I am proofing an article and the author has written this:
She states: [A]n ekphrasis can be of any length, of any subject matter, composed in verse or prose, using any verbal techniques, as long as it “brings its subject before the eyes” or, as one of the ancient authors says, “makes listeners into spectators.”
I only have experienced square brackets used like this inside of a quotation. Are they really necessary/correct in this case?
I have met this untidy construction when the author wishes to indicate that they recognise an apparent solecism but are obliged to retain it for some reason.
In this case it would be inappropriate to write She states: An ekphrasis can ... because the word following a colon is not normally capitalised.
On the other hand, the colon introduces a complete following thought that merits a sentence of its own An ekphrasis can ... However, the complete following thought sentence includes two quotation type clauses, so it is difficult, untidy and even confusing to put between quotation marks that apply to this whole sentence.
The author has resolved this conflict by quoting the complete following sentence after the colon, with its capitalised An. She indicates that she knows about the conflict by enclosing the inappropriate "A" in square parentheses.
The text after the colon could be interpreted as being a quotation by the author of the last part of an originally longer sentence (written by the "she"). The original sentence would have had "an" written with a minuscule.
Why the author didn't opt for "[.. an]" in this case, or just leave the minuscule as it is since it follows a colon, is unclear.
