
and allow the news to be conveyed in the clearest, most accurate
way possible.

In a social context, rules establish conventions of interaction
and behavior that allow us to trust the stranger in the car next to
us every time we drive. In preschool, the rules are clear and
simple, and children are trained to equate following the rules with
delicious rewards. We are all drawn to rules and first learn about
our place in the world through them. They make life safe and
comfortingly predictable.

But now, years out of preschool and days away from graduating
college, the rules have changed. When I recall all of the exacting
standards I have learned and memorized, I am reminded of how
disappointingly insignificant and futile they often are.

When considering the mounting deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq,
the rules seem tragically and disappointingly unfair. The Bush
administration’s alarmingly unjustifiable rules of war remind
us to always be skeptical of those whose leadership and policies
have the power to take human life. Though it’s easy to
blindly accept the rules, sometimes they must be challenged and
changed in order to maintain their integrity and truest
purpose.

And as many have already learned, rules aren’t relevant
during some of life’s most challenging moments, like the
divorce of parents or the death of a loved one. Nor are rules of
any concern during life’s most precious and happy moments.
They can’t explain or prescribe the unique joys of finding a
lifelong friend or falling in love. Their systematic nature and
emotionless execution seem to go against what is most intuitively
human.

Yet we habitually embrace the artificial aspects of life. An
academically rigorous UCLA experience has reinforced in us a
time-oriented culture.

In reflecting upon history’s most inspiring and
influential leaders, I am reminded of Rosa Parks and Gandhi, who
broke the rules with purpose and courage. Convention did not get in
the way of their noble values and steadfast ideals.

James Joyce and Pablo Picasso established themselves as two of
the greatest creative geniuses of the 20th century by crafting
works that challenged the artistic and social conventions of their
time. “Ulysses” and “Les Demoiselles
D’Avignon” are definitively inspiring because they
break the rules.

Pulitzer Prize-winning “Enrique’s Journey”
courageously explored the personal experiences of illegal
immigrants. Sandra Nazario and the Los Angeles Times departed from
widely accepted standards of journalism by withholding the last
names of sources in order to protect them. The decision was brave
and necessary.

At the Daily Bruin, I am proud of the rules I have learned,
followed and taught. But in life, unlike copy editing, the rules
sometimes are not clear. And they certainly can’t be found in
the dictionary or AP Stylebook.

A fellow copy editor and friend recently reminded me of
something we both had once read that puts it best: A good copy
editor knows how to follow the rules, but a great copy editor knows
when to break them.

Strandberg was the 2004-2005 copy chief.