(no subject)
Jan. 13th, 2010 11:17 amThis is the worst job of professional copyediting I have ever seen.
I understand spell-check errors. I can tolerate "silting" for "sitting," I guess, and I can rescue the meaning when "for" is substituted for "floor." I wince, but I see how it happens.
But then there are the errors that make the author look stupid. Please do not have a character adjust her "economically perfect desk chair," because you will jolt me right out of the story. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do not have a bunch of college-educated professionals who work with language for a living as newspaper reporters and columnists keep using the construction "suppose to."
Somewhere in the dimly-lit corners of Cornell University, a bust of William Strunk, Jr. has tears trickling down its dusty face.
Updated to add: ZOMG someone just ordered "trench fries."
I understand spell-check errors. I can tolerate "silting" for "sitting," I guess, and I can rescue the meaning when "for" is substituted for "floor." I wince, but I see how it happens.
But then there are the errors that make the author look stupid. Please do not have a character adjust her "economically perfect desk chair," because you will jolt me right out of the story. And FOR THE LOVE OF GOD do not have a bunch of college-educated professionals who work with language for a living as newspaper reporters and columnists keep using the construction "suppose to."
Somewhere in the dimly-lit corners of Cornell University, a bust of William Strunk, Jr. has tears trickling down its dusty face.
Updated to add: ZOMG someone just ordered "trench fries."
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:26 pm (UTC)What book was this, so that I may avoid it with extreme prejudice?
(One of the occupational hazards of being a copyeditor, for me, is overwhelming frustration and irritation at encountering a situation where I feel like I'm now "working" rather than "recreational reading." I'd go nuts right along with you over that one.)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 04:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:01 pm (UTC)Sometimes I wonder if proofreading/copyediting is seriously becoming an optional item - between budget cuts and the invention of spellcheck, it seems it must be tempting to put out (probably the low profit margin?) books that simply were *not* reviewed.
*sigh*
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:02 pm (UTC)I suppose if one won literal laurels, parsley *might* be reasonable decoration. ;)
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:15 pm (UTC)That's too bad; I've liked some of her other work.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:17 pm (UTC)That copyeditor must have been unbelievably frustrated.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 05:39 pm (UTC)There's a lot of poorly or not-at-all copyedited and proofread stuff out there, and the copyeditors (or absence thereof) are blamed even when the fault is in no sense theirs. Along with the writers who will think "oh, right, Marianas, why was I so obsessed with dinner that chapter?" or just notice the fix and okay it, there will be one who has the error that firmly in their brain.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 06:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 06:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 07:45 pm (UTC)To what possible purpose?
no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 07:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 09:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 10:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-13 11:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 01:39 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 04:54 am (UTC)In of one Bruce Schneier's books (which I copyedited), a couple of instances of the Unix command "fingerd" got changed to "fingered" by some allegedly helpful typesetter after it the galleys had been corrected and signed off on. Catching it right away meant that subsequent printings (which happened fairly soon) got fixed.
The first version of Pat Wrede's Mairelon the Magician was apparently copyedited by someone who was unfamiliar with Regency slang. The most egregious bit was "Coo!" being transformed into "Cool." There were also font issues; the book was printed in a font that eats its own punctuation. Because of that, when the book was being reprinted, Pat got Tor to let Pat (and Pat got me) to look over the galleys, when they'd initially planned to go straight from book to press, because nothing was being changed, after all. Nothing, ha. I think close to half the pages had changes marked after I got through with them. To be fair, the sequel was much cleaner, though I found a few doozies there as well.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 08:39 am (UTC)But I am a little more familiar with the sorts of things British soldiers said, even though my Grandfather is supposed to have spent some time in the trenches with the Americans, passing on his experience.
It's a bit hard to reconcile the timing with when he was wounded and in hospital.
no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 11:34 pm (UTC)Ahem. The things geographers know...
no subject
Date: 2010-01-14 11:42 pm (UTC)I'd say it's fair cop to complain to the publisher - it's their job to put out a good product, and to *not* skimp on the copy editing/proofreading stages.