You are viewing [info]jaylake's journal

Lakeshore - That is not my cow
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2005-09-17 14:10
Subject: That is not my cow
Security: Public
Just finished Thud, the new Discworld book. More later when I've thought about it a while, and possibly re-read it, but the book provided me with my usual Pratchett experience. He's one of the few writers who can still make me forget the smoke and mirrors and creaking ropes of story and simply dive into my suspended disbelief. I highly recommend it, if Pratchett is to your taste. Though it wouldn't make a good first Discworld book for a newcomer -- far too much context would be missing from the story.

However...it's a US first edition hardback from HarperCollins, and it's full of weird typos. After a while I finally decided the text had been scanned at some point, because many of the typos looked a lot more like OCR errors than like any possible typesetting (or authorial typing) errors. For example, "Woeworld" for "Uberwald", where you could see how |Ub| might scan as |Wo| (three vertical elements followed by a round thing), and |ald| might scan as |orld| if their was schmutz on the scanner glass or something. Which seems annoyingly weird for a hardback from one of the biggest-selling authors in the field. Doesn't HarperCollins have copyeditors? Proofreaders? Did anyone *look* at the US page proofs? Heck, a ten-year-old would have caught most of these typos. It's embarassing.
Post A Comment | 4 Comments | Add to Memories | Share | Link



lisatheriveter
User: [info]lisatheriveter
Date: 2005-09-18 04:07 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Heh. Thanks for warning me. I'll be sure to perform yoga relaxation before reading this edition. Or maybe I'll just order the British edition and be done with it.
Reply | Thread | Link



Deanna Hoak
User: [info]deannahoak
Date: 2005-09-18 11:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Hm. I made a post about proofreading not long ago that discussed this very type of problem: It sounds as though the proofreader didn't actually proofread.

Were there errors that were not so obvious, that should have been caught by a cold read?
Reply | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: [info]jaylake
Date: 2005-09-18 15:16 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
> Were there errors that were not so obvious, that should have been caught by a cold read?

Not really. That was the odd thing...it was mostly gross typos that looked like production issues. Maybe two dozen across the book. Continuity and other more subtle stuff seemed pretty well put together.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Deanna Hoak
User: [info]deannahoak
Date: 2005-09-18 17:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Yeah, that would confirm to me that the proofreader didn't actually compare against the manuscript. When I was in-house at Harcourt, I caught even some of my very best proofreaders trying to get away with that.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
May 2012
2012 appearances