picking on editors
Feb. 17th, 2010 09:44 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitoutIf you want a good example of how to pick on copyeditors (or lack thereof):
http://www.publishersweekly.com/blog/Notes_From_the_Bookroom/27281-Calling_All_Editors_Is_Anybody_Home_.php
These are reasonable things to complain about.
ETA: I mean the main article, which I recognize has some typos (e.g. ddid). Some of the idiots in the comments thread pointing out problems with the article are correcting non-errors (e.g. mvg at the end of the thread when I read it corrects bas mitvah to bat mitvah).
If you feel compelled to doubt me, here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bas+mitzvah
I just do not understand why I am supposed to take anyone seriously on the subject of bad copyediting. Seriously. Okay, maybe I'll take this woman seriously:
http://susannajsturgis.com/bloggery.php
ETAYA: Contemplating that article and thread (the one in the PW blog), it occurs to me that _none_ of the commenters addressed the substantive issue raised by the writer. Reviewers of forthcoming books are working off an ARC or similar. Yes, some of the mistakes are going to be fixed by the time it hits B&N's tables. But when there are errors of fact -- and errors of fact have made it through the process in the author's previous work -- the reviewer has a short list of awful choices. (1) Include the error in the review as a negative. What if it is fixed by publication? Very sad! (2) Do not include the error in the review. What if it is not fixed in publication? And readers will then be "learning" substantively wrong stuff that the reviewer did not warn them about, altho she could have. (3) Insert herself into the editing process -- not a place a reviewer really ever wants to be!
Instead, the peanut gallery got wrapped up in "ddid" and "com-poser". Exactly like that middle school English teacher we hated then and have nothing but contempt for now. Helpful. Not.
http://www.publishersweekly.com/blog/Notes_From_the_Bookroom/27281-Calling_All_Editors_Is_Anybody_Home_.php
These are reasonable things to complain about.
ETA: I mean the main article, which I recognize has some typos (e.g. ddid). Some of the idiots in the comments thread pointing out problems with the article are correcting non-errors (e.g. mvg at the end of the thread when I read it corrects bas mitvah to bat mitvah).
If you feel compelled to doubt me, here:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bas+mitzvah
I just do not understand why I am supposed to take anyone seriously on the subject of bad copyediting. Seriously. Okay, maybe I'll take this woman seriously:
http://susannajsturgis.com/bloggery.php
ETAYA: Contemplating that article and thread (the one in the PW blog), it occurs to me that _none_ of the commenters addressed the substantive issue raised by the writer. Reviewers of forthcoming books are working off an ARC or similar. Yes, some of the mistakes are going to be fixed by the time it hits B&N's tables. But when there are errors of fact -- and errors of fact have made it through the process in the author's previous work -- the reviewer has a short list of awful choices. (1) Include the error in the review as a negative. What if it is fixed by publication? Very sad! (2) Do not include the error in the review. What if it is not fixed in publication? And readers will then be "learning" substantively wrong stuff that the reviewer did not warn them about, altho she could have. (3) Insert herself into the editing process -- not a place a reviewer really ever wants to be!
Instead, the peanut gallery got wrapped up in "ddid" and "com-poser". Exactly like that middle school English teacher we hated then and have nothing but contempt for now. Helpful. Not.