| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lewton |
Posted - 19 Feb 2010 : 23:49:41
Is it me or has anyone else noticed error's the some of the recent novels. It seems that there are usually 2-3 different types of errors in each book. Bad spelling, sentences that don't make sense and recently in the current book I'm reading, Wrath of the Blue Lady, the word "her" was "he r" in the sentence. It just seems there are alot of issues in the most recent books. Who know's, maybe it's just me. After all I'm not a professional. |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dennis |
Posted - 24 Apr 2010 : 04:02:22
The errors I noticed in the novels are too few to be irksome. Well, I might not read a no-spelling-error FR novel in the future, but so long as it doesn't rise to the degree of being irritating, I wouldn't mind much. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 15:27:52
quote:
Originally posted by The Red Walker
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A very good point, Walker . . . and I'll gladly take credit for setting up that observation.  quote:
I was sure that was where you were going with it
Also, it should be pointed out that dictionaries *differ* in their interpretation of the English language. Some show "alright" as being acceptable, some don't. (Different revisions of the same dictionary might differ as well, year to year.) Language is an evolving thing.
Personally, I still edit "alright" to "all right" whenever I see it, not because it's technically right or wrong, but because I think it looks wrong. Also most times you'll be in a publishing situation, you'll have a style guide, and it defines which option to use. WotC has one, for instance, and I have one at my day-job, too.
Much like how I correct single/plural agreement errors (the common "everyone picked up their papers" to the unfortunately clumsy but nevertheless correct "everyone picked up his or her paper"), despite increasingly common usage.
(Man, I'm not a grognard, but rather a gramnard.  )
Cheers
P.S. So what do we take from all this? I guess the lesson is, one should try to take little errors in stride. Authors, editors, printers, etc., do their best, and it's not a mark of stupidity or laziness or even fault if errors happen.
Amen to that PS.....you can say whatever you like about wotc or other publishers....but the truth is they want the best product out there. And as Grandpa used to say. "Kid this is the real world and sometimes poopie just happens. No ryhme no reason, it just does"
Mod edit: Language, please.
Ah...I just assumed since my Grandpa said it in front of me, it was ok for here! |
| Sill Alias |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 08:24:34
I think I know how you feel. I got many books and documents remade in WORD from PDF. Because of that there are many errors and sometimes COMPLETE PAGES are reduced to the gibberish babble in place of text. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 23 Feb 2010 : 03:22:23
I know that there are going to be mistakes that slip by editors, and I know that there are mistakes that will be made in production... Still, I noticed a lot more errors in 3E stuff than in 2E stuff. And it's not things like transposed pages (which can't be blamed on the creator of the content), it's mislabeled art, bad formatting, and misspellings. With better editing technology out there and the ability to literally go straight from the editor's desk to the physical printer, it doesn't seem as easy to me to assume the mistakes weren't WotC's fault.
I seriously dislike WotC, but I've also tried my best to make sure that none of us blame things on WotC without some really good cause -- I've more than once stated we shouldn't blame them without reason. I'll defend WotC so long as there isn't evidence that they're in the wrong.
But... I see more errors in 3E than in 1E and 2E. And when those older editions were published, there was all the opportunity in the world for errors to be made after something left WotC's hands. With more ways to catch errors and less opportunity for someone else to make them, I don't see any reasonable explanation for mistakes other than quality control having slipped on WotC's end. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 21:19:20
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A very good point, Walker . . . and I'll gladly take credit for setting up that observation. quote:
I was sure that was where you were going with it
Also, it should be pointed out that dictionaries *differ* in their interpretation of the English language. Some show "alright" as being acceptable, some don't. (Different revisions of the same dictionary might differ as well, year to year.) Language is an evolving thing.
Personally, I still edit "alright" to "all right" whenever I see it, not because it's technically right or wrong, but because I think it looks wrong. Also most times you'll be in a publishing situation, you'll have a style guide, and it defines which option to use. WotC has one, for instance, and I have one at my day-job, too.
Much like how I correct single/plural agreement errors (the common "everyone picked up their papers" to the unfortunately clumsy but nevertheless correct "everyone picked up his or her paper"), despite increasingly common usage.
(Man, I'm not a grognard, but rather a gramnard. )
Cheers
P.S. So what do we take from all this? I guess the lesson is, one should try to take little errors in stride. Authors, editors, printers, etc., do their best, and it's not a mark of stupidity or laziness or even fault if errors happen.
Amen to that PS.....you can say whatever you like about wotc or other publishers....but the truth is they want the best product out there. And as Grandpa used to say. "Kid this is the real world and sometimes poopie just happens. No ryhme no reason, it just does"
Mod edit: Language, please. |
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 20:58:11
A very good point, Walker . . . and I'll gladly take credit for setting up that observation.
Also, it should be pointed out that dictionaries *differ* in their interpretation of the English language. Some show "alright" as being acceptable, some don't. (Different revisions of the same dictionary might differ as well, year to year.) Language is an evolving thing.
Personally, I still edit "alright" to "all right" whenever I see it, not because it's technically right or wrong, but because I think it looks wrong. Also most times you'll be in a publishing situation, you'll have a style guide, and it defines which option to use. WotC has one, for instance, and I have one at my day-job, too.
Much like how I correct single/plural agreement errors (the common "everyone picked up their papers" to the unfortunately clumsy but nevertheless correct "everyone picked up his or her paper"), despite increasingly common usage.
(Man, I'm not a grognard, but rather a gramnard. )
Cheers
P.S. So what do we take from all this? I guess the lesson is, one should try to take little errors in stride. Authors, editors, printers, etc., do their best, and it's not a mark of stupidity or laziness or even fault if errors happen.
|
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 15:56:49
And I should add...my point in posting that was not to prove Erik wrong, it was to show how confusing this problem can be for any and all. |
| The Red Walker |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 15:53:33
quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie
A lot of it is printer error, tragically, so the folks at WotC do not deserve any of the blame. I heard recently about a serviceman in Afghanistan who had been reading Downshadow until about page 240 when it suddenly became parts of the Silent Blade. Seriously. Like, Shadowbane and Rath became Drizzt and Entreri.
Also, having spent the better part of my life in one anal retentive form of copy editing or another, let me assure you that I scrutinize the hell out of everything I turn in, and yet errors still show up. Much of the time it isn't laziness and it's no one's fault, but just a fact of the business (see also Chaos Theory).
And just to prove my point, I feel compelled to point out that "alright" is not a word. It's "all right." Two words.
Cheers
-
I hate to disagree.....but since I am a "word nerd" also....Merriam-Webster has Alright as a word
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/alright
Main Entry: al·right
Pronunciation: (#716;)o#775;l-#712;rît, #712;o#775;l-#716;
Function: adverb or adjective
Date: 1887
: all right
usage The one-word spelling alright appeared some 75 years after all right itself had reappeared from a 400-year-long absence. Since the early 20th century some critics have insisted alright is wrong, but it has its defenders and its users. It is less frequent than all right but remains in common use especially in journalistic and business publications. It is quite common in fictional dialogue, and is used occasionally in other writing <the first two years of medical school were alright — Gertrude Stein>.
|
| Erik Scott de Bie |
Posted - 22 Feb 2010 : 15:32:26
A lot of it is printer error, tragically, so the folks at WotC do not deserve any of the blame. I heard recently about a serviceman in Afghanistan who had been reading Downshadow until about page 240 when it suddenly became parts of the Silent Blade. Seriously. Like, Shadowbane and Rath became Drizzt and Entreri.
Also, having spent the better part of my life in one anal retentive form of copy editing or another, let me assure you that I scrutinize the hell out of everything I turn in, and yet errors still show up. Much of the time it isn't laziness and it's no one's fault, but just a fact of the business (see also Chaos Theory).
And just to prove my point, I feel compelled to point out that "alright" is not a word. It's "all right." Two words.
Cheers |
| BEAST |
Posted - 21 Feb 2010 : 07:45:54
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
I'm willing to bet that if you ever work on 100,000 word document, some will get by you, too.
Oh, they get by me with much less than 100,000 words, I assure you! |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 21 Feb 2010 : 06:28:08
BEAST, I see from what you wrote that I didn't express myself entirely clearly. When I talked about proofreading text and seeing what you expect to see, I wasn't talking about a "mindset in which they want the text to be alright." I was talking about a fundamental aspect of human perception.
I assure you that when I proofread my stuff, I very much want to catch and fix every mistake. But some get past me anyway, for the reason I discussed. I'm willing to bet that if you ever work on 100,000 word document, some will get by you, too. |
| Faraer |
Posted - 21 Feb 2010 : 03:38:55
Proofreading should be a back-stop to catch errors missed by the copy-editor (or mistransferred from his or her marked pages), whose job is to fix most errors both on the spelling/grammar/punctuation level and of consistency, and that's at a minimum level of intervention. Copy-editing and proofreading are different tasks requiring different kinds of attention. I don't know about Wizards, but too often publishers these days skimp on copy-editing and leave themselves with too many problems for proofreaders to fix too quickly.
Then there are the small presses who think several untrained 'good eyes' are good enough, rather than using a professional. |
| BEAST |
Posted - 20 Feb 2010 : 21:30:50
I get the impression that WOTC has a lot of people wearing a lot of hats. Instead of having a team of dedicated proofers who do nothing but scrutinize the text specifically for spelling, punctuation, grammar, continuity, etc.; WOTC seems to have people who are tasked to read a text for story content, and if possible, catch any glitches that they might happen to notice along the way.
But if you're not specifically looking for probs, you're less likely to find them. Like Richard said, it seems that too many people have a mindset in which they want the text to be alright, therefore they tend to see it that way, and end up missing those instances where it is not. It's a bit of systemic or institutional bias.
Casual readers of the stories are this way, in that they just read to be swept up in the overall tale, and seldomly pay attention to specific elements in isolation. Fanbois/-gurls tend to take everything as golden.
Ultimately, in the pursuit of quality, it pays to hire some ornery, cantankerous, pessimistic folks who expect to find problems. You need somebody to "keep you honest". |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Feb 2010 : 05:47:40
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lee Byers
As Kentinal commented, there have always been errata in books. To a significant degree, these slip through despite everyone's best efforts to catch them because there's this damnable tendency to see what you expect to see on the page instead of what's really there. And spell checking won't save you if you typed a word twice, left it out entirely, or wrote "he" when you meant "she." And of course, the problem is apt to get worse when editors are overworked, books are turned in late and production has to be rushed, publishers decide to save money by not employing proofreaders, etc. (I'm not saying that any of those things is the rule at WotC. I'm just making a general observation.)
I'll grant that spellcheck certainly won't catch all mistakes, but I've seen plenty that it would have caught -- like the aforementioned month of Ukta (assuming Uktar was in a custom dictionary for the spellcheck, which in Word at least is quite easy). Seeing an error like that one and realizing it's proof of a failure to do a simple spellcheck, really makes one wonder about the quality of the editing.
Again, though, I can't comment on the editing in novels -- I've not read enough WotC novels in the last few years to make that call either way. I can only comment on what I saw in the 3E sourcebooks. |
| Richard Lee Byers |
Posted - 20 Feb 2010 : 04:28:42
As Kentinal commented, there have always been errata in books. To a significant degree, these slip through despite everyone's best efforts to catch them because there's this damnable tendency to see what you expect to see on the page instead of what's really there. And spell checking won't save you if you typed a word twice, left it out entirely, or wrote "he" when you meant "she." And of course, the problem is apt to get worse when editors are overworked, books are turned in late and production has to be rushed, publishers decide to save money by not employing proofreaders, etc. (I'm not saying that any of those things is the rule at WotC. I'm just making a general observation.) |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 20 Feb 2010 : 00:33:52
I can't comment on the novels, but I know a lot of the 3E sourcebooks had some errors in them. Formatting errors, typos, misspelled words (Ukta!  ), mis-labeled art... I found it quite irksome, since a lot of the errors I noted would have been found with a simple spellcheck. |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 20 Feb 2010 : 00:00:33
There are no errors, what is written is canon. *wink*
There have always been some errors in books, a whole debate got involved with the discussion of the word "he" really should nave been the word "she" in a single sentence of a novel.
Concerns about Editors has resulted in various discussions for years. In the ideal world there would never be print errors, real world however some errors get though the final approval for print. Alas sometimes printers themselves have error result that does not match the Editor approved final copy.
The concern should be more number of error rate increasing or deceasing, compared to the evnt that an error gets into the final print. |
|
|
