| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 20:50:54
quote:
Originally posted by Si in "Questions for Ed Greenwood"
(snip)
Oh and while the subject is still up and running, I was rereading 'Thornhold' recently and was irritated to realise that someone at WoTC doesn't know the difference between 'discreet' and 'discrete'. Since the book has a fair amount of skullduggery in it, it was used wrongly again and again.
Sorry, pet peeve touched upon there <ahem>
Oh ye gods!
To "decimate" is NOT the same as to "annihilate;" the use of the incorrect word is the difference between killing 10% of a population and killing 100%;
"Descendants" spring from "ancestors," not vice versa -- a necromancer is far more likely to have someone's descendant present when summoning the dead than someone's ancestor, who is probably already dead;
Et cetera ad nauseum.
Many people have, for many years, criticised both TSR and Wizards for making such amateurish mistakes ... and they still screw up! The same errors are repeated constantly in fiction books and game supplements from them. I can understand someone having dyslexia, even a narrow form restricted to a few words as I have (look at my creative spellings of "occasion" and "recommend" and "embarrass" some time!), but when I use a word with which I have a problem, I use a spell checker or a dictionary to make sure that I have spelled it correctly. (I just mis-spelled both "recommend" and "embarrass" and had to look them up.) I am aware of and understand my problem with those three words. After more than a decade of people complaining of the same mistakes in D&D books, could Wizards not instruct their copy editors to tape little notes to the sides of their computer monitors reminding them of the definitions of such words which they constantly screw up? I have done that for myself in the past, and I am not producing writing which will appear in thousands of copies of books; if I can do that for myself, cannot Wizards, a multi-million dollar company, do the same? |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 16 Jul 2005 : 01:20:11
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M. Reid
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
It is forbidden for clerics of Oghma to knowingly make or sell a falsified map of any sort in Faerūn, but I wonder if anyone has adopted the opposite tack as an official policy? Any sages here have info on that?
No, but I can relay a most humorous anecdote about maps and FR. When the original boxed set for the campaign was being developed, a place showed up on one of the maps called Cavenouth. Jeff Grubb was looking it over and decided he needed more detail on that locale, so he called Ed Greenwood and began to quiz him. Imagine Jeff's surprise when Ed had no idea what place he was talking about. "I never created a place called Cavenouth," Ed insisted. So Jeff walked him through the process of finding it on the map, and Ed went back to his own originals to see what was there. He burst out laughing. "Cave mouth!" Ed says over the phone. "That's supposed to say 'Cave Mouth'." And thus a new place was invented by misreading something.
Thomas
That's a hoot! I have been working my way through the Forgotten Realms Atlas as I read the old novels, and it's good to get some lore about those early maps. Thank you! |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 06:41:23
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
It is forbidden for clerics of Oghma to knowingly make or sell a falsified map of any sort in Faerūn, but I wonder if anyone has adopted the opposite tack as an official policy? Any sages here have info on that?
No, but I can relay a most humorous anecdote about maps and FR. When the original boxed set for the campaign was being developed, a place showed up on one of the maps called Cavenouth. Jeff Grubb was looking it over and decided he needed more detail on that locale, so he called Ed Greenwood and began to quiz him. Imagine Jeff's surprise when Ed had no idea what place he was talking about. "I never created a place called Cavenouth," Ed insisted. So Jeff walked him through the process of finding it on the map, and Ed went back to his own originals to see what was there. He burst out laughing. "Cave mouth!" Ed says over the phone. "That's supposed to say 'Cave Mouth'." And thus a new place was invented by misreading something.
Thomas |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 06:31:18
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M. Reid
I can't tell you how many late nights I worked, pouring over a manuscript at the 11th hour, trying to make sure nothing was wrong with it, only to discover a typo on some random page (often the first one I turned to!  ) once the printed product was in my hands.
 It's catching Thomas, flee before all your writing skills are drained by the succubus known as the "Queen of Typos".
Well, fooey! That's not just a typo; I actually have mistakenly assumed that was the proper spelling for that usage (having never, to my knowledge, actually seen it used in print before). So I just learned something new tonight. 
Thomas |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 05:53:16
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M. Reid
Jamallo,
The editors at Wizards are harried individuals who bust their humps trying to do as good a job as they can within the constraints that have been placed upon them by the accountants. I know; I worked as one there for ten years, and I've spent four more doing it for them freelance. I can't tell you how many late nights I worked, pouring over a manuscript at the 11th hour, trying to make sure nothing was wrong with it, only to discover a typo on some random page (often the first one I turned to! ) once the printed product was in my hands. It's not a happy feeling, but I learned to deal with it as an economic and editorial reality -- there is just no such thing as a perfect manuscript.
It's catching Thomas, flee before all your writing skills are drained by the succubus known as the "Queen of Typos".
What Thomas is saying is absolutely spot-on. Although I don't have his skills and experience as a writer and editor I've done more than my fair share of proofreading and fact checking for FR products. Aside from the lore errors (over which I bang my head against a desk frequently when I read them in print - after having missed them on the flickering screen of my PC), typos are an insidious creature - especially, as other members have posted, in terms of FR nomenclature.
Maps are usually the worst culprits (and with respect to Thomas again, the maps in "Shining South" are an example of this) and sometimes errors earlier on perpetuate errors down the track as editions change and people don't always get to see the old products.
Don't forget that we as fans have the non-pressurised eye of a consumer, time up our sleeves and the chance to go over a piece of text in finished form and at our leisure. This may sound funny, but on a few occasions I've read text for FR products on my computer and not seen anything wrong. As soon as I've got the product proper, the errors (albeit minor ones) leap out at me from the text - and usually make me feel god-awful for not picking them up in the first place. But I also know that as Thomas said, I bust a gut when I get the chance to do that kind of work for the FR product-line. It's not my job, I don't approach it in a lackadaisical manner and I do care, very much so in fact. Yet errors still creep in. All this has made me understand that as Thomas stated, there is no such thing as the perfect piece of written material within the constraints of the way FR products are created and produced. Sure, we'd like to think that we get it 100% right most times, but if we don't - cut us a bit of slack, eh?
-- George Krashos
Perhaps this would be a good point to segue to a different topic entirely. Mention of map errors brings to mind the surprising fact that many real world maps are deliberately fasified by their publishers.
Governments have been known to shift borders on maps to "prove" that they own some bit of real estate. (Who own the Strait of Magellan? Don't rely upon a Chilean map to show it as Argentine territory or an Argentine map to show that it belongs to Chile.) The USSR was discovered to have falsified maps of Moscow and other cities to thwart potential aerial attacks and flumox invaders.
Some publishers of maps and atlases (all of whom deny it) are said to insert errors into their products as a way to catch unauthorized copying by other publishers -- anyone might produce a similar accurate map, but only a plagiarist would produce a map with another publisher's deliberate error.
It is forbidden for clerics of Oghma to knowingly make or sell a falsified map of any sort in Faerūn, but I wonder if anyone has adopted the opposite tack as an official policy? Any sages here have info on that? |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 01:05:52
quote:
Originally posted by Thomas M. Reid
Jamallo,
The editors at Wizards are harried individuals who bust their humps trying to do as good a job as they can within the constraints that have been placed upon them by the accountants. I know; I worked as one there for ten years, and I've spent four more doing it for them freelance. I can't tell you how many late nights I worked, pouring over a manuscript at the 11th hour, trying to make sure nothing was wrong with it, only to discover a typo on some random page (often the first one I turned to! ) once the printed product was in my hands. It's not a happy feeling, but I learned to deal with it as an economic and editorial reality -- there is just no such thing as a perfect manuscript.
It's catching Thomas, flee before all your writing skills are drained by the succubus known as the "Queen of Typos".
What Thomas is saying is absolutely spot-on. Although I don't have his skills and experience as a writer and editor I've done more than my fair share of proofreading and fact checking for FR products. Aside from the lore errors (over which I bang my head against a desk frequently when I read them in print - after having missed them on the flickering screen of my PC), typos are an insidious creature - especially, as other members have posted, in terms of FR nomenclature.
Maps are usually the worst culprits (and with respect to Thomas again, the maps in "Shining South" are an example of this) and sometimes errors earlier on perpetuate errors down the track as editions change and people don't always get to see the old products.
Don't forget that we as fans have the non-pressurised eye of a consumer, time up our sleeves and the chance to go over a piece of text in finished form and at our leisure. This may sound funny, but on a few occasions I've read text for FR products on my computer and not seen anything wrong. As soon as I've got the product proper, the errors (albeit minor ones) leap out at me from the text - and usually make me feel god-awful for not picking them up in the first place. But I also know that as Thomas said, I bust a gut when I get the chance to do that kind of work for the FR product-line. It's not my job, I don't approach it in a lackadaisical manner and I do care, very much so in fact. Yet errors still creep in. All this has made me understand that as Thomas stated, there is no such thing as the perfect piece of written material within the constraints of the way FR products are created and produced. Sure, we'd like to think that we get it 100% right most times, but if we don't - cut us a bit of slack, eh?
-- George Krashos
|
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 15 Jul 2005 : 00:31:46
Jamallo,
You have every right to set whatever standards you'd like regarding the level of accuracy you demand in works you purchase. If you think that the quality of editing in a Wizards of the Coast product is shoddy and unacceptable, and you want to express your displeasure by keeping your cash in your wallet, I say go for it.
But I disagree with your standards. It's simply not worth the extra time to catch those last few niggling mistakes. An example (using purely hypothetical numbers to illustrate my point): If an editor spends 5 hours on a manuscript and catches 95% of the errors, then it's time well spent (and salary well paid for). To find that last 5%, though, the editor would most likely require an additional 25 hours of work. That's not good business, because strictly speaking, the vast, vast majority of the audience is going to be content with that level of quality. Does that make the editors lazy? No. Does that make them ignorant? No again. It makes the company financially responsible to itself. They've found the "sweet spot" of quality control. Any less effort, and more people would begin to complain (and stop buying the products -- a large enough drop in sales that the bean counters would sit up and take notice). Any more, and the profit margin of the products falls to unacceptable levels. Simply put, your standards are those of a very small minority of people and are thus unreasonable to Wizards. They are not going to throw more money into catching errors to satisfy such a small minority.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
I read an amusing anecdote about the efforts of the Oxford University Press to produce a book which was 100% error-free, posting a substantial reward to anyone who could find a mistake in the proof sheets which they had posted about the university. When none were found, they went to press, only to have several errors noticed on the first page on the first day the book went on sale. Typographical errors and errors of fact can bedvil the best of us.
So, was that error in red intentional to see if anyone would notice? If not, I am not drawing attention to it to belittle you -- I don't think an email of mine goes out without something similar messing it up. I just found it amusing in the context of the argument. 
In any event, the anecdote cited above just supports my point even further. Why would the company exhaust itself and kill its profit margins trying to catch every last error when the odds of doing it successfully are very long? If a whole campus of people failed to see something, why would you expect one or two people (trained for this sort of work, to be sure, but still . . . ) to be any more successful? It's a matter of economics, not lack of pride.
The editors at Wizards are harried individuals who bust their humps trying to do as good a job as they can within the constraints that have been placed upon them by the accountants. I know; I worked as one there for ten years, and I've spent four more doing it for them freelance. I can't tell you how many late nights I worked, pouring over a manuscript at the 11th hour, trying to make sure nothing was wrong with it, only to discover a typo on some random page (often the first one I turned to! ) once the printed product was in my hands. It's not a happy feeling, but I learned to deal with it as an economic and editorial reality -- there is just no such thing as a perfect manuscript.
In The Sapphire Crescent, I made a reference to the plague many times in my manuscript, but it wasn't until it made it to the bookstores and someone came on the message boards and posted that I found out I accidentally typed "plaque" in one spot. No spellchecker will notice that, and neither the editor, proofreader, nor I caught it during galleys. It just goes to show you. . . .
Thomas
|
| Alaundo |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 09:24:11
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Okay, now you're getting a bit harsh. Just because they have made mistakes, that's no reason to say they don't respect the readers.
Neither you nor I work there. We are not privy to how everything operates there. While these errors are annoying, we do not know for certain why they are made. Perhaps it is laziness, perhaps it is an outdated process that doesn't allow for corrections, perhaps it is a simple lack of manpower to properly do the job in the time given.
Either way, your posts are starting to get a little too venomous with regards to the WotC staff. Some of them do come in here; we don't want them to leave because they feel like they're under attack. So can we tone this down a bit?
Well met
Indeed. Whilst I understand thy frustration, Jamallo Kreen, please let us keep this civil. A number of typo's have shown up in a number of tomes more frequently over the past year or two, but i'm sure it isn't a show of disrespect. Now, moving on...  |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 06:12:21
Okay, now you're getting a bit harsh. Just because they have made mistakes, that's no reason to say they don't respect the readers.
Neither you nor I work there. We are not privy to how everything operates there. While these errors are annoying, we do not know for certain why they are made. Perhaps it is laziness, perhaps it is an outdated process that doesn't allow for corrections, perhaps it is a simple lack of manpower to properly do the job in the time given.
Either way, your posts are starting to get a little too venomous with regards to the WotC staff. Some of them do come in here; we don't want them to leave because they feel like they're under attack. So can we tone this down a bit? |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 06:00:53
quote:
Originally posted by Thureen Buroch
I don't want to sound like the devil's advocate here, but one problem with running a spellcheck on a DnD sourcebook, or rulebook for that matter, is the number of properly spelled fantasy words that spellcheck would say are spelled wrong. Take the FRCS. On that page with all of the Faerunian (sp?) names, spellchecker would come up with, I don't know, over 100 mispellings. (That should be misspellings, by the way, even though the first one looks better).
That's when you hire an editor. That's the editor's job, is it not? It's one of those self-explanatory job descriptions. My father, who is an author, sometimes pays me to edit his work. (It's an easy job, though, he's so Type A that there are hardly ever any errors.) Sometimes a person will read over the typo in a DnD sourcebook, realizing it's a typo, but not worrying about it. Sometimes, however, a typo/word misunderstanding (discrete vs. discreet) can be very confusing.
And while I have noticed that most books nowadays will have three or four typos, DnD books have the most. And another thing I find funny. If you've ever read the Harry Potter books, you'd know what I mean. The first book is error free. The second book has one or two errors. The third has more. The next has more. Et cetera. As the author grows in fame, editors slack off, because they feel like they can get by with it now. And that's not just with editors. It seems to me that most professionals will only do what they can get by with anymore.
Enough of my ranting about the state of the world as we know it. Heck, this site is supposed to be about Toril, not Earth.
Just to show that I'm not a totally embittered old freak who likes nothing better than to vent his bile on the world, I shall pass on two helpful hints as to how I use a spellchecker, and how I catch troublesome words which are spelled correctly -- but which are wrong in context.
My spellcheckers have big dictionaries because I "teach" them to recognize unusual words and syllables whenever they appear. My "smarter" programs can breeze through a Clark Ashton Smith story or a page of Chinese names without a hiccup.
I have a list of musical selections which I have heard on the radio and liked, and the thing is marred by red underlines on every page because of the large number of foreign names and words. Periodically I let the spellchecker loose on it and teach it that "Solti" is not "sortie" and so on. I was caught up short at one point, though, when it asked me if I had erred in writing a word which was exactly like a certain English word, but for the last letter. I realized that there were many such wordds (e.g., "Georg"). I decided then that I would not "teach" it words which were so similar to English words that a slight typing error might allow a misspelling to slip through (e.g., I didn't teach it to recognize "Georg" as a valid word because someday I might omit the final letter from "George" and the spellchecker wouldn't catch it).
In your D&D example, I have "taught" the checker many Faerūnian words and names, but not those similar to English words save for a difference of a letter or two. Thus, whenever I check a document which has those words or names, the spellchecker stops and inquires if I want to correct the "mistake." If the spelling is correct, I tell the program to ignore that instance and go to the next word. This allows me the opportunity to examine the text by degrees, instead of in large blocks, and I catch many errors of grammar, word omission, etc. in the course of doing the spellcheck.
Sometimes, if there is a word with which I have difficulty (I have confessed to three; do not ask for more!), I will run the "find" function with a portion of a word which gives me trouble so that I can find every instance, even if I have typed a homophone which was spelled correctly. For example, I might seek "ther" to find all instances when I might have mistyped "there" for "their." Those who have trouble with "ancestors"/"descendants" and "discreet"/"discrete" can easily do the same, then examine each and every occurence of the troublesome words to verify that they are correct.
As for the word "decimate," I would suggest that NO ONE use it unless they are writing about the Roman Army. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 13 Jul 2005 : 05:32:46
quote:
Originally posted by Jindael
How much of this, though, is editor error, and how much is author word choice?
If an author chooses an incorrect word, it is the responsibility of the editor to either correct it or send it back to the author to correct. If a writer consistently wrote "there" for "their" and "your" for "you're," we would expect the publisher to make the appropriate corrections. When we as readers don't demand that publishers do likewise for constantly repeated errors in word choice in their books, we have no one to blame but ourselves if reading a page leaves us feeling dis-satisfied because we spent our time making constant mental corrections rather than being able to go with the smooth flow of an author's writing.
Sometimes a particular word is chosen by an author for a particular effect. That's artistry. Sometimes the very same word may appear through ignorance or laziness (or tiredness or one visit too many to the Elemental Plane of Single Malt Scotch or ...). If I write "ain't," anyone who has read even a tiny fraction of what I have written knows that I intend the word to be "ain't." If I write "ani't," it's also pretty obvious that I have made a mistake. If I write of "the Scotch people," and I am not quoting someone else, I have either made an elementary error which requires correction or I am writing about the nice folks who who bring us the Glenlivet and such-like blessings. If I write of a Roman general "decimating" twenty per cent of an enemy and I am not being facetious, I have demonstrated ignorance, and it's the duty of an editor to catch that mistake and see to its correction.
La! People make mistakes. When they make the same mistake repeatedly over the course of a decade of people complaining of their error, and they expect me to subsidize their mistakes, I am well within my rights to feel aggrieved.
I read an amusing anecdote about the efforts of the Oxford University Press to produce a book which was 100% error-free, posting a substantial reward to anyone who could find a mistake in the proof sheets which they had posted about the university. When none were found, they went to press, only to have several errors noticed on the first page on the first day the book went on sale. Typographical errors and errors of fact can bedvil the best of us. Had Oxford proceeded to run through a second printing of the book without correcting their mistakes, the buyers would have had just cause to complain that they were being ill-used. The same errors have appeared consistently in TSR and Wizards books written by several different authors. That is the fault of the publishers, who have made little or no effort to correct those mistakes. I think we have the right to feel ill-used by their direspect for us readers. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 17:08:18
quote:
Originally posted by Thureen Buroch
I don't want to sound like the devil's advocate here, but one problem with running a spellcheck on a DnD sourcebook, or rulebook for that matter, is the number of properly spelled fantasy words that spellcheck would say are spelled wrong. Take the FRCS. On that page with all of the Faerunian (sp?) names, spellchecker would come up with, I don't know, over 100 mispellings. (That should be misspellings, by the way, even though the first one looks better).
The spellcheck in Word, at least, can have words added to the dictionary. Except in odd cases (I can't get Word to stop wanting to capitalize "minotaur"), that solves the problem. Then, when you do misspell a fantasy word, it gets flagged and the correct spelling suggested. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 17:06:11
I have to agree with part of what Thomas Reid has said here, the grammatical errors that we are attributing to WOTC are not just limited to WOTC. I have seen many books from a variety of different sources (non-fiction, fiction, political, movies, etc.) have typos in them as of late. Unfortunately, its more of a cultural, "we don't care, we know what you meant," than a lack of professionalism. |
| Thureen Buroch |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 16:31:07
Well met, Thomas. I must say, I once saw a sign outside of my local farmer's market, that said, I believe, "Get your fruit their," with a big arrow pointing over to the fruit stand. It was truly appalling.
Perhaps we should get off the topic of this scroll. We don't want to get anybody worked up over something like this, especially here in this forum. I, for one, am unsubscribing from this topic. The topic is not entirely appropriate for what we set out to do here in Candlekeep, which is to discuss Realmslore, not typographical errors. |
| Thomas M. Reid |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 16:17:37
Three things:
1) No editor wants to see typos or grammatical misuses of words slip through on a manuscript; we all work hard to make what goes to the printer as perfect as possible, but inevitably, things do slip through. And don't assume that a typo is the result of not running a spell check -- many times, chunks of text have to be added into a work at the 11th hour, when things are most in a rush, and possibly when there is no more time for another go-round of proofing to make sure it's correct.
2) The demands of business being what they are, there is less and less time available for checking and double-checking the details in a manuscript. All other things being equal, it is the opinion of the company that a few typos are preferable to a product getting out the door late -- sales quotas must be met, special releases must be on the shelves in time for their marketing campaigns, etc. Editors are being asked to do more and more in less time than ever before, and something has to be sacrificed to save their sanity. Absolutely meticulous proofreading is one of them.
3) I drive my family and friends crazy sometimes when I point out grammatical mistakes in text seen anywhere and everywhere. Even though they think I'm anal and pretentious, I quite simply can't help it -- it's part of my job, and it drives me nuts when I spot mistakes. But I understand why they exist, and I try to be more understanding that not everyone has mastered all the usages of their native tongue -- not even me.
In closing, I'd like to share the most egregious error I've ever spotted -- a sign constructed of metal and glass, with lighting inside so it glowed at night, that someone obviously paid a lot of money for to advertise their florist business. It said, simply, "Flower's" and made me want to pound my head into the brick wall. Perhaps the florist never learned the rule of apostrophes, not needing that knowledge in order to cut and arrange flowers, but surely someone in the business of constructing signs could have pointed it out. . . . I calmed myself by deciding that the florist's name was, in fact, Mr. Flower, and the business was Flower's Flowers; he just didn't want to pay for that much sign.
Thomas |
| Thureen Buroch |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 15:56:19
I don't want to sound like the devil's advocate here, but one problem with running a spellcheck on a DnD sourcebook, or rulebook for that matter, is the number of properly spelled fantasy words that spellcheck would say are spelled wrong. Take the FRCS. On that page with all of the Faerunian (sp?) names, spellchecker would come up with, I don't know, over 100 mispellings. (That should be misspellings, by the way, even though the first one looks better).
That's when you hire an editor. That's the editor's job, is it not? It's one of those self-explanatory job descriptions. My father, who is an author, sometimes pays me to edit his work. (It's an easy job, though, he's so Type A that there are hardly ever any errors.) Sometimes a person will read over the typo in a DnD sourcebook, realizing it's a typo, but not worrying about it. Sometimes, however, a typo/word misunderstanding (discrete vs. discreet) can be very confusing.
And while I have noticed that most books nowadays will have three or four typos, DnD books have the most. And another thing I find funny. If you've ever read the Harry Potter books, you'd know what I mean. The first book is error free. The second book has one or two errors. The third has more. The next has more. Et cetera. As the author grows in fame, editors slack off, because they feel like they can get by with it now. And that's not just with editors. It seems to me that most professionals will only do what they can get by with anymore.
Enough of my ranting about the state of the world as we know it. Heck, this site is supposed to be about Toril, not Earth. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 14:50:42
It's not that there aren't good editors, it's a matter of the quickening schedule of the publishing industry and publishers' desire to pay money for accuracy. (Although I have met young desk editors whose grip on English isn't what it should be.)
As an editor, I blame the editors and/or the circumstances they work in, not the author. Lots of famous authors submit semiliterate, unpublishable manuscripts, and it's our job to clean them up -- they have too many things to worry about to bear responsibility for one-off word misuse. |
| Jindael |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 12:36:01
How much of this, though, is editor error, and how much is author word choice? |
| SiriusBlack |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 12:17:25
quote:
Originally posted by Jamallo Kreen
After more than a decade of people complaining of the same mistakes in D&D books, could Wizards not instruct their copy editors to tape little notes to the sides of their computer monitors reminding them of the definitions of such words which they constantly screw up? I have done that for myself in the past, and I am not producing writing which will appear in thousands of copies of books; if I can do that for myself, cannot Wizards, a multi-million dollar company, do the same?
For what it's worth, problems with grammar and spelling are not just coming from the WOTC publishing department. I've noticed in the past decade a steady decline in a number of formats including books from other publishing companies when it comes to grammar/spelling. And for what it's worth, having recently viewed a great deal of writing from some graduate students let me just say, there appears to be no help on the horizon. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 01:42:22
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
I think what Kentinal was hinting at was the misspelling of Amazon in your sig.
ERK! Where's my editor? Where is he?! I shall smack the printer's devil! 
(Oh well, I'm sure somebody found my how-to lecture useful. Like my players, who now know how to find out what's in store for them!)
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 00:06:40
quote:
Originally posted by Melfius
I think what Kentinal was hinting at was the misspelling of Amazon in your sig.
Ah, someone else pointed it out whilst I was composing my own reply. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 00:05:34
And now, for a bit of irony: someone complaining about typos has the word "Amzon" in his sig.  
No offense, of course, it's just ironic.
I've found a great many typos in TSR/WotC stuff. The first one I found was "Tyorl shurgged." in a DL novel. More recently, I found a couple minor ones in City of Splendors: Waterdeep. My fave, of course, was the three references to the month of "Ukta" in PGtF.
I can certainly understand the odd mistake being made here and there -- no one is perfect, and some mistakes are certainly easy to make. From what I can see, the errors most commonly seem to be caused by someone not running spellcheck.
It does seem odd that a large company that depends on the printed word doesn't take a little more care with printing those words. |
| Melfius |
Posted - 11 Jul 2005 : 00:01:41
I think what Kentinal was hinting at was the misspelling of Amazon in your sig. |
| Jamallo Kreen |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 21:56:43
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
OK I am one that has commented of edit errors as well. Spelling would seen to be easy , though spell checking software can add to the problem. Note the robing vs. robbing in a recent article. Acept what you can not change.
As a side note your sig " Be certain to consult the Amzon.com wish list for "FriendOfReligion". Input is welcomed." I could not find this at Amzon or anyplace on the web (except for the sig).
Way Off Topic
To find someone's Wish List, click "Wish List" under "Gifts & Registry" on the left side of the Amazon.com home page. The next page which comes up has a sample wish list with some Amazon top sellers; in the top right quadrant ("sinister chief," if you are familiar with heraldic blazonry) of that page is a search box entitled "Find a Wish List." Enter the name of the wish list there and then click the "Go!" button. (The same page is also a portal for wedding and baby registries, but I don't know anyone who has one, so I can't give you any details for searching those.)
A wish list can be searched in several ways. By an unfortunate default, what comes up first is a chronological listing from most recently entered to earliest entered. Using the scroll options which are slightly left of center top (near the bottom of "dexter chief") are several option scrolls for sorting a list by date added to the list (the deafult) / cheapest to most expensive and vice versa / desirablity preference (1 is highly desired, 4 is "I'm still thinking about this one"). The next scroll to the right is to sort by what the item is, either "all" or "books" or "electronics" or whatever. In the lower center top is a scroll to show unpurchased items (the default) versus purchased items. The right side of the same page shows other lists the user has registered (there will be a lot of those cropping up this month because of a contest Amazon is running). Each wished-for item has a space for the wisher to list some comment about the item. In my case, I have prioritized game materials according to how urgently I'll need them this year (or my burning desire for them!), and/or shown the reason they are needed; this is as much bookkeeping for myself as clues for anyone else; I solicit input for incorrect interpretations of what a product is about (I often have only a hazy idea about books from some publishers); people who are actually interested can send a message to the wisher vis-a-vis these comments, but I have never used Amazon's messaging system -- obviously I can be privately messaged here.
The items purchased can be helpful to know what a person is buying as a guide to what they most likely want next or to keep a sage honest. (). In my case, I have volume 1 of the Blood Wars trilogy listed as "purchased," so I probably don't have the other two, and others may feel free to question anything I say about them as possibly unfounded (or I may have bought them before I started my wish list and never bothered to enter them; there's no way to tell that from what I have entered). I have volumes 2 and 3 of the Maztica trilogy, but not volume 3; the "unpurchased" listing shows that I have ranked that as a low priority because it was poorly reviewed on Amazon and I only want it to complete the trilogy; if I run a Maztica game I will probably know what Cordell did up to the end of book 2, Viperhand, but I may have only the haziest notion of what happened in volume 3, Feathered Serpent, and (HINT TO MY PLAYERS!) may reject it's canonicity when I run an adventure in Maztica. The "purchased" list also dates my campaign -- Parched Sea is shown in a comment as "current events for my campaign," placing my game in 1360 DR. I have made comments about Realmspace in the Spelljammer scroll here at Candlekeep, and -- yep -- It shows as "purchased" on my wish list, so I probably know what I am talking about when I reference it. There is also an informative comment in the "purchased" list for AEG's Evil: "Terrific book!!!!! -- I gave it a 5 star review" -- so players beware. Muhwahahahahahaha!
And that's how to use and abuse Amazon wish lists!
(I should emphasize that a book's absence from the "purchased" list does not mean that a person doesn't have something or is unfamiliar with it. I just read the novel Cormyr, by Ed Greenwood and Jeff Grubb, which appears nowhere on my wish lists.)
By the way, since I am spilling my guts all over this scroll (I am criticizing the editors at TSR and WOTC, so it's only fair that they should see that I have disemboweled my own self for the world to see), the search term outside Amazon should be "friend of religion," not "FriendOfReligion". The latter was necessitated by handle restrictions. The full and correct catchphrase is, "Hello. I'm Jamallo Kreen, 'Friend of Religion'" followed by the ting of ambient light reflecting off his Charisma 21 smile. He has financed much temple and shrine building in Waterdeep and elsewhere. His patron is Gond, but he could probably duck and cover in a half dozen different temples, if necessary (as it sometimes is!). He is on good terms with most deities, except for Cyric, Chauntea and Shar. He has, however, tried to Attone for upsetting Chauntea; one hopes that he has been successful! |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 20:58:01
OK I am one that has commented of edit errors as well. Spelling would seen to be easy , though spell checking software can add to the problem. Note the robing vs. robbing in a recent article. Acept what you can not change.
As a side note your sig " Be certain to consult the Amzon.com wish list for "FriendOfReligion". Input is welcomed." I could not find this at Amzon or anyplace on the web (except for the sig). |
|
|
