Saturday, September 06, 2008
Too Many Books, Too Few Proofreaders
I've lately read a few books from small presses about mixed martial arts (MMA). I've observed from this that there aren't* enough proofreaders, let alone editors, employed by these publishers. For example, in the book I've just begun, the author of the foreword spells "foreword" two different ways in the first two sentences. These books are so riddled with spelling errors and bad syntax and usage which are so basic that a proofreader should be able to catch-and be allowed to-correct them. Or do these presses already have proofreaders and editors, who are not catching errors, either out of laziness, or more depressingly, because they're not aware that they are indeed errors? I hope it is the former, as the latter is terrible to contemplate.
I also had a protracted exchange of email with a writer who simply wouldn't admit that "disinterested" and "uninterested" are two different concepts, each requiring its own word. Here were his general points, followed by the gist of mine:
1) They mean the same thing.
No, they don't.
2) Yes they do.
No, one means "unbiased, neutral; impartial", the other means "not interested; bored".
3) Well, the primary definitions are different, but "disinterested" has a secondary meaning which means "uninterested". Look, it's right there at dictionary.com!
But be careful there, because modern dictionaries tend to add as an alternate definition anything that a large enough number of people use incorrectly.
4) Language is "malleable".
I'm not sure what that has to do with two words having different meanings.
5) Well, I knew from the start that they meant different things, but people think they mean the same thing, so I went with it.
Is that a reason a professional writer should find compelling?
6) I wanted an adjective for "doldrums", so I used "disinterested", because I wanted the alliteration, so it was literary, see. If you had really read my work, you'd know that.
But it's alliteration based on at least one word in the sequence being incorrectly used.**
7) Out of a million plus people who read the piece, you were the only one who complained.
Well, I don't know why that is, but it's irrelevant to my point.
8) Look, language is malleable. We shouldn't let a kangaroo court dictate usage, but we should also try to get it right, I guess. But if I need it to be wrong, because I'm trying to engage in wordplay or something highbrow like that, I'll do it all night long, baby.
Sigh.
For some reason, thinking about this makes me sad that I didn't pursue a true liberal arts education.
*the Blogger spellchecker flags "aren't", but "are'nt" is OK. It's nice of them to help me make my point.
**I was going to point out to him that "doldrums" already connotes being uninterested, but stuck to my original point. After the enervation of working to establish the pretty incontrovertible point about "disinterested" and "uninterested", the prospect of taking up unnecessary adjectives with him was too much to consider. ¶ 23:44
I also had a protracted exchange of email with a writer who simply wouldn't admit that "disinterested" and "uninterested" are two different concepts, each requiring its own word. Here were his general points, followed by the gist of mine:
1) They mean the same thing.
No, they don't.
2) Yes they do.
No, one means "unbiased, neutral; impartial", the other means "not interested; bored".
3) Well, the primary definitions are different, but "disinterested" has a secondary meaning which means "uninterested". Look, it's right there at dictionary.com!
But be careful there, because modern dictionaries tend to add as an alternate definition anything that a large enough number of people use incorrectly.
4) Language is "malleable".
I'm not sure what that has to do with two words having different meanings.
5) Well, I knew from the start that they meant different things, but people think they mean the same thing, so I went with it.
Is that a reason a professional writer should find compelling?
6) I wanted an adjective for "doldrums", so I used "disinterested", because I wanted the alliteration, so it was literary, see. If you had really read my work, you'd know that.
But it's alliteration based on at least one word in the sequence being incorrectly used.**
7) Out of a million plus people who read the piece, you were the only one who complained.
Well, I don't know why that is, but it's irrelevant to my point.
8) Look, language is malleable. We shouldn't let a kangaroo court dictate usage, but we should also try to get it right, I guess. But if I need it to be wrong, because I'm trying to engage in wordplay or something highbrow like that, I'll do it all night long, baby.
Sigh.
For some reason, thinking about this makes me sad that I didn't pursue a true liberal arts education.
*the Blogger spellchecker flags "aren't", but "are'nt" is OK. It's nice of them to help me make my point.
**I was going to point out to him that "doldrums" already connotes being uninterested, but stuck to my original point. After the enervation of working to establish the pretty incontrovertible point about "disinterested" and "uninterested", the prospect of taking up unnecessary adjectives with him was too much to consider. ¶ 23:44
