Character Styles in Word for Mac 2019

This post is mainly for my own benefit, as I will likely forget this. If you find it helpful, great.

As a copyeditor, I am sometimes asked to apply styles to a document I'm editing. And, I have to admit that there are two things that Word for Mac 2019 does fairly well: R-to-L Hebrew (finally!) and the Styles pane.

But, character styles are a different matter. There is no good tutorial that I could find out there, which is why I'm writing this: to attempt to fill in the gaping hole.

The impetus for this comes from my most recent job, which requires character styles on all the Greek for typesetting purposes. Different presses handle this differently. For example, SBL Press asks you to set all Greek to SBL Greek and all Hebrew to SBL Hebrew. They then use macros to transform that in their typesetting process. The press I'm doing the current book for uses character styles. I've used character styles in Word for Mac before, but recently was forced to migrate to Word for Mac 2019 because the older version was only 32-bit. Things aren't as obvious as I would wish. So, let's begin…

Select the word/character you want to create a style for. In my case it was a Greek word, set in GraecaU, 11 point. Then, click on Format on the top and select Styles (see graphic below)

Click on New, and type in the name you want to call the style. I used Greek for obvious reasons. Change the Style type to Character, basing the style on the Default Paragraph Font. Note the "a" with an underline; that means it is a character style. You can see all the characteristics it inherits in the box. If you want to change the font size and style, you can do so, but I find it easiest to change them before I create the style, that way you can just accept it.

I click both Add to template and Add to Quick Style List, just to keep it handy. Then click OK and Apply. On the right-hand side of Word's Home ribbon, there's a Styles Pane button. Click it and the styles will appear on the right hand column of your document; adjust the size of your document so you can see the Style pane as your document easily.

Now, highlight the next word(s) you want to apply the style to, click on Greek, and, "Voilà!" it's in the correct font and the style will be there for the typesetter. See below, before:

And after:

And that's it! Of course, if you don't want to have the style pane open, or don't have room for it on your screen, you can create a keyboard shortcut for it, but that's another story. I have multiples of those for various fonts, formatting, etc. Maybe someday I'll go into that, but this has already eaten up too much of my time today—hopefully it will save you (and me in the future when I forget) a great deal of time!

Here's a list of all copyediting posts.

The cheapening of marriage

Neoliberal capitalism inhibits the Christian practice of marriage and family because the market has overrun its boundaries. We face a belligerent bottom line that invades all aspects or spheres of our existence. We are coached to see not just the bartering of bread and soap but the whole of our lives in the ways of the market. We too easily fall into neoliberal economistic language that reconceives family practices and relationships. We speak of children presenting “time demands.” Spouses should “invest” in one another to “promote” intimacy, or their marriage may become unproductive.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 102

Contract versus covenant

Neoliberal contractualism is hemmed about by qualifications; its form of marriage is enamored of contractual arrangements such as no-fault divorce and prenuptial agreements. Whereas covenantal marriage aims at a union of selves, contractualism aims only at a union of interests. It promises faithfulness only so long as one (or both) parties do not find a “better” option. It hedges its bets and is based on careful and ongoing calculation. For neoliberalism, with contractualism and competition at its roots, enduring trust is decidedly not a premium. And what is true here of neoliberal marriage is true of its wider economy: the “suzerains” that are neoliberal employers owe no fidelity to their workers or “vassals,” who are fungible and disposable.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 103

<idle musing>
Almost diametrically opposed ot the biblical view, isn't it? The Bible says we are made in the image of God and have inherent value. Neoliberalism says we are merely an "asset" to be exploited and then disposed of.

Let's call it what it is: Sin!
</idle musing>

What kind of god?

Note well that this covenant fidelity of Yahweh represents a particular kind of divinity. The Greek gods, after all, put no premium on fidelity to their people. Pagan divinity in general is not so much to be trusted as outwitted and manipulated. But fidelity is a key mark of the God revealed to Israel and the church—the God who chose, finally, to answer human betrayal with the cross rather than a flood of destruction. And so if we are to live in the light of this, the true divinity, we must strive to become the kind of people who practice at least enough covenant faithfulness to know what it looks like. Christians live lives of fidelity in order to become people who can learn to recognize the God of enduring faithfulness, the God of Israel and Jesus Christ.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 101

This is evil!!

The Maryland court blocked the library ebooks law from going into effect, claiming that it violated copyright protection.

Now, that might be, and by itself wouldn't have riled me. But, the very next sentence in the Publishers Weekly Daily eletter says this: "Hachette Book Group parent company Lagardère saw record gains last year, with HBG up as well even discounting its purchase of Workman Publishing."

And they aren't the only publishing company setting records for profit and sales!

But, they won't let the libraries have ebooks at a fair price (the pricing to libraries is definitely ridiculous and gouging) or in a timely manner. Why? Because it might damage their record profits. It would be different if they weren't making tons of cash and paying their executives sinfully extravagent salaries and bonuses (all the while paying their rank and file workers scandalously low wages and exploiting them). But they aren't.

Copyright is to protect the rights to make a fair profit for authors and publishers. It is an attempt to balance the rights of producers and consumers. But, the balance of late is far too much in favor of the corporate producer (not most authors, mind you) at the expense of the consumer.

Just an
</idle musing>

Contract or Covenant? It matters

Contract is the fundamental basis of the neoliberal economy (and of a liberal economy more generally). A contract is a punctual agreement enacted between two parties, for a set period, and under specified conditions. Contracts, and contracting parties, are calculating and careful. Their trust and fidelity, such as they are, intend to serve the immediate interests of the contracting parties—and do not extend beyond the terms of the contract. In other words, the relationships they establish are limited and completely conditional.

Though Christians certainly participate in this contractual economy, it is not their ultimate economy. The church as first family is the oikos grounded in God’s encompassing economy. It works most fundamentally by way of covenant rather than contract. It is about establishing and maintaining deep, full, thoroughly faithful, long-term, and open-ended relationships.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 100–101

Scapegoating again

There's an article on Bicycling Magazine's website, entitled "Cars Kill. Bike Helmets Don’t Change That." It's really about more than that, though. It's about how we assign blame so we don't have to change anything. Read the whole thing for more, but here's a good takeaway paragraph:

Studies show that the simple act of finding someone to blame in an accident makes people less likely to see systemic problems or seek systemic changes. One [study] prompted subjects with news stories about a wide variety of accidents: financial mistakes, plane crashes, industrial disasters. When the story blamed human error, subjects were more intent on punishment and less likely to question the built environment or seek investigation of organizations behind the accident. No matter the accident, blame took the place of prevention.

<idle musing>
As a pedestrian and bicyclist, I know that the odds are that if I get hit, I'm in serious trouble. I've already experienced that once and don't want it to happen again. But, why is it always the victim that is blamed?

And I don't mean just in auto-pedestrian and auto-bicyclist accidents. What about sexual misconduct cases? There's a lot of victim-blaming going on there, too.

Why?

Because it's a whole lot easier and cleaner to blame somebody than to face the fact that the system is broken.

But it is! Culture is broken. It's worshiping the wrong gods: Money, sex, and power.

It's the same gods that have always been worshiped, just wearing different clothes now.

Just an
</idle musing>

Yes, unconditional, but…

Compare again human parents and children. Parents can love unconditionally, never withdrawing their final and ongoing commitment to their children. But especially in relation to younger children, parents do know what is best mediately and in the long term, and not just immediately. Thus loving parents, not least unconditionally loving parents, do harbor moral expectations and make stipulations—and yes, on occasion, even commands—to their children. At their best and in all circumstances, what such parents hope for is the eventual and enduring flourishing, if not the immediate appeasement, of their children.

Similarly, God’s covenant love is unconditional. But it aims to sustain a substantial and long-term relationship, so it includes what might be considered “conditional” elements. As Levenson says, “It is unconditional in that the love comes into, and remains, in force even when nothing has been done to deserve it. . . . But the relationship is also conditional in that it involves expectations and stipulations, and suffers and turns sour if they are not met.” (Levinson, Love of God, 62)— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 100

What's the foundation?

Accordingly, in the biblical world, covenant was not made just or primarily on the basis of blood. To be a son or daughter was first of all, in Hebrew thought, to be obedient, not to indicate biological descent. Israel’s election as the “children of God” entailed obedience (Deut l3:17–l4:2). If Israel disobeyed, God might spurn “his sons and daughters” (Deut 32:l9—20), sell them into slavery (Isa 50:l), and declare them no longer God’s people (Hos 1:9). It is likely in this spirit, a covenant spirit, that Jesus turned away from his consanguineous mother and siblings and declared instead, “Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:31-35). Jesus’s primary family, in this sense, is composed not of those who share his genetic makeup but of those who share his obedient spirit.

At the same time, such remarks must be kept in tension with an underlying unconditional quality about covenant. Though Israel (and later the church) repeatedly fails and betrays its Lord in what the prophets portray as adulterous liaisons with other gods, Yahweh shows a determination to never give up or turn God’s back on his people. The romance between God and his people is stormy and too often ruptures.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 98–99

That's a different take on hospitality

Meanwhile, married Christians bear children to witness to the church’s conviction that God has not given up and will not give up on God’s creation. Christians have children because they believe the world has a future. And they have children to witness to and practice hospitality, for no strangers can challenge us so much as the intimate strangers we call children.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 97

<idle musing>
While I can't say I disagree with what he says about children being strangers, I'm not sure I would have put it that way! But he is definitely correct that given the state of the world and its future, it takes faith to bring children into it.
</idle musing>

Freedom? Or bondage masquerading as freedom?

Finally, as regards positive freedom, a word about capacitation or enablement. In the thrall of sin and death, we are not free to love God, to love creation, to love others, or even to love ourselves rightly. We are dead in the condition of sin, and only God’g Word and God’s Spirit can raise us to life and fulsome agency. Resurrection, I have said, is exclusively God’s business, so it is only in the Spirit that we are freed for love in all its forms and directions. Through Word and Spirit, we are enabled and given the capacity to love.

Consider an alcoholic turned loose in a liquor store and given free rein to drink whatever and as much as he would like. He has full, but only negative, freedom, in that he is not forbidden any bottle in the store. But he is a slave to his impulses or compulsion. As Alcoholics Anonymous would have it, he needs a “higher power” for true freedom, the freedom not to drink but to live free of bondage and addiction.

Likewise, we are all addicted to sin. It is the Holy Spirit that can give us the capacity not to sin. Our final and fullest freedom, as Augustine would have it, is the freedom not even to be able to sin, but only to love. This is freedom for—freedom for love of God, of creation, of others, and truly of ourselves. Such freedom is what the apocalyptic gospel promises.— Naming Neoliberalism: Exposing the Spirit of Our Age, 85

Let those who have ears…

“Cursed is anyone who obstructs the legal rights of immigrants, orphans, or widows.” Deut 27:19 (CEB)

Let those who have ears to hear, hear (and in Hebrew, "hear" means more than just listen; it means to act on what you hear).

International Septuagint Day is tomorrow!

See all the details here

Why do I read?

I read a post today at the Scholarly Kitchen that triggered some thoughts, not directly related to that post.

Why do people read?

I'm sure there are as many reasons as there are people. But generally, I would say people read for information. Why read directions? Why read traffic signs? (Granted, that's not generally categorized as "reading" in the same way one reads a book or article.) Why read a newspaper/magazine (paper or online version)?

Mainly for information, to feel informed; whether one is or not is another question, depending on the source and the reader's ability to comprehend what is written.

But people also read for entertainment. Why read fiction? Generally to be entertained, unless, of course it is an assigned reading!

But, why else do people read?

Thinking about it, I read for all of the above, but more deeply, I read for character formation. I try to weigh carefully what I intake in the form of media in general, and reading in particular, with a thought to how it will form my character.

We don't realize it most of the time, but what we read (or watch) has a strong impact on who we are and who we are becoming. Even, and I would say especially, fiction. Our guard is down more when we read fiction, so we are more easily influenced without realizing it.

But, nonfiction influences who we are, too. Why do people feel so depressed after doom-scrolling their Twitter/Facebook/RSS/whatever feed? What they read is forming them, whether they realize it or not.

I periodically purge my RSS feed because I tend to subscribe too freely to things that pique my interest. Frequently, after a month or two, I find that what I'm reading on a particular site is having a negative affect on who I want to become, so I purge it. I think that's healthy. I don't want to become closed-minded, so I explore. But, I also want to become someone who reflects Jesus more clearly, so I need to prune some of those explorations.

And that is where discernment comes in. It's too easy to purge something because it makes you uncomfortable. It's also too easy to keep subscribing because it confirms what you want to believe (confirmation bias).

May God grant us wisdom in what we read!

Just an
</idle musing>