[Insert name of author here] lives in a partially renovated house in the Dandenong's.
Now, butchers and fruit and veg merchants and so on don't make their living from reading and writing. One expects them to commit the odd apostrophe howler on their specials boards. But a howler as egregiously wrongity-wrong-from-Wrongtown as this on a publisher's website really is not a good look. There's no point in spending a lot of money on classy web design if you can't get someone fully literate to write the copy for it.
Ouch. (And not a shoestring operation either).
ReplyDeleteCould this be the same publisher that recently sent back an edited manuscript full of greengrocer's apostrophes added by the EDITOR? The writer this happened to (a writer you know, I think) duly corrected the m/s, removed the offending apostrophes and sent it back, only to have the m/s returned with said greengrocer's apostrophes reinstated.
ReplyDeleteWords really fail me at this point. As you say, it's one thing for mistakes to crop up in signs etc written by non-professionals. It's quite another for those who live by the word to have no clue at all.
I also think the limitations of the purely descriptive approach to language taken by say the Macquarie dictionary show here; how can you win an argument with an editor if nothing is correct, only an example of changing usage?
My God, Anonymous, that is a truly dreadful story. I often wonder what people have to do these days in order to get jobs as editors. The kind of stuff you're describing has its roots in the educational policies and theories of the 1970s to about the late 90s, as far as I can figure out, and seems to be as much a matter of attitudes taught in school as of actual skill sets. I'm old enough to remember when it was a given that both editors and writers had the skills to make sure this kind of situation rarely cropped up, but what I'm currently seeing is a generation of would-be writers who think 'professional development' means networking on Facebook rather than sharpening their tools by getting their heads properly around half a dozen rules of punctuation and a bit of basic grammar.
ReplyDeleteMind you, my understanding is that these days that sort of author/editor friction is very much a two-way street and a crowded one at that; authors too, I am told, frequently dig their heels in and say 'No I'm not going to change it, I like it like that' about egregious errors of grammar, usage and punctuation, and trot out the same tired bullshit about changing usage and so on.
But here's what I wonder about your story: if 'changing usage' (used as a euphemism for 'non fully functional literacy') is as fluid as all that, then why is the editor insisting that it be changed back?
The situation Anonymous describes is an odd one, precisely for the reason KG mentions: preparing manuscripts for publication is very much a process of discussion—editors can’t just stomp over someone’s work, they can’t insist on implementing changes if the author is unhappy. Editing is a conversation, it’s not about imposing absolute rules.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to see the manuscript.
Although, author/editor opposition, so popular in general discourse, is not a defining feature of this working relationship. Authors usually get on really well with their editors, they are pleased about being published, and the sentiment is infectious. Author-editor roles are professionally guided and tempered, and there are clear boundaries and conventions. It might sound like some secret business, where the editor is an overpowering, while never quite adequately informed, authority, but it really isn’t as fantastical as people think.
Umm Tatyana, the point of my story was not about editors overpowering authors or being in opposition to them or stomping over their work. My point was about ignorance. The editor reinstated the greengrocer's apostrophes because he/she was ignorant. I assume the author overruled him/her though don't know for sure as have not read the published book. That also answers your question, Kerryn. The editor reinstated the incorrect apostrophes because he thought they were right.
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree - authors or would-be authors are often guilty of exactly the same thing - the same writer who told me this story also told me about a writing student of his who insisted on spelling 'lightning' (the weather phenomenon) as 'lightening' and absolutely would not be corrected on this. Again, I think a purely descriptive approach to language use fails us here.
Currently I am completing the line-edit of my manuscript for a major publisher and have nothing but praise for my wonderful and very experienced editor so no, it doesn't seem like secret business to me and I don't think it's fantastical. Still, today I caught my editor out in a very basic grammatical mistake - she'd changed 'x and I realised' to 'x and me realised' - good grief. At this point me realised she was not infallible.
Oh yes, I got that point about the ignorance of the editor, hence my rant about education. If I were a publisher and were hiring an editor either in-house or on contract, I would give him or her a test sheet to edit with thirty different deliberate errors on it, and nobody who got less than 30/30 would ever get a job.
ReplyDeleteI love pronoun issues, I just love them to death, especially the dreaded "X and I" constructions. I find the ubiquitous 'Mummy bought ice-creams for Tarquin and I', 'He gave evidence against her and I', 'The lap-dancer came between my husband and I' (I'm sorry, I would have liked to have put that another way) and so on absolutely everywhere in published books, and it's such an easy rule to remember even if you don't know a preposition from a hole in the ground: just remove the other person from the sentence and ask yourself whether you'd say 'She gave it to I.'
One thinks of Marilyn - 'a girl like I'. Yes, I notice the same problems with pronouns in many publications and really don't see why it's so hard. I fear we are losing on all fronts (I nearly typed fonts).
ReplyDeleteOne thing I'm curious about: I'm perhaps a bit old-fashioned about grammar and usage (my present upon leaving my last workplace but two was a copy of the latest Fowler's!) but I'd always thought it was sloppy to use 'like' as a conjunction rather than 'as'. Fowler's seems to agree although notes this is changing. My editor has substituted like for as throughout and it has surprised me. I really don't know how I feel about this or whether I'll let it stand.
I've already been gobsmacked by the changes in capitalisation - when I was but a middling/senior public servant, for example, we always capitalised references to a specific department or minister but this is not done now. For example, if we referred to the Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority and then referred to the authority throughout, we'd capitalise it. The SMH does not do this now I see - it even refers to the NSW government, rather than NSW Government. I find this strange but have gone along with these changes in my book as it seems to be the done thing now.
'Umm Tatyana, the point of my story was not about editors overpowering authors or being in opposition to them or stomping over their work. My point was about ignorance. The editor reinstated the greengrocer's apostrophes because he/she was ignorant. I assume the author overruled him/her though don't know for sure as have not read the published book.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I got that point about this editor's ignorance very well, Anonymous. It makes an excellent anecdote, and feeds into the public image of editors being generally 'ignorant', uninformed and insufficiently educated, which is, also, why I mentioned that it would be interesting to see the corrected manuscript, or hear of the actual examples. Of course, this never happens, and we'll never know. But it's an interesting story.
Yes, I get that you don't believe me Tatyana, which is why I pointed out that I am having a manuscript edited at the moment by a very good editor, contrary to your assumption I know nothing about the process. Nor do I agree that the public image of editors is that they are generally 'ignorant'. I was most surprised and horrified to be told the story but I have no reason to disbelieve it. The example is actual and I know the name of writer and of the book and of the publishing company but it didn't happen to me and so I have no right to name names.
ReplyDelete'If I were a publisher and were hiring an editor either in-house or on contract, I would give him or her a test sheet to edit with thirty different deliberate errors on it, and nobody who got less than 30/30 would ever get a job.'
ReplyDeleteThis sort of thing happens, sometimes, although less so; editors do get tested. (I've been tested. I've even done personality tests in one old work place: I thought of refusing, but it was compulsory, and I really wanted the job, and enjoyed it subsequently. Thinking of publishing business in corporate terms was fashionable for a while, which is why some companies did profile testing, aiming for a good team mix, or whatever.)
Many editors argue that testing is a scandalous way to treat a professional group: Do we test teachers? Do lecturers have to give a test lecture or seminar before signing an employment contract? Nurses? Shouldn't a list of qualifications, credentials and work experience be enough? Why should editing be different? Many of us have PhDs with professional postgraduate qualifications and a great deal of hands-on experience. Professional societies are now introducing accreditation, which involves examination, as an additional mark of someone's competence.
In any case, editing work is performed in a high-paced production and commercial environment, and the job involves a broad range of communication, educational and technical skills: publishers are looking for a combination of these skills. It's a constantly changing environment. Being highly literate and meticulous is only one aspect of this work.
'Do lecturers have to give a test lecture or seminar before signing an employment contract?'
ReplyDeleteActually, yes, they often -- these days not just often but usually and perhaps always -- do. When I left academia 13 years ago it was just becoming common for job applicants to have to do exactly that, and a tough audience fronted up and grilled them afterwards. I assume it's only got more common as the years have thundered by.
'Shouldn't a list of qualifications, credentials and work experience be enough?'
Sadly, and this is my point, obviously not, if they are doing things like re-inserting their carefully removed greengrocer's apostrophes. If professional training to be an editor doesn't entail acquiring this kind of knowledge then there is something very wrong with the courses.
I know editors get a hard time and not enough money and I never intended to turn this into Let's Get Editors Day or anything of the kind. But to me, being an editor is like being a surgeon. A mix of skills is a beautiful thing, but an error is an error; if you nick an artery then an artery has been nicked, and all that that entails.
Kerryn,
ReplyDeleteA number of my colleagues have read your post, and it raises some very important issues currently facing our industry.
But, to get back to the example Anonymous mentioned: reinstating corrections (or errors) after consulting with an author, when she or he was obviously unhappy, is not only a question of competence, but is also a serious breach of process and procedure, and professional ethics. I, actually, can't imagine how this person conducted that process. It's certainly not appropriate.
Sadly, the publishing industry, unlike medicine, is not properly controlled, regulated and accredited, despite the proliferation of postgraduate publishing courses. (Those offered at Melbourne, RMIT and Monash are flourishing and are considered to be quite good, and I hope I'm not being cynical when I say that such full-fee paying courses are also an attractive opportunity for universities to move into at a time when some core academic disciplines in the arts are shrinking.)
Although, a person doesn't become a good editor simply by doing a course, they need to be trained in-house; editors are making decisions in a rush, in a pressured production environment. The problem, as many see it, is that publishers are operating on running skeleton editorial departments (say, 3 in-house editors doing mainly traffic-control work, for a publisher publishing 90 books a year; finer manuscript work goes to freelancers, who are often given short turnaround times and a brief to just do a 'light edit'). Younger editors no longer receive in-house mentoring from senior and experienced editors, this was once considered a crucial step in the training process, and there's very little opportunity for in-house support for freelancers doing contract work. There's some very good work produced by prominent publishers, but the quality can, obviously, be quite patchy.
Authors need to think about this too: there are some manuscripts that will never look good, because, simply, they are messy and incoherent, and they can be given a massage, but it'll always be just a cosmetic exercise.
It's interesting about lecturers receiving public grilling when they apply for academic jobs. I'm aware that this happens with professorial positions, my partner is an academic, but I haven't really seen it for junior positions. I've done some sessional teaching work recently, and the university was only too thrilled I could 'jump in' and teach straight away, and they were even more pleased when they realised I wouldn't need to use too many of their resources (computer, office space, etc.)
It seems everyone's trying to minimise costs.
Yes, errors are are visible, and they need to be owned. How errors can be reduced is an interesting question. It might be worth taking advice from the surgeons—they are very good at providing proper educational and institutional structures in which their work is performed. As a professional group, surgeons are also very good at admitting that no human activity, by definition, can ever be completely free of error. We can all try our best.
'Authors need to think about this too: there are some manuscripts that will never look good, because, simply, they are messy and incoherent, and they can be given a massage, but it'll always be just a cosmetic exercise.'
ReplyDeleteWell, I've certainly made the point about it being a two-way street and I think Anon has as well. Here's my question: if a manuscript looks like that, what one earth is the publisher thinking about to be publishing it in the first place?
'I've done some sessional teaching work recently, and the university was only too thrilled I could 'jump in' and teach straight away'
Yes, I doubt they'd do it for sessional teachers, even now. Besides, if this was in an editing or creative writing course as I assume it was, they are always really happy to have someone with proper extramural professional chops. But the first time I ever saw the whole audition thing done for a traditional academic position below Professor, it was only a Lecturer B position (which is below the middle of the academic food chain) and untenured though tenurable if I remember rightly. The three candidates all had to present a seminar paper to an audience consisting of the selection committee plus anyone else in the department who wanted to come and I think people from other Arts departments, as they then were, as well. And that was in 1990. Admittedly that particular job had been much coveted, but still, gah.
I've taught the odd workshop on editing (haven't done any book editing, but have been on the receiving end of that process several times and spent nearly two years editing ABR including all the copy-editing) where I tell the students there are three categories of places where an editor should or might intervene: things that are Wrong, things that are Bad, and things that Could Be Better. Greengrocer's apostrophes (or perhaps I mean greengrocers' apostrophes) are def Wrong. I dunno, I think a potential employer who doesn't test things that are testable, in this case grammar, spelling and punctuation, is looking for trouble. It would be like hiring a typist without giving him or her a typing test. Maybe people do that these days as well. It would certainly explain a lot.
Re: 'Here's my question: if a manuscript looks like that, what one earth is the publisher thinking about to be publishing it in the first place?'
ReplyDeleteWell, if it's an academic book, and it attracts large student enrollments, which is why such projects sometimes get publishing contracts, it's an attractive proposition (even if a manuscript looks like a dog's breakfast, and scholarship-wise it's pretty mediocre). In trade, many published books don't quite 'work', but they have a potential to sell. Also, some books are put together quite quickly, many are edited very close to manuscript completion, and sometimes they are edited while they are being written. There are all sorts of scenarios, and most projects are driven by commercial imperatives.
I agree that an editor should consider things that are 'Wrong' and 'Bad', 'Could Be Better' would often come come under 'maybe' in a real life situation. Editing is always done to a publisher's brief, and it's the brief that determines the nature of the edit.
I don't agree with the sort of testing you are suggesting, and I also don't believe that a publisher is appropriately placed to run such assessments. We are not talking about an educational institution, publishing houses are businesses. I'm intrigued by the comparison with typists. It's not a question of so many words per minute or of getting 100% on a grammar test. Results of such tests would be quite meaningless in a work situation. A candidate might pass an editing test with flying colours, but they may not know where to start when they receive a manuscript, or, more importantly, when to stop. They would be just the sort to use a red pen on every manuscript, or edit in heavy track changes, and this would antagonise every commissioned author on the company's books. They'd probably be a pain to have around the office, and they may not be quick with technology. That, and more.
I wonder why anyone would think that a professionally trained editor would habitually introduce gross errors into a manuscript. The example above is quite extreme. This would be inappropriate at the editing stage (i.e prior to typesetting, and especially after consultations with an author), and it would be criminal after proof reading (these are 'author's proofs', by definition).
There is a lot of misunderstanding about what an editor's job involves, so I'm not quite sure what precise conclusions about the current state of editorial practice can be drawn from errors in published books.
Also, there's something quite fascinating going on in these discussions about authors and their editors, and I think it's this: An editor is a privileged witness. She gets to visit the Emperor's suite. He tells her of his troubles. She offers advice. She must be put to the sword.
Tatyana, I think part of the trouble here is that in the original post I pointed out a single instance of something I thought was (a) ironic and (b) really bad business practice, namely an egregious greengrocer's apostrophe on the website of a major publisher; Anon chimed in with one story of one editor and his (?) apostrophe crimes; and you have been responding to a discussion of apostrophes as though everyone in the world had declared war on editors. There's a bit of topic drift going on here. I've often said and will say again here that I am full of admiration for editors as a class. I have worked with some absolutely brilliant ones, notably John Bangsund of OUP circa 1996, whose skills I would never in a lifetime be able to acquire. Working with him was a privilege.
ReplyDelete'There are all sorts of scenarios, and most projects are driven by commercial imperatives.'
Sure, I get that. It was a serious question.
''Could Be Better' would often come come under 'maybe' in a real life situation.'
That's exactly what I tell my students, and is part of the reason why I frame it like that. Whenever I do editing exercises with students in workshops (the 30-error test page, in fact), at least half of them miss what I think are obvious typographical, spelling, punctuation, grammar or usage errors and spend half the class (or would, if I let them) fretting themselves into a coma over a single unnecessary synonym for some word they don't like. The main reason I do the exercise at all, apart from the fact that all students in seminars like having something practical to do at some point, is to find out how much they do or don't know, which is imperative if one wishes to pitch one's teaching effectively.
The original suggestion of testing as part of getting the job was done largely tongue in cheek, and has escalated. I still think it'd be a good idea in an ideal world, but of course I know better than to get people's backs up by seriously suggesting it be introduced.
(My blog posts need editing for their tone. It's a whole new world, blogging. One thinks one is talking to people who know one, and get one, and then one finds out the hard way that one is not. And 'you have the advantage of me', as they say in 19th century fiction; you know who I am, but I don't have a clue who you are.)
'It's not a question of so many words per minute or of getting 100% on a grammar test.'
Well, in terms of demonstrating knowledge of the 'Wrong' things, the 30-error test is exactly that, actually.
'Results of such tests would be quite meaningless in a work situation.'
I dunno, they might stop someone re-inserting greengrocer's apostrophes.
'I wonder why anyone would think that a professionally trained editor would habitually introduce gross errors into a manuscript.'
One story has been told of one editor who apparently did exactly that. Again, you seem to be suggesting that the story is untrue, but why would anyone make something like that up?
'A candidate might pass an editing test with flying colours, but they may not know where to start when they receive a manuscript, or, more importantly, when to stop.'
Well of course. Where have I said it's the only necessary skill? For a start, I couldn't agree with you more about 'where to stop'. Some of the best editors I've known have been the ones who were least interventionist.
I'll stop, but will just say this: I joined the discussion about editorial practice when Anon's example was introduced, mainly to contribute some thoughts on what life is like on this side of the fence.
ReplyDeleteI'm not suggesting Anon's story is untrue, and it is a terrible and extreme situation. I can only hope that such things are not too common.
I don't have the benefit of knowing you. I enjoy reading your blog and admire quite a lot of what you have to say.
Who am I? I've disclosed bits of my personal details in various comments on your other blog, and that is indeed who I am. There are no particular revelations about an ordinary person living a very ordinary life. But, yes, blogging is a strange phenomenon, and people barge into your front garden, uninvited, even when they have perfectly good manners in RL.
I am a bit sensitive about editorial discussions, and there is room for a better understanding of what this job involves, obviously not here, and not on this thread ...
Tatyana, my dear (and I mean that nicely, not snarkily) - it may soothe your ruffled feathers to know that the book I was discussing was a non-fiction book and it is quite possible, I suppose, that an editor of non-fiction may be hired for skills and knowledge which have little to do with language. A shame though that that person's skills did not include a way with apostrophes.
ReplyDeleteAs for tests relating to jobs - oh yes indeed. I actually think Kerryn's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and is pretty common across a variety of jobs. I wouldn't suggest for a moment that such a test would encompass anything but the most basic of editor's skills - necessary but not sufficient, as they say. And of course for an experienced professional it should not be necessary. A policy adviser is required to write a policy brief on an issue they are given during the course of an interview. A publicity or marketing person is often asked to come up with suggested campaigns etc during an interview and so on. That is, they have to demonstrate their skills while thinking on their feet.
Love this stuff to death, but Kerryn, you really should stick an apostrophe in front of 90s to indicate the elision. Just sayin’, as they say. And I have to put in a “definate” for online completion!
ReplyDelete