Typos

2

Comments

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    There are indeed a few famous writers now taking the self-publishing route. But they normally still pay freelancers to replace the services a trad publishing house does, though, which is surely not cheap. They are doing it because they get the profit and not the often dismal royalties per unit trad publishers pay them. They do have a few advantages though. They have a large fan base, not to mention already an agent. Most are publishing e-books however, which cuts out any printing costs, which is a big saving even at mass-printing prices.

    I have often said that Lulu should replace the word Royalty with Profit, because we as the publishers are getting a profit, not a royalty.

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    edited March 9
    I sold enough over four years to finally get $25, now leaving me to suspect my mother was right. I have about as much talent at writing as a dead three-toed sloth.

    Give yourself some credit. Your writing beats a lot of writing I've read, hands down.

    You need to at least value yourself alongside a live armadillo with a million typewriters.

    All kidding aside, you're not bad. It took me a couple of years to get to the $20 threshold, even with Jean-Paul shilling my book to his European friends, a kindly gesture for which I am most grateful. To date, I'm under $150.00 USD in total.

    Which makes this a hobby that sometimes helps to fund itself.
  • Ron MillerRon Miller Professor

    There are indeed a few famous writers now taking the self-publishing route. But they normally still pay freelancers to replace the services a trad publishing house does, though, which is surely not cheap. They are doing it because they get the profit and not the often dismal royalties per unit trad publishers pay them. They do have a few advantages though. They have a large fan base, not to mention already an agent. Most are publishing e-books however, which cuts out any printing costs, which is a big saving even at mass-printing prices.

    I have often said that Lulu should replace the word Royalty with Profit, because we as the publishers are getting a profit, not a royalty.

    I’ve made that same argument myself. Lulu does not pay royalties. Royalties are paid to an author by a publisher. This is supposedly not the relationship Lulu has, especially since it goes to great pains to emphasize that the authors here are the publishers, not Lulu.
  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Librarian
    Cliff,

    Think of it like this, I assess my abilities the way I do due to the factors that shaped them; good usually doesn't make grade. That may sound harsh but I have my reasons.

    My written work never found a home with a traditional publisher (back when I did submit} because it never was quite what they were looking for, good perhaps but never quite good enough. Good enough to have people enjoy the read, but not good enough to get a publisher to want to take a chance on it.

    Sometimes it just boils down to being in the right place at the right time and encountering the right person. Then again my father used to tell me I was the luckiest unlucky SOB he ever met, and I have to say he pretty much nailed it.
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    I understand. I just hate to see someone limit himself based on what an admittedly bad critic said decades prior.
  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Librarian
    Cliff,

    The reality is that in my past I had to deal with people who would get inside a normal person's head and under their skin faster than a cat can lick its rear with its back bent and its leg out. Those individuals could have someone 'average' ready to hang a caricature of themselves on the wall and then themselves next to said caricature in short order. If I limit myself it's because my 'normal' and most other peoples' 'normal' are more than a bit different.

    As far as typos, I've scanned back through some books published by Tor, Ace, and Baen to name a few, and my errors appear fall in line with, and be no more egregious than theirs.

    At any rate it won't be long before my duty days are back to normal and I won't have time to do my side work or read. I have an MS to read and I look forward to it as soon as another priority is attended to.

    I get to replace a defective toilet tomorrow, yee haw.
  • I've read some of Sphinx's writing. I think it's very good. Haven't had time to read all of it and get the whole story-line but it reads very well. I'm going to try my hand at fiction some day. Maybe I'll get lucky.
  • Ron MillerRon Miller Professor
    Cliff,

    The reality is that in my past I had to deal with people who would get inside a normal person's head and under their skin faster than a cat can lick its rear with its back bent and its leg out. Those individuals could have someone 'average' ready to hang a caricature of themselves on the wall and then themselves next to said caricature in short order. If I limit myself it's because my 'normal' and most other peoples' 'normal' are more than a bit different.

    As far as typos, I've scanned back through some books published by Tor, Ace, and Baen to name a few, and my errors appear fall in line with, and be no more egregious than theirs.

    At any rate it won't be long before my duty days are back to normal and I won't have time to do my side work or read. I have an MS to read and I look forward to it as soon as another priority is attended to.

    I get to replace a defective toilet tomorrow, yee haw.
    Yeah...I don't think I have ever had a commercially published book without something wrong in it somewhere. The most cringe-worthy was a book that passed multiple times under the scrutiny of myself and my co-author, an editor, a copy editor and a proofreader...and had a misspelling in a heading (of all things).

    But...there is some need to take care to not give the impression that because typos find their way into traditionally published books that careful, independent, objective editing and copy editing is not necessary. I would not like to encourage anyone to self-edit their own work if they can possibly avoid doing so. 

    As I've said many times in the past, in commercial publishing there are three stages to a book's editing process. The first is the editor themselves. They oversee the book through its entire publication process, from initial acceptance clear through to when it shows up in book stores. Their main job is to make sure the book is as well-written as possible. They look for sense and structure among other things. One the MS is whipped into shape, it passes on to the copy editor who scrutinizes the book for syntax, grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. Once all of these have been taken care of, a proof copy of the text is created. This is then compared with the corrected MS by the proofreader, who makes sure that all of the changes and corrections have been made. (Today, when a book's text may be set directly from a digital MS, rather than having passed through a typesetter, the proofreader's job may be just to take a second look to see if there have been any overlooked errors or typos.) The main point to this entire process is that it is objective. All of these people will find errors that the author would likely never find since it is very, very difficult for an author to be wholly objective about their own work. To take one common example: because an author is so close to their work, it is easy for them to gloss over information that may be obvious to them but would only confuse a reader by its omission. Or they may simply have typing or spelling habits that seem perfectly normal to them but are idiosyncratic enough to look like mistakes to a reader.
  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Librarian
    edited March 11
    Ron,

    You've hit on the reason why I let my work sit for a good length of time before I do the first rough edit. When possible a beta goes over the  work next highlighting or making note of anything that catches their eye. Then another edit. I rarely share rough-rough drafts as they're crapola.

    This way I treat the work as if it were an assessment some junior-level putz handed over to me for review, then I get busy and I don't play nice with myself. I've gotten better at slowing down for the original writing as it's far easier to not fix simple issues that aren't there.

    Easy to do it isn't, and something I'd prefer not to do. But that period of fallow time is part of the process, I believe seven years between my first completed work and when I published it, and in reformatting for pocket book I found a few things I'll push out to the other versions as I can.

    I also keep a file for each book so that if a reader catches something I didn't, I can fix it.

    Oh well, time to watch a not-quite two-month-old crawl around in a circle before I have to roll. [The kid hasn't quite figured out how to coordinate enough to go in a straight line, thankfully he's a slow developer or an underachiever...]

    *** Edit 14:03 ***
    As for being able to emulate the skill of several different people, that is beyond my functional level and overall capability. If an author has access to credible outside resources I would say run with it, as the author's job will be a lot easier. If those resources are unavailable for whatever reason, the author [acting as publisher] had better be prepared to endure a lot of frustration, long hours, and be willing to accept less than glowing reviews when they don't excel at the job.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Yeah...I don't think I have ever had a commercially published book without something wrong in it somewhere. The most cringe-worthy was a book that passed multiple times under the scrutiny of myself and my co-author, an editor, a copy editor and a proofreader...and had a misspelling in a heading (of all things).

    It's remarkable is it not? Since I started to use WPs instead of a typewriter, I have become convinced that when reopening a file, something I know I have corrected has come back! It's impossible to shut a Word file without it remind you to Save it, but I have often wondered if it actually does always Save the latest changes.

    But...there is some need to take care to not give the impression that because typos find their way into traditionally published books that careful, independent, objective editing and copy editing is not necessary.

    Indeed. Just imagine if they were not gone over at all.

     I would not like to encourage anyone to self-edit their own work if they can possibly avoid doing so. 

    It can be very mind numbing that's for sure. I have done it many times before with other peoples' work, which is not as mind numbing. But I have to ask, if someone is able to do it with other peoples' work, why is it impossible to do it with ones own? Apart from that familiarity sort of problem. It is of course not 100% possible, but it's best to not make mistakes in the first place. Read everything over and over again, as one is typing it for a start.

    As I've said many times in the past, in commercial publishing there are three stages to a book's editing process. The first is the editor themselves. They oversee the book through its entire publication process, from initial acceptance clear through to when it shows up in book stores. Their main job is to make sure the book is as well-written as possible. They look for sense and structure among other things. One the MS is whipped into shape,

    One would always hope that an editor works in conjunction with the writer. From some posts I have read in the forum many people do not believe that they do and that they adjust things willy-nilly without asking if it's OK for them to do so.

     it passes on to the copy editor who scrutinizes the book for syntax, grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.

    Is that not the job of a Proofreader? I do think that a copy-editor does a lot more than just proofread.

     Once all of these have been taken care of, a proof copy of the text is created. This is then compared with the corrected MS by the proofreader, who makes sure that all of the changes and corrections have been made. (Today, when a book's text may be set directly from a digital MS, rather than having passed through a typesetter, the proofreader's job may be just to take a second look to see if there have been any overlooked errors or typos.) The main point to this entire process is that it is objective. All of these people will find errors that the author would likely never find since it is very, very difficult for an author to be wholly objective about their own work. To take one common example: because an author is so close to their work, it is easy for them to gloss over information that may be obvious to them but would only confuse a reader by its omission. Or they may simply have typing or spelling habits that seem perfectly normal to them but are idiosyncratic enough to look like mistakes to a reader.

    Very weird that some mistakes still get through at times!  One thing I have noticed is that made-up words are often in italics, and I wonder if it's a sort of marker to say - leave this alone! It is spelt right!

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    If an author has access to credible outside resources I would say run with it, as the author's job will be a lot easier. If those resources are unavailable for whatever reason, the author [acting as publisher] had better be prepared to endure a lot of frustration, long hours,

    Very true. Reading something one has written over and over and over again can get very wearing, and it is best to walk away and leave it for a while.

     and be willing to accept less than glowing reviews when they don't excel at the job.

    Quite so. But some don't get them even if they do! And that applies to many books, not just self-published ones.

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    A working toilet is its own reward.
  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Librarian
    Especially when the toilets that came with the house are a brand I never heard of, and one is irreparable. Consider it a case of you don't always get what you paid for and suing would cost more than fixing it yourself.

    The replacement one-piece is of decent quality and rated well, even though it didn't come with WIFI, Surround Sound, a big screen, or a terrabyte hard drive and 500 gig of RAM.
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    Many toilets have a large cistern in the back that will hold many thumb drives.

    The thumb drives aren't particularly useful afterwards, but...
  • Ron MillerRon Miller Professor

    But...there is some need to take care to not give the impression that because typos find their way into traditionally published books that careful, independent, objective editing and copy editing is not necessary.

    Indeed. Just imagine if they were not gone over at all.

    The mind reels.

     I would not like to encourage anyone to self-edit their own work if they can possibly avoid doing so. 

    It can be very mind numbing that's for sure. I have done it many times before with other peoples' work, which is not as mind numbing. But I have to ask, if someone is able to do it with other peoples' work, why is it impossible to do it with ones own? Apart from that familiarity sort of problem. It is of course not 100% possible, but it's best to not make mistakes in the first place. Read everything over and over again, as one is typing it for a start.

    That "familiarity sort of problem" is exactly the problem. Authors have the issue of objectivity facing them. 

    As I've said many times in the past, in commercial publishing there are three stages to a book's editing process. The first is the editor themselves. They oversee the book through its entire publication process, from initial acceptance clear through to when it shows up in book stores. Their main job is to make sure the book is as well-written as possible. They look for sense and structure among other things. One the MS is whipped into shape,

    One would always hope that an editor works in conjunction with the writer. From some posts I have read in the forum many people do not believe that they do and that they adjust things willy-nilly without asking if it's OK for them to do so.

    Yeah. That's an old wive's tale I hear all the time. Professional editors work with an author. They do not touch a word of the book themselves---it is entirely up to the author to make any suggested changes or corrections. And the author is always free to argue with their editor, suggest that a change be made in some other way or even that it not be made at all. It is a wise author, however, who takes what their editor says very seriously.

     it passes on to the copy editor who scrutinizes the book for syntax, grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc.

    Is that not the job of a Proofreader? I do think that a copy-editor does a lot more than just proofread.

    Proofreading has taken on a slightly different meaning in today's world, where many if not most books are not typeset, but rather instead published directly from the author's final edited MS. The proofreader's job was to compare the typeset galleys with the corrected MS, to make sure that the typesetter didn't overlook any corrections or introduce new errors. 

    By the time a text had reached the proofreader, all editorial corrections had already been made...this included the work of the copy editor, who was responsible for checking the book for spelling, punctuation, etc.

    Today, with the middleman of the typesetter missing, the two jobs are often referred to by the same term. But what is usually referred to now as "proofreading" is technically copy editing. (But when you order a "proof copy" of your book from Lulu, and check it for overlooked errors, you are indeed performing the function of a proofreader.)

    I kind of already explained this (see below).

     Once all of these have been taken care of, a proof copy of the text is created. This is then compared with the corrected MS by the proofreader, who makes sure that all of the changes and corrections have been made. (Today, when a book's text may be set directly from a digital MS, rather than having passed through a typesetter, the proofreader's job may be just to take a second look to see if there have been any overlooked errors or typos.) The main point to this entire process is that it is objective. All of these people will find errors that the author would likely never find since it is very, very difficult for an author to be wholly objective about their own work. To take one common example: because an author is so close to their work, it is easy for them to gloss over information that may be obvious to them but would only confuse a reader by its omission. Or they may simply have typing or spelling habits that seem perfectly normal to them but are idiosyncratic enough to look like mistakes to a reader.

    Very weird that some mistakes still get through at times!  One thing I have noticed is that made-up words are often in italics, and I wonder if it's a sort of marker to say - leave this alone! It is spelt right!

    Well, that is sometimes done for the same raison a foreign word or phrase will be italicized, me comprenez-vous?


  • Papi_SoñolientoPapi_Soñoliento Southern Escarpment Hill Country Librarian
    There is a simple reason foreign words may be italicized  por que a veces, si un idioma extranjero está en el mismo texto, las personas que lo leen pueden decir '¿eh?'.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    You are right that the terms and what they do change. There's even a difference in the tasks they do according to the industry they are in. I believe a Copy-Editor in the newspaper and magazine industry is the person who plays around with the text to make it fit the size and shape of text box the Chief Editor allows it, often chopping chunks out or demanding a shorter rewrite.  The Chief Editor is usually the person who says what's going in and what is not, and what will be on the front page. The Publisher is often who owns the publication and sets the policies and type of 'news' he wishes to have published, and the Chief Editor is the person who makes sure the Publisher's beliefs are followed. Very often they do not expect trained journalists and reporters to make any mistakes, when typing that is.

    The Typesetter nowadays is the one who sits at a PC ensuring a file of pages is set up right to print.

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    A printer's devil pied my type; that's my excuse, and nothing supernatural about it.
  • BFEditingBFEditing Reader
    Copyediting occurs after developmental editing, and proofreading happens at the very end to catch typos. Proofreading isn't copyediting, as there can be three stages of copyediting: light, medium, and heavy. Light copyediting is very similar to proofreading, but is slightly different. On my website I break down the two and I also made an infographic: www.blueflowerediting.com. 
  • I accidentally found a way of speeding up the typo / mistake hunting. I find that using a printed book helps tremendously, far better than a file or paper MS. The story is presented the way we intend it anyway, and any errors, well, most errors at least - jump out at you. At least that's what I find; but I'm sure others will find it helps them too.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius
    Why would the media make a difference? It's all words, etc.
    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Author
    I accidentally found a way of speeding up the typo / mistake hunting. I find that using a printed book helps tremendously, far better than a file or paper MS. The story is presented the way we intend it anyway, and any errors, well, most errors at least - jump out at you. At least that's what I find; but I'm sure others will find it helps them too.
    The difference between paper MS and bound book for me is not great, although the ability to see the material presented in final form is valuable. The difference between screen and print for me is enormous. A function of age and reading and writing experience, perhaps, but my eye sees the printed material differently from what the screen shows. I'd never trust a so-called "final" I'd seen only on the screen.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    I am not young, and cannot see words well now without reading glasses, but I cannot see that it makes much difference what the words are on. In fact on screen they can be enlarged. But I think it does make a big difference when it comes to editing and proofreading, etc., if one has O.C.D.

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • benzigerbenziger Author
    Read it loud on your own.
    Do not read it from the beginning to the end, but from the end to the beginning (word by word or sentence by sentence or at least paragraph by paragraph)
    Read it on paper instead at a screen.
    Give it to someone else (a person never had the manuscript before) to proof read.
    Use a printed dictionnary and a grammar book.

    At the end, you will find the errors of the spell checker and the grammar checker ;-)
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    There's little proof that reading aloud to oneself is any different in use than just reading in one's head. The only reason they do it in schools is to see if you can actually read, and how well.

    Why on earth would you read it backwards? It would make even less sense than text poorly written.

    Again, there's no proof that reading from paper is better than reading from a screen. Hence e-readers, not to mention the internet.

    It takes skill to proofread. Giving it to just "someone" will be no help at all.

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
  • I make pdf's of my books and let the pc read it to me as I read it along to myself. Found quite a few errors that way. Not perfect but it works.
  • Ron MillerRon Miller Professor
    Anything that forces you to slow down and read each word is good. That's why I think that reading aloud is a little safer than reading silently: there is less possibility of being misled by what you think is there as opposed to what actually is.
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    One of my beta-readers on the Easter book project pointed out some issues with long sentences that only came to light when he read it aloud to his little girl. FWIW.
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Author

    There's little proof that reading aloud to oneself is any different in use than just reading in one's head. The only reason they do it in schools is to see if you can actually read, and how well.

    Why on earth would you read it backwards? It would make even less sense than text poorly written.

    Again, there's no proof that reading from paper is better than reading from a screen. Hence e-readers, not to mention the internet.

    It takes skill to proofread. Giving it to just "someone" will be no help at all.

    "There's little proof that reading aloud to oneself is any different in use than just reading in one's head."

    "Again, there's no proof that reading from paper is better than reading from a screen."

    For those of us who experience the difference between reading aloud and reading to ourselves, and between reading on a screen and reading a printed text, and for those of us who succeed in identifying more errors with one method over the other, no proof of the difference between them or the effectiveness in identifying errors of one over the other (or lack of difference) is necessary.

    And we can all rejoice in the fact that for some there is no difference and wish them well in their efforts. And we can rejoice that we have so many different little screens to read from when we don't need to proof the text we're reading.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Reading aloud or in one's head surely does not 'vocalise' where missing punctuation may be, or where it could be improved. Who says the punctuation as they are reading? That can only happen with full attention to detail of the text, using the eyes, no matter which method of reading is used. It also does not root out potential problems with grammar or English as a whole if it's the writer reading over it, because they wrote it ...

    As I think I have said. Proofreading, and/or even editing, requires a lot of OCD. If one has that then it even functions when just reading something for pleasure  :(

    How Do. Pull up a chair. Would you like a cup of tea? Don't sit in that chair!!
2
Sign In or Register to comment.