posted
Back problems recently laid me up for a couple weeks and I read a number of books by a particular popular author whose stories I enjoy. However... Now, I understand typos. I understand that some errors will survive the publication process. But these books were chock full of errors.
After book after book of annoying errors (which really began to throw me out of the stories), I made some notes on one of the last books I read. I've got a list of 27 errors. For instance:
"...a search for the van's turned up nothing." "I know because I had one when I was a teenager was working on my father's fishing boat." "He should be thereby about one." "He made sure the leg was snug and as an added precaution put on a belt with straps to tie the prosthesis wouldn't come off no matter what..." "...four tucks idled..." and my favorite "...with their guardian angle..."
What gives? Aspiring writers are warned that even a single typo can send their submission to the reject pile faster than you can say "guardian angle," but the finished product of a successful writer reads like a badly done self-published book.
I know we've discussed this before on Hatrack, but it does seem to tarnish the reputation and credibility of the publishing industry.
posted
I'm dubious about the idea that errors like that cast a manuscript into the Outer Darkness. I've heard tell of writers who, oh, how did Frederik Pohl phrase it?...given "polysyllabic praises of writers who can't spell K-A-T 'cat.'" Given some of the typos I've seen in printed books, I find it hard to believe it matters at the slushpile level. (I was just rereading a non-fiction book that misspells "tracheotomy" as "tracheostomy"...I notice it every time I read it...and, given that it's kinda an important plot point, I'm sure many others notice it, too.)
I try my best to correct everything...but if something less obvious than what I actually notice in published books, I don't see why it shouldn't be tolerated.
posted
Also, errors at the printing stage might be the printer's issue as well. My favorite author is certainly the type of guy who is quite fastidious about having no punctuation or spelling issues in the copy he submits to his editor, and she is equally concerned with perfection, but inevitably there are typos in the final product.
On a side note, I believe Guardian Angle was intentional.
posted
Well, obviously the quality of editors has declined seriously. I wonder if they are trying to do their job on the screen? Also, don't authors receive proofs that they get to edit as well? It all boils down to some sloppy work on both the writer's part and the editor's. The lesson learned? If a writer doesn't want his work full of errors, he best learn how to edit his own work thoroughly.
Here's a trick I learned: When you're about to do that final polish, use a different font and different margins. That's usually enough to make well-known words seem fresh and different.
[This message has been edited by Balthasar (edited June 27, 2007).]
posted
Proofreaders and typesetters used to be trained in journalism and work out of New York City. Today, there is no typesetting, and it is cheaper to farm out the proofreading and computer composition of the final copy to college graduates who majored in English and who live in the Midwestern states. Their day job is usually teaching grade school.
The journalism majors came up through the school of hard knocks and took professional pride in what they did, the English majors came up in schools that gave an A for competent work and a B for everything else.
I recently sat in on a Masters dissertation defense by an English major. The dissertation had dreadful spelling and grammar. The English professors agreed with my assessment, but passed the candidate anyway, because they didn't want to make her feel bad.
The biggest crisis in the world today is what an American government report describes as America's unilateral educational disarmament. To quasi-quote the last line of a famous science fiction story, "Only an idiot would give a gun to a retarded child."
posted
Only page 74 of the latest book and already a handful of errors. I'm not jotting them down, but "...she'd been was on the trail..." just doesn't enhance my reading experience.
From what I've heard at conferences regarding the first five pages especially, a typo hitting an editor in the eye that soon can torpedo a manuscript. A peppering of typos throughout will do so, too, if they even get that far.
quote:inevitably there are typos in the final product
As I said, I accept that some errors will survive the publication process. To err is human and all. But the difference between 'some' and 'a lot' is what bothers me.
And, no, I don't think "guardian angle" was intentional. In context, it was "looking out from above," so I think it was a bona fide error.
posted
i just picked up a book by a very prolific gal whose work I'm real familiar with. There were several glaring typos in the first half of the book, as well as language and turns of phrase that she normally would never use. then it picks up and finishs really, really well. I was wondering if she had a ghost writer work on the more mundane parts, and just chimed in herself for the big finish.
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't it make you wonder, though, especially when it's a popular author, if the publisher just decides not to bother paying anyone to do more than rudimentary editing because people will buy everything written by that really popular author no matter how it looks?
(I won't mention the possibility that the more popular an author gets to be, the more clout he or she has, and the more such an author can insist that no one so much as touch his or her "golden prose.")
posted
I'd wager the problem is worse for more popular authors. Since they are usually sure money-makers, their works probably get minimal scrutiny before hitting the presses to get the cash rolling in ASAP.
Posts: 612 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd wager the problem is worse for more popular authors. Since they are usually sure money-makers, their works probably get minimal scrutiny before hitting the presses to get the cash rolling in ASAP.
That sounds a little counter-intuitive to me. If a book will sell a million copies, it'll do it in March or May, regardless if you spend that extra time editing. One sure way to start to decrease readership, though, would be to start producing novels that are poorly edited. If I loved an author but started to see more and more blatant errors in the books I purchase, I'd be right ticked.More than a few people would too. Plus, it reflects poorly on both the publisher and the author. Which would you rather have? Money a few months in advance, but the same amount of money either way? Or money sooner at the expense of a damaged reputation?
posted
After a point, though, some things will be out of your hands. I had an article published once---no, it wasn't a paying market thing---where, on my end, everything was as typographically perfect as I could make it. But, in the electronic transmission between me and the printed page, new typos were introduced. It didn't change any meaning, just added some superfluous characters.
Naturally I mentioned it to the editor in question, but it was hardly something worth making a gigantic nasty fuss over. (I face enough of that every day at work.)
*****
I think popular writers get less editorial handling. Stephen King comes to mind...a whole lot of his stuff could use some generous pruning, but how do you get a guy who's so successful as is to submit to it? Once in a while he might run into an editor who'll make him work for it, but, I think, most of the time, no.
posted
Are we speaking of editing in terms of "this section is redundant, these characters seem to talk too long, I don't believe the motivations of your heroine..." etc? Or are we speaking of editing in terms of proofreading, fixing typographical and minor grammatical issues, spelling, etc? The first I would imagine is more rare the greater the notoriety of the author. The second would seem to me to be the modus operandi for any publisher work their salt.
In my last comment, I was speaking particularly about the second - a good thorough proofreading.
It's about cash flow. If you are a business and you can get your hands on a bunch of money today, why would you wait six months? The sooner you get that money, the sooner you can put it to work for you.
If you are less sure that a book will sell big you might consider investing in editing, hoping to improve something from a relative unknown (but promising) writer to the point it sells well.
It's not the purest artistic approach, but it is an effective business approach in today's short-term-results-driven business climate.
posted
what really is the point of being a bad writer? that's all about personal integrity. Some bankers have it, some don't. Some dog catcher's have it, some don't. Same with writers. Doesn't matter what some people get away with, what matters is where we set our personal bar, and where we settle. I write because I can't not, not for the cash. I do the work I do because it satisfies me. If I just wanted the bucks, I could have gone to engineering school. Or stockbroker school. or learned how to operate heavy equipment. Sigh. p.s. I married for love, too. Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree it's about cash flow, dee. I'm an accountant - these terms are familiar to me. My point is, why devalue an asset (like a well established writer) by rushing product to market without a sufficient copyedit? I agree, the sooner you see money the sooner you can reinvest it, but at what cost? Regular readers who become sick of purchasing novels with significant typos, grammatical errors, and other sloppiness that results from a poor or nonexistent professional copyedit?
posted
Apparently the publishers don't feel the devaluation is enough to offset the advantages of getting the money in-house ASAP. I can't defend that position, and I don't "agree" with it, per se. My instincts agree with your line of thinking.
posted
I think of it as the literary equivalent of the Parable of the Busted Toaster. A company that makes toasters puts out one that breaks down in a few months. The accountant's theory is that toasters don't cost that much to replace (true), so the consumer will just junk the toaster and go out and buy another one. True enough, as far as it goes---but it fails to take into account the idea that the consumer won't buy the next one from their company.
If, say, the fan is in some way dissatisfied with the latest Stephen King, but still wants his horror fix, he might pick up the next Dean Koontz instead.
After a few articles I wrote for my local newspaper were printed with some minor errors, the editor called me about my latest submission. He read it to me over the phone so the paper would get it right. I had to laugh when it ran, because "The fragrance of plumeria leis accompanies us to a tropically elegant hotel, oceanside in Waikiki" became "The fragrance of plumeria leis accompanies us to a tropically elegant hotel -- Oceanside Inn, Waikiki."
posted
Robert Nowall's point is one we should all remember after we start selling regularly. It only takes one piece of sloppy writing to get me to drop an author -- it's why I dropped Ben Bova, David Brin, and Stephen King. It is not that I hold a grudge, just that the competition is so strong. I think one moral is, if an editor starts buying your stuff on a regular basis, DON'T automatically send him all the stories you've had rejected over the years. Posts: 557 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think a lot of the problems stem from the fact that the author hasn't REALLY proof-read his "proof" copy - he knows his text SO WELL, he doesn't see the errors. OR, he's so sick of his book, he trusts that they got it right because the files he sent in were proof-read and copy-edited by a team of good people (perhaps). I've read about such cases in several books I've been reading on publishing lately. I think the solution to the problem is: PROOF-READ YOUR PROOF COPY!!!!
posted
Yeah. My plans were to pretty much junk what I've written before that first sale---if I do any rewriting of old stories, I'll do it from scratch, without looking at the original, just keeping the basic idea. (Maybe I'd keep what I wrote right before that...but I'll have to see first.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I sold my first story, I assumed that you collected rejection slips until you started selling, and then sold most of what you wrote. That has not been the case for me. Instead, I started selling about one story in ten, and I still sell about one story in ten. Drives me crazy, especially since to my eye the stories that don't sell often seem better than the stories that do.
Another strange thing. The stories I've sold have sold on the first time out, never after collecting 23 rejections.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
