Book editors / publishers at large - please read

[Daniel]

Really bad grammar on a forum annoys me (zero punctuation, all words in capitals, 'text' speak etc), but minor errors and spelling mistakes do not, I am not paying for this, it is 'real' and live.

When I pay for a book, magazine etc. then I expect the best. Magazines are simple, I no longer buy a magazine that has become a demonstration of bad grammar and spelling mistakes. Books are harder as they are a 'one-off' purchase. Maybe write a letter to the publisher?

Dan

[Simon Cornes]

Yes you did!!!??! Twice!!?!!??!!!

But I agree. Those Victor books are either the densest concentration of cock-ups in history, or just two: the whole of part 1, and the whole of part 2. And it goes way beyond typos - the language used bears only a passing resemblance to English. But as a rule, I've found most books are still pretty good, and International Air Power Review and related titles were mostly exemplary. Model magazines, on the other hand - don't get me started on the standards in them ...

Bugger!!!! And I really tried! That will teach me not to have a dictionary to hand (and I haven't now - but I know where it is!! (Thinks....Must put dictionary next to PC!)

I must admit that my typing can be rubbish - I'm not a trained typist, just a one (or two fingered trier!). I'm typing all day at work - NO..... I'm NOT a typist - and I rely to some extent on a spell checker - but I do have a dictionary at arms length and I use it! At my age, its so long since I learnt to spell that its a miracle that I get anything right!

I suspect though that we are in the minority - being concerned about poorly produced books that is - but I repeat, Osprey don't seem to make mistakes - at least not in my experience? (You may know otherwise!) I do think that quantity (of new titles) has been sacrificed for quality and a £20+ a throw. I suppose we have to pay £30+ for a proof read book!

[Tripehound]

It isn't just the 'special interest' sector that suffers from this, I can't remember the last time I read a novel that was free from literals, typos or gramatical errors.

Getting non-experts to proofread is OK up to a point, but they will miss the particular idioms and figures of speech that specialsists would pick up. For instance I have a book translated from Italian in which the word 'operative' is used where 'operational' would be expected. Not the end of the world but enough to crease the brow the first couple of times it appears.

[pigsty]

Bugger!!!! And I really tried! That will teach me not to have a dictionary to hand (and I haven't now - but I know where it is!! (Thinks....Must put dictionary next to PC!)

Nothing wrong with your spelling!!!??!!????!!

Edited August 11, 2010 by pigsty

[Julien]

Why am I not surprised that this thread deteriorated into a urine extraction exercise on everyone else's spoolink musteeks?

I am not.

I was really trying to highlight a problem I have found, and like some have said with new books as opposed to older books.

I really hate photo's being captioned wrong. I mean in one of the Phantom datafile books they have two very different photographs with the same caption!

Got a book I will offer to proof read it for free!

Julien

ps Mike, when I click the spell check button it say iespell check not detected and asks me to download it!

Edited August 16, 2010 by Julien

[DCRanger]

For instance I have a book translated from Italian in which the word 'operative' is used where 'operational' would be expected.

My favourite mis-translation is angled flight deck which was translated from Dutch as "corner deck"

[Mike]

ps Mike, when I click the spell check button it say iespell check not detected and asks me to download it!

That's right - download it once & use it f'rever fer free

[stringbag]

it is a lousy read with no proper storyline.

And yet it remains one of the best selling books of all time!!!

Strange

Chris

[cynicaljohnny]

I suspect that most the errors ARE because of spellcheck - haven't noticed it so much in books, but in magazines I get the impression editors are using spellcheck at the expense of actually reading the text, so although the spelling of each word is technically correct, the wrong version of the word is being used - for example , "too" instead of "to" or "two"....

[Jon Bryon]

it is a lousy read with no proper storyline.

Whether it's a lousy read or not is a matter of opinion, but the presence of a proper storyline is a matter of fact, and is the subject of 'Biblical Theology'.

[Tripehound]

Whether it's a lousy read or not is a matter of opinion, but the presence of a proper storyline is a matter of fact, and is the subject of 'Biblical Theology'.

In my opinion it's a cracking read, especially the Old Testament. I've no idea if it's a relaible history or the word of God.

[pigsty]

Whether it's a lousy read or not is a matter of opinion, but the presence of a proper storyline is a matter of fact, and is the subject of 'Biblical Theology'.

Whether it's true or tells a defined story is one thing, but artistically it breaks all the rules: dense and impenetrable, odd digressions, massive amounts of exposition, internal inconsistency, cramming a lot of subjects together in different styles. There is a beginning and an end, but the middle's a bit saggy.

[Jon Bryon]

Whether it's true or tells a defined story is one thing, but artistically it breaks all the rules: dense and impenetrable, odd digressions, massive amounts of exposition, internal inconsistency, cramming a lot of subjects together in different styles. There is a beginning and an end, but the middle's a bit saggy.

Because in art there are rules?

OTOH, when the 'big story' is broken down into its component parts, it turns out that Hebrew narrative does have quite well defined rules and patterns, fairly easily discerned in the OT and clearly an influence on the structure of the Gospels and Acts. The difficulty for modern readers to appreciate this is, of course, another matter, as is the general widespread ignorance of how the 66 books fit together chronologically and stylistically.

[Fifer54]

Whether it's a lousy read or not is a matter of opinion, but the presence of a proper storyline is a matter of fact, and is the subject of 'Biblical Theology'.

Whaddaya mean, absence of a proper storyline?- it starts with the Creation of the Universe (allegedly)and finishes with the End of the World!

I'd call that a storyline- it's no more convoluted than Lord of the Rings or War and Peace. And, Yes, I have read both! (And didn't notice any

typos or speelin eroorss in either!)

[jenshb]

I really hate photo's being captioned wrong. I mean in one of the Phantom datafile books they have two very different photographs with the same caption!

Got a book I will offer to proof read it for free!

Surely a proofreader would know the difference between

photos - plural of photo; as in one photo, two photos

photo's - as belonging to the photo

Spellcheckers are good, but as someone else mentioned, they are only good for making sure that words are correctly spelt, not whether they are the right words for the context. There really is no substitute for understanding the language.

Jens (non-native English speaker)

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

spellcheckers do what they say on the tin. They check for spelling, not context. If you type 'form" instead of "from", a spellcheck programme wont pick that up because they are both real words. Neither will they spell check Proper Nouns, other than to just question them ( i.e. if you dont know how to spell Messerschimdt, it won't either).

For a proper methodical proof read, you work from back to front, so you arent getting distracted by "reading" the text. You can also put a ruler under each line to act as a physical guide, and move it up the page as you check.

Needless to say - proper proof reading costs, because it will pick up grammatical erros, typesetting errors and spelling errors.

As a rule of thumb - the best places to find further errors in any written document are in the 2 or 3 lines around where you have already found an error - your brain congratulates itself for finding the first error - so doesn't really register nearby ones. Hence proper proof reading is also time consuming too.

Most people nowadays will speed read documnts anyway, so the abitly tospot splleing errs doesnt mattter, beacuse the contxt is scene form the shape of the word and its postion within a sentnce.

regards

Jonners

marks are avaible to those with nowt else to do BTW

[Matt Roberts]

so the abitly tospot splleing errs doesnt mattter, beacuse the contxt is scene form the shape of the word and its postion within a sentnce.

I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would think about texting today, he attempted to 'simplify' American English spelling during his administration

[Jon Kunac-Tabinor]

so the abitly tospot splleing errs doesnt mattter, beacuse the contxt is scene form the shape of the word and its postion within a sentnce.

I wonder what Teddy Roosevelt would think about texting today, he attempted to 'simplify' American English spelling during his administration

Now that I did not know! So was it him who came up with things like "color" rather than "colour" and catalog rather than catalogue?

Cheers

Jonners

[pigsty]

Now that I did not know! So was it him who came up with things like "color" rather than "colour" and catalog rather than catalogue?

Cheers

Jonners

I believe it was the New York Times or the Chicago Tribune that first had the idea. Even back then, presidents were too busy to be rewriting the rules of orthography.

[Mike]

I dun do type ded gud and my gramma is bestest on ere

Grammar checkers aren't much good either - they're always highlighting stuff in blue that makes perfect sense to this simpleton, and their suggested alternatives are utter tripe!

[penfold]

Now that I did not know! So was it him who came up with things like "color" rather than "colour" and catalog rather than catalogue?

Cheers

Jonners

No, that was Webster's Dictionary, about 100 years before Rooseveldt.....