Why are copy editors such dipshits?
I can't even begin to get into the repeated and dipshitty "correction" that was inserted into the ms I'm now proofreading.....
(apologies to pbk)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(79)
-
►
May
(19)
- Wiley's Philosophy Spotlight
- Philosophy Blogs
- Department Meeting Rule #1
- Everyone's a Critic?
- Department Meeting Rule #2
- Department Meeting Rule #3
- Robin Gibb Posse
- Is it Wrong?
- Department Meeting Rule #4
- Donna Summer Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #5
- Department Meeting Rule #6
- A Plea to Academic Publishers
- Department Meeting Rule #7
- Maurice Sendak Posse
- Crap Websites
- MCA Posse
- Department Meeting Rule #8
- Department Meeting Rule #9
-
►
April
(14)
- Department Meeting Rule #10
- Films in Class?
- Somewhere in April time, they add another hour
- Everyone Gets a DVD
- Dick Clark Posse
- Reign in Blood Wine
- Someone in Austin Needs a Guitarist
- New APA Executive Director
- Note to an Underegraduate Student
- Profiles in Crappy Guitar Work
- APA Session Rule #1
- Mike Wallace Posse
- Book display
- Doom in Seattle
-
►
May
(19)
10 comments:
Oh Spiros please let us guess!
"One's" for "their" with singular indefinite antecedent?
Or the reverse?
wv: hylesse, as being on the wagon, but with a tone of regret--"Unfortunately I'm hylesse."
I love the "happy" to "glad" editors.
Citations or it didn't happen.
My bet is that the copy editor expanded your contractions in a tone deaf, machine-like way.
I had this:
"Shouldn't we count fictionalism as a kind of anti-realism?"
Corrected version:
"Should not we count fictionalism as a kind of anti-realism?"
Fo' real.
WV: dings
Perfect!
Best of all time:
original version: "remove your hand from a source of tissue damage"
corrected version: "amputate your hand"
Moreover, the copy editor went ahead and made the change without asking me and I hand to change it back.
PA,
Okay, you win.
Graciously,
6:38
Copyediting, unfortunately, is a deeply attractive calling for prescriptivists. Consequently, one is often subjected to "correction" in accordance with "rules" that were invented in the 18th century by persons under the bizarre delusion that English ought to resemble Latin. Even more unfortunately, copyeditors are frequently impervious to reason.
The real problem is that the vast majority of a copyeditor's clients can't write properly in the first place. Forget about nitpicking and adhering to ancient rules, they're usually swamped just trying to make your* sentences legible. Imagine: "Forget about, nitpicking, and adhering to ancient rules, their usually swamped; Just trying however to make your sentences legible." *Shudder*
*The 'you' here is general, obviously. In my experience (I've copyedited for a newspaper, freelance, and for a couple journals in various efforts/schemes to make a few more bucks) philosophers aren't all that bad at all. It's the other disciplines you have to watch out for.
But your Ann/Brian example gives me a frowny face. That's pretty crappy.
I will copy edit for a very reasonable rate.
I am much better than the typical publishing troll that does it.
vw: kejag: Kojak's drunk cousin.
Wow, as a copy editor of scholarly books, I find philosophers are usually better writers than the norm, perhaps because thinking logically is part and parcel of their work, making my work all the easier. Sorry you have had such a bad experience that you felt compelled to call me and my colleagues "dipshits".
Post a Comment